House of Assembly: Vol3 - TUESDAY 19 APRIL 1988
Mr H H SCHWARZ, on behalf of the Chairman, presented the Fourth Report of the Standing Select Committee on Finance, dated 19 April 1988, as follows:
Bill to be read a second time.
QUESTIONS (see “QUESTIONS AND REPLIES”)
Vote No 26—“National Health and Population Development” (contd):
Mr Chairman, allow me to thank hon members who participated in the debate. I think it was a constructive debate with many outstanding contributions.
During the debate last night several members referred to the importance of population development in South Africa. The hon the Minister of Population Development referred in a very expert manner to the scope of the Department of Population Development’s activities. I should like to confirm what he said about the appreciation which exists for the work being done by the Council for Population Development under the chairmanship of Prof J P de Lange.
It is true that the Rural Foundation to which the hon the Deputy Minister referred is doing particularly valuable work on population development, and that is why R6,66 million has been voted for this organisation. Not only are they operating on 2 000 farms in South Africa today, but no fewer than 200 000 people are involved in this Rural Foundation Programme. The fact is that the quality of life of those people on the farms where the Rural Foundation is active has improved tremendously. The improvement in the quality of life has also been accompanied by a decline in the number of children, and this is especially the case in the Boland.
The hon member for Stilfontein mentioned, in a very knowledgeable way, the importance of the improvement in the quality of life as an ongoing and important overall objective in the Population Development Programme. In this regard the hon member for Smithfield referred to the indicators which are important in measuring population development in South Africa.
I thank the hon members for their very sound contributions in this regard. When we take a look at how population development and quality of life are measured the following indicators are of exceptional importance: The average number of children per woman in South Africa, teenage pregnancies, the economic dependency figure, the per capita income, the life expectancy, the infant mortality rate, literacy—that is particularly important—the number of children attending school, and the room density. The HSRC and our own demographic experts have the figures for all these indicators in all the development areas in South Africa as well as those of smaller districts. That gives us the opportunity to set goals in order to improve this quality of life.
The question is, however, what have we achieved since this population development programme was established in 1984. I want to refer to one very important parameter, namely the number of children per woman. In the report which appeared last year we referred to the figures for 1984-85 which were determined independently by the HRSC and our own demographic experts. It is true that as far as the White population is concerned, the average number of children per woman during her fertile years has decreased from 2,1 to 2. That is a decrease of 41 160 births. The number of children per Coloured woman has decreased from 3,6 to 3,2. The births which were prevented were 164 246. The number of children of Asian women has decreased from 2,8 to 2,5. The number of births which were prevented, were 55 943. What is especially important for us, however, is that the number of births per Black fertile woman decreased from 5,2 to 5,1. That is the average birth rate for South Africa. In the PWV area the number of children per Black woman decreased to 2,7. When we consider the average rate for South Africa, 248 510 Black births were prevented in South Africa this year. This gives a total of 510 000 births that were prevented.
When we say that these 510 000 children whose births were prevented would all have received primary and secondary school training, and that 20% of them would have received tertiary training, we have saved the State not less than R5,7 billion in preventing 510 000 births.
Recently the HSRC published forecasts of South Africa’s population in the year 2020 in which they said that 65,8 million would be a high estimate and 51,6 million a low estimate. When we take the real figures we have successfully attained into account it appears that there is a reduction of 8,1 million in the low estimate and a reduction of 17,1 million in the high estimate. If we calculate what it would have cost in the 30 years from now to the year 2020 in terms of education, manpower training, economic development, housing, health services and urban and rural development and welfare it would appear that that 8,1 million births which would have been prevented on the low forecast would have amounted to a total of R794 million. The number of 17,3 million which could have been prevented in terms of the high forecast would have amounted to a total of R11 545 billion. I also hope, in respect of investments, that this will in future not be the motivation behind population development. There is no doubt that investing in this programme to improve the quality of life of everyone in South Africa is the best way of saving money. Therefore we must maintain the momentum and give all future specific goals a demographic focus.
I should now like to react to the hon member for Pietersburg. He said that the announcement regarding the national welfare policy was being made by a general affairs Minister. The reason for that is that the Minister concerned originally initiated the policy. The own affairs Ministers, however, have also had a very important say in it. I want to remind the hon member that these own affairs consist of local welfare committees, regional councils for own affairs welfare and—this is very important—a welfare advisory council exclusively for the Administration: House of Assembly. Members of that welfare council also subsequently become members of the National Welfare Council. My colleague the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare in the Administration: House of Assembly will carefully explain, in the discussion of his Vote, that he has total autonomy in the implementation of his duties. That is important for White welfare in South Africa.
Does he know anything about health services?
The hon member referred to a letter he received from Vrede after the floods in which reference was made to the three large vehicles which got bogged down on the farm. I should be glad if you could reply to the letter as follows. As the hon member himself knows, there was a great danger, after the floods in the Free State, that certain diseases such as cholera would break out. Because the roads were bad, we arranged for three of our mobile clinics to drive one behind the other in convoy and not go in different directions. That was done because the roads were bad and because the telephone connections were out of order. I should be glad if the hon member would reply to the petitioner in this way.
The hon member also said that there was not enough furniture and equipment in the Bloemfontein hospital. That is true. We are all aware of the fact that we are all weighed down by certain financial restrictions. Those who cannot afford it, however, can be reclassified for everything that they need, including their spectacles.
But they do not receive them.
No, they can be reclassified and then receive them but I must tell the hon member that there is no pair of spectacles in the world that will make the CP policy look any better. [Interjections.]
I want to go further. The hon member said that private organisations had certain ultrasonic equipment with which they could treat kidney stones. That is quite right, but I do want to tell him that the academic hospitals have contractual agreements with these hospitals, and I think it is important that we use these instruments, which are expensive, not only in the private sector but also in the public sector. It is a wise partnership with which I think the hon member will agree.
He went further and referred to Lebowa’s fees. It is true that a self-governing territory such as Lebowa can determine its own facilities and fees. Once again I want to tell the hon member that 85% of the Whites are members of medical aid schemes. In fact, in certain areas it is as high as 92%. If any White person, however, cannot pay his hospital account, he can be reclassified by going to see the superintendent. Therefore no White or any other persons are being deprived of good health care in South Africa.
The hon member also referred to Namda and I am glad he did so. Namda is the abbreviation for the “National Medical and Dental Association”, an organisation which wants to take over the role of the Medical Association of South Africa and increasingly politicise the health community in South Africa. Namda is an organisation which has great sympathy with the academic boycott against South Africa. In fact, they have so much sympathy with this boycott that some of their members strongly encourage it. Therefore we must take a serious look at Namda and tell ourselves that this politicisation of health in South Africa is not in the best interests of the patient.
The hon member also referred to Aids. I want to tell him that the information and guidance programme we have launched in South Africa is a programme which had a great impact on the Whites, but more especially on the Black population. Within the first week of having launched it we received more than 1 000 enquiries at our various regional offices, but I think what is more important is that we have established the importance of a monogamous lifestyle with regard to sexuality as a requisite for those who do not want to be infected by this virus. I think we conveyed this with a reasonable measure of success, namely that when a promiscuous lifestyle is maintained, the use of condoms is essential. I want to tell hon members that Aids is a disease which is assuming pandemic proportions throughout the world. We are in a situation …
Mr Chairman, would the hon the Minister say that the use of condoms as such, which have also been advertised by the department, provide complete protection against the Aids virus?
I have just said it is important to use them, but I think I have also just mentioned that they are not 100% effective in the same way that we know that the use of condoms is not 100% effective as a contraceptive. That is why we say that the entire guidance programme is centred around monogamous relationships. That is important.
I want to go further however and say that in Aids we are dealing with a situation which is assuming terrifying proportions in Africa—a situation in which 2% of Tanzania’s population has already shown positive Aids test results. The hon member is aware of the Malawian mineworkers, and I can also answer that question now. No worker from any high risk country will be allowed into South Africa without an Aids negative certificate. That is point number one.
Point number two is that hundreds—almost all—of those who were already working in South Africa, are already back in their countries of origin. Thirdly, last week members of my department held discussions with their opposite numbers in Malawi on this topic. We should like to help that country in as far as its epidemiology and its guidance programme is concerned. In Tanzania the incidence rate is already 3%. In Zaire 10% of those donating blood have been infected by the virus. That virus is never destroyed by the body itself. Of those who were infected by Aids prior to 1983, 89% have already died. It is a disease for which no treatment exists. It is a disease for which no inoculation possibility is in sight. It is a disease which is going to shake Africa to its foundations. It is a disease of which we must take cognisance because people who are being trained in certain areas of Africa and who speak across our borders, are Aids carriers. We must now take note of the possibility of positive Aids test results among those people, because they are trained in camps in which, as we know, there is a high incidence of Aids. I am mentioning these things because it is a matter we shall take further on the security level.
The hon member referred to the incidence of tuberculosis in the Western Cape. We are aware that tuberculosis is very widespread in the Western Cape. There are various reasons for this. The most important reason is that patients immediately feel better after treatment and then neglect to complete the full six-month course of treatment. The injection is painful. There are many pills they have to swallow. We do not have enough beds and so we cannot accommodate these people as hospital patients. In any case, that is not the modern practice.
As far as the contagiousness of tuberculosis is concerned it is something which disappears immediately after about three weeks. The hon member also referred to the difference in the figures. There is a difference of 22. The reason for this difference of 22 is probably because some were counted twice.
The hon member raised an important argument concerning widows’ pensions. There is no doubt that I should very much like—and I am saying this frankly in the House today—to grant a pension increase to every widow of a civil pensioner, who in his many years of service in the Public Service sacrificed so much for his country and whose wife is today a widow whose income is being eroded by inflation. The question, however, is how much it is going to cost us. Today when we calculate how much it is going to cost to increase those widows’ pensions by 50% to 75%, it appears that it will cost the astronomic amount of R2,1 billion. We must now openly admit that as much as we should like to do it, we cannot. We simply do not have the money. An amount of R2,1 billion, Sir. We do not have it.
It is of course a great pity, because when we consider what we should like to be able to do for the sake of our civil pensioners—I shall come back to this at a later stage—I find it a source of great heartache. I know old people. As a physician I have for many years now been treating elderly people and I still do so today. I have compassion for them. I shall nevertheless come to that in a moment.
The hon member for Pietersburg requested that section 29 of the Medical Schemes Act be reconsidered. I merely want to inform him that we have already held round-table discussions on possible changes to these aid schemes. The matter was dealt with very well in those discussions. The only request that we have received in this regard from the Medical Association thus far has been that they want a greater say in the provisions of the legislation. They did not make any fixed proposal as to this greater say that they want. All they asked was that in determining the scale of benefits, the relativity between the fees with regard to the various services be maintained. We are looking into it. We shall, I believe, be able to deal with it when we place the relevant legislation on next year’s legislative programme.
The matter of district surgeons’ prescriptions and pharmacies in rural areas as well as the high cost of medicines has also been raised.
†Whilst I am dealing with the high cost of medicine—the hon member for Green Point also alluded to that fact—I want to state that it is something that worries me personally. I think it worries everybody in this House. It also worries the Government and therefore I have asked the Pharmacy Council to go into the matter. They have established that it is due to transfer pricing, customs duties on raw materials, especially active ingredients, 10% surcharge on the raw materials, general sales tax, lack of control over price increases in the pharmaceutical industry, wasteful promotional practices—which the hon member referred to—the State tender system, the supply of medicine by the State to private patients and members of medical schemes, the registration of medicine, the legal restriction on bulk dispensing and medical schemes. Notwithstanding the fact that we would like to promote a free market system in South Africa it is significant to note that after the abolition of price control of medicine in 1982 the cost of medicine to the public escalated out of all proportion to previous expenditures in this regard.
*In this report, the Government then specifically instructed Dr Wim de Villiers to look into the high price of medicines. He is engaged in that at present and he has already made a great deal of progress with his investigation and I think he will complete his report soon. I think it is an important aspect which affects all of us.
Another aspect which Dr Wim de Villiers is looking into regarding the privatisation of health services is district surgeons’ prescriptions. I reached an agreement with the Pharmaceutical Society that we would negotiate with the provinces to take care of any pharmacy in the rural areas that may have gone insolvent in the interim. We received the names of 11 such pharmacies and have already dealt with eight of the cases. I do not want to mention the names here because I do not think it is relevant. I think that that disposes of the speech made by the hon member for Pietersburg.
The hon member for Parktown—I almost said the hon member for Namda—… [Interjections.] … told me that he could not be here today.
†He again alluded to the Baragwanath Hospital and I can assure him that it is a top priority as far as the hon the Minister of Finance is concerned. I have no doubt in my mind that we have to do something not only about Baragwanath as such but also about opening up other hospital beds in that vicinity and the Mofolo clinic.
He also said that apartheid is really the reason for everything that is wrong in medicine.
He did not say that…
He used words to that effect. [Interjections.] The important question that I would like to put on record is not whether members of various population groups are lying in the same ward but what the quality of health care is. We strive to give the best quality care to every patient regardless of colour, race, creed or religion. That is the important issue.
Of course, the hon member for Parktown also climbed onto his smoking hobby-horse. Last night he gave me a memorandum across the floor and I will reply to it. However, I would like to say in principle that we have done much to achieve what we want without regulations. On every packet of cigarettes a warning is printed that smoking is a health hazard. Why on earth should one legislate if one can get what one wants by consultation with the industry? We have consulted with the advertising industry on a code and we are again going to consult with them. We do not advertise cigarettes on the television or on the main Afrikaans and English radio programmes of the SABC.
I think therefore that we have already achieved a great deal as far as that matter is concerned. I shall respond to the rest of his speech in writing.
I would like now to turn to the speech of the hon member for Pinetown. As I have said before, I have great sympathy with all pensioners, in particular with regard to the erosion of income brought about by inflation. For that very reason I appreciate, as we all do, the hon the State President’s initiatives to curb inflation in our country. We must also remember that since February, as a result of the floods in the Orange Free State and Northern Cape, the Treasury has suddenly had to deal with an unexpected additional expenditure of R304,1 million for expenses related to this disaster, and this is a daunting task. For that reason, we are still in a situation of trying to see whether or not we can help pensioners, in particular those in the two categories which cause me the greatest concern, namely the very old—those 80 years of age and older—and the military pensioners. We are engaged in discussions with the hon the Minister of Finance. Within certain constraints, we will try our best to relieve the plight—I know it is a sorry plight—of our civil pensioners for whom I feel the greatest sympathy.
The hon member was quite correct in saying that civil pensions come from the Stabilisation Fund, but he omitted to tell the Committee that next year they will have to come from other funds, and that is the problem. If we want to increase pensions, therefore, we have to know what the long-term effect will be on the fund.
The hon member also alluded to the differentiations based on the qualifications of military pensioners. I must stress that this was initially agreed to in writing by the SA Legion and the war veterans’ administration.
Do they agree now?
I said they agreed initially. That is why we went ahead. The hon member must remember that military pensions enjoy additional benefits, and we do not always tell people this.
Medical help.
They receive free medical services, allowances for dependants and special allowances for severe disabilities. Many of them can still work and earn separate incomes. Comparatively speaking, therefore, although I have always, as I say, had a soft spot for our military pensioners, I believe their dispensation is fair and equitable.
So you will not change the qualifications.
I do not intend to do so at present, but we are in discussion with the SA Legion and the war veterans’ administration. One should never say never.
Regarding the amending of pension regulations, I would like to tell the hon member that in terms of section 17(6) of the Government Service Pensions Act the following bodies and persons must be consulted with regard to the proposed amendment of these regulations: All the Administrators of the provinces and the Ministers responsible for the National Intelligence Service, the Commission for Administration, the SADF, the Police Force, Prisons Service and Posts and Telecommunications. Furthermore, the regulations may only be amended with the concurrence of the Minister of Finance.
All the amendments to these regulations, including those pertaining to the buying back of pensionable service, were submitted to the Ministers whom I have mentioned. They all agreed, and the approval of the hon the Minister of Finance was also obtained. The amendment to the Act also includes consultation with the Ministers responsible for education, and that is now under consideration. The department was therefore not responsible for any delays in dealing with applications for the buying back of pensionable service, and all applications received by 21 September 1987 were calculated on the prerevised formula.
I would like to turn now to the hon member for Durban North who spoke about the Natal flood disaster. I think by and large the hon member will agree with me that it was a tremendous task, and I believe that the people working in the field did a tremendous job. They did it for free. We had 25 committees working in Natal.
The KwaZulu Government did it for us through their Department of Justice. The individual to whom the hon member referred to was resident in KwaZulu and therefore the KwaZulu Government handled his particular situation. I think that is very important to know.
When I tell hon members that as from 31 March this year an amount of R30,261 million has been paid out to 73 685 victims of this disaster, they will understand the magnitude of the task. It certainly involved no delaying tactics, I can assure hon members of that. There certainly was no single lump sum—I think the hon member mentioned R60 to R70. Everything was calculated and, as far as the amounts paid to victims are concerned, I must stress that all applicants were treated on an equal basis within the limits of the funds available. The basis applied was that applicants were compensated for damages actually suffered, but ex gratia. It is therefore possible that some applicants in former housing cases could have received R60 to R70, but there has never been a fixed amount as far as that is concerned. I think that addresses the problem.
*I can give the hon member for Carletonville the assurance that I can hardly imagine that there is another government in the world which would like to take better care of the interests of the mineworkers than this Government does. For that reason I want to invite the hon member for Carletonville —he has seen the draft legislation—to personally present us with any criticisms which he has and to submit suggestions for its improvement to us. Furthermore, we should like to do it as quickly as possible because—he will agree with me—it is to the benefit of the mineworkers. Therefore a further commission, such as the hon member requested, would merely be conducive to delay. However, the hon member now has an opportunity to participate personally and I should be glad if he were to make use of it.
I have great sympathy for the hon member’s appeal concerning pensions but I want to point out to him that pensioners receiving a pension because of occupational diseases receive the same bonus as the social pensioners. It is not much, it is true that it is a small amount, but that was all we could afford from our funds this year.
The hon the Deputy Minister of National Health replied to some of the other questions.
†I think I have covered most of what the hon member for Green Point said about the question of the high cost of medicine. When one talks about the privatisation of health services, our philosophy—a simple one which I gleaned from the hon the State President—is that privatisation in health services should take place in those cases where the quality remains the same or improves but the cost to the State or the consumer is less. I think that is a very apt definition.
The hon member mentioned the lavish entertainment of doctors by drug companies, and I agree with him. The Browne Commission found that companies spend up to 22,3% on promotion. It may interest the hon member for Green Point that it this presently a subject of intense debate in medical journals in the United States of America.
We are taking it up with the responsible society of drug companies, because we think this can become a little bit too much.
*I come now to the hon member for Langlaagte, who made a remarkable speech yesterday evening. I want to congratulate him on it. I think it is the best speech I have ever heard from him; in fact, it could be the best one I have ever heard from any member on health matters. He illustrated very well the importance of community clinics in future. I want to join him in thanking all those throughout the country, our CBs, the Civil Defence Services and all the other people in the field who dealt with the state of emergency in Natal, the Free State and the Northern Cape. Thank you very much. I agree 100% with the hon member.
Furthermore, I want to tell hon members there is no doubt that hospital beds are an expensive way of providing health services. That is why I think it is important that we tell each other that much greater emphasis needs to be placed on preventive medicine, as we are doing at present, and that those 950 community clinics in South Africa must be expanded, because we must bring preventive medicine to the doorstep of the consumer, the patient and also to the remote areas of South Africa so that we can prevent them coming to expensive regional and academic hospitals.
I am glad the hon member spoke about Black health, because that gives me the opportunity of telling those critics who say that the Johannesburg Hospital is only for Whites and is a white elephant that very specialised services are being rendered there. In fact, at the Johannesburg Hospital more cardio-thoracic operations are being performed on Blacks than on Whites.
The point the hon member made was very important, namely that prevention in this regard would be of the greatest importance over the next number of years because it was a more cost-effective way of rendering health services.
The hon member for Welkom spoke very knowledgeably about the invaluable role of nurses in the rendering of health services in the Republic.
I very much want to associate myself with these words of gratitude for the excellent services of the two nurses here in Parliament, namely Sister Van Coller and Sister Kolver. They are the two sisters in our sick bay, who have already assisted many hon members in this House and other members. I think they deserve our thanks and I associate myself with the hon member for Welkom’s thoughts in this regard.
He referred to certain problem areas. I want to point out to him that the number of trainee nurses in South Africa rose by 19,8% during the period 1985 to 1986, but that the number of student nurses declined during the same period by 1,86%. That is why we now have the important programme of the South African Nursing Council to provide staff nurses with in-service training to improve their qualifications so that they can be taken into consideration for better salaries and so on. I think we shall be heavily indebted to our nursing profession in South Africa for many years to come.
I now want to come to the hon the Deputy Minister of National Health. He acquitted himself well of his task by given us an insight into some aspects of industrial health and by discussing the problems of the King Edward VIII Hospital. The hon the Deputy Minister spoke knowledgeably and with insight and sympathy about the problems of that hospital. There is no doubt that it is a priority for us.
I know the hon member for Humansdorp is an expert on Jersey cows. I want to say that yesterday evening he excelled as an expert on malaria mosquitoes. The hon member excelled himself. I never knew that he had that expert knowledge. Once again I want to remind hon members of what he said, because it is very important. The hon member said that anopheles arabiensis was a new mosquito with a far more rapid biting pattern; it bites more frequently than the average mosquito. [Interjections.] Yes, the hon member did say that, and it is true. In fact, the hon member said that only pregnant mosquitoes bite, and he is correct. It is true. If a mosquito bites one one knows that the mosquito is pregnant. [Interjections.]
The hon member also told us another home truth. He said it was a pity the hon member for Parktown spoke with such aggression. I agree with him. Everything that the hon member said was true, but I now want to speak on a more serious level and discuss another point he referred to, namely the cross-border infiltration from Mozambique.
Today that is one of our major health problems, because 30% of the Mozambicans that cross the border have malaria. If one of them has the parasite in their blood they can transfer it. That is one of the reasons for the high incidence of malaria today, not only in Northern Natal, but also as far as Pietersburg. Malaria occurs even lower down towards the Waterberg area. It is true, and we must be careful.
The hon member said we should sugar the pill.
We shall try that. This morning I had a serious discussion with the people involved about coating the malaria pills with sugar. I think the hon member would be glad to know that members of my department have already visited Maputo where they discussed the problem of malaria control with their opposite numbers. They agreed, and we shall now have to find methods to implement it.
Doctor, will it prevent partition? [Interjections.]
I do not believe partition will cause anything to the extent to which some of us, especially the Official Opposition, think it is going to. [Interjections.]
The hon member for Parys gave an excellent analysis of the family planning services. Once again I want to remind hon members that it is remarkable that in South Africa today we have 40 150 mobile clinics which render this important service. I want to say I think it is of the utmost importance that it be expanded, because there are only 511 doctors who deliver a part-time service in this regard. In addition we only have 1 203 information officers.
Once the quality of life improves, however, people want to reduce the size of their families, and then family planning methods must exist. If they do not exist it is of no avail. Kenya, for example, has increased its quality of life; its economic dependency rate has risen; its per capita income has increased, but the average number of children per woman is 7,3 because no family planning is being implemented, and that is important.
That is why I am glad that the hon the Deputy Minister of Population Development mentioned that we now have permanent agreements with the TBVC countries—they have permanent programmes—and the self-governing territories. The question of family planning is not merely an issue relating to South Africa, but is an issue as far as the whole of Southern Africa is concerned. We shall have to expand the services. We shall have to find the funds, because it is essential for the survival of our people in South Africa, White, Black, Yellow, Brown and Pink.
The hon member for Parys also made an appeal for more permanent service-rendering points. I agree with him. Provision must be made for places where there are greater population concentrations, but not on individual farms which makes it more expensive. At this stage it is more cost effective to utilise mobile clinics.
†The hon member for Bezuidenhout made a very interesting contribution to the debate last night. Before I reply to him, I would like to congratulate him on the Order of Merit which he will receive in the near future. I would like to congratulate him and to tell him that I think it is well deserved. We all read about it recently in the papers and this particular occasion gives me the opportunity to congratulate him. I think what the hon member has done, as far as his work in the field where he was active was concerned, is now to be justly rewarded.
Well done, Sam!
The hon member said that all young women must do national service. Yesterday evening the Deputy Minister of Defence was present and he heard the arguments. I am sure he took cognisance of them and I shall discuss the matter with the hon the Minister in front of me here. I am also sure they will be able to provide the hon member with an answer. Unfortunately its a little outside my field. The hon member also spoke about tax deductions in respect of donations.
†The hon member for Bezuidenhout asked whether the Income Tax Act could perhaps be amended so as to permit the deduction, in the determination of a person’s taxable income, of welfare donations made by him. This is a matter to which the Margo Commission gave some attention. I would like to refer the hon member to Chapter 18 of the Margo Commission’s report and in particular to paragraphs 18.48 and 18.93. As the hon member will see in his perusal of this report the commission was against the granting of relief in respect of various donations however worthy the cause may be. The Government has accepted this recommendation. In this connection I can also refer the hon member to the remarks on page 67 of the White Paper which was released immediately after the Budget Speech on 16 March. [Interjections.]
*The hon member for Pietermaritzburg South spoke with great precision and expertise about poliomyelitis, which as hon members know was an important problem in Natal. The hon member also emphasised the importance of sport in health. I want to tell the hon member that there is a problem with sportsfields, which were damaged in the flood disaster. It is a problem and I know that he discussed this matter with the board of the Flood Disaster Fund. I should like to ask the hon member to make another representation to the board. Perhaps the board may take another look at this after a further submission by the hon member. The hon member asked what course we must adopt to restore those sports-fields which were destroyed in the disaster.
Since I am speaking about the disaster, I want to make use of this opportunity to thank all members of the public of South Africa. At this stage we have already collected an amount of R23,4 million. For a small population such as that of South Africa it is in fact a wonderful example of good neighbourliness. It is proof of people who look with compassion upon others who have suffered. We received amounts of as little as 50 cents from Soweto, and from certain city councils such as that of Kempton Park we received a quarter of a million rands. Most contributions were, however, amounts of between R5 and R10. We are very grateful for that.
Once again I want to place it on record that during the first days of emergency during this disaster it was proven that our security management system, our HMS, the Defence Force and the Police are able to collaborate well. The latter two really made an excellent contribution.
I saw for myself, and I thank them and the Civil Defence in this regard. I should also like to thank the chairman of the Disaster Fund and his team who worked 18 hours a day during this period. I also thank other people such as doctors and nurses who provided emergency aid during this time. I saw how they kept on working and I want to assure hon members that they rendered an excellent service.
Today we should be proud that we have an infrastructure in South Africa which can deal with such a disaster. It was never necessary for us to consider aid from abroad in this regard. It gave us a lot of insight to realise that we have the ability and the expertise to overcome such a catastrophe. We shall build up the country and show the people of this country that they have a government which not only cares for them with compassion in times of need, but also makes an effort to build them up again and to give them hope.
We shall allow farmers who lost small and large livestock to buy livestock again at one third of the carrying capacity of those farms. We are going to grant them 100% loans and subsidise them by 75%. We shall make an important contribution in placing those people back on their feet, because there are people in the Free State and Northern Natal who have nothing left. Today there are people of all race groups whom we must provide with food. At this stage I want to express special thanks and appreciation …
Mr Chairman, is the hon the Minister aware of the criticism that the cash payments to the people who suffered flood damage have on average been very small indeed? Can the hon the Minister give us a rough idea of what the average cash payment is? I believe it is less than R100 for people who have lost a whole house.
Yes, I would love to answer the hon member. First of all the claimants have to fill out an application form to indicate what they have lost.
A very long application form.
No, it used to be 11 pages, but it was reduced to three.
The claimants must stipulate what they have lost. The form is scrutinised by a local committee which usually consists of the town clerk, the town engineer and representatives of welfare organisations and the churches. They usually find that the question as to whether the goods and/or house was insured or not, has been left unanswered. The form must then be sent back to be completed by the claimant. The answer that there is no insurance is then supplied and the form is returned. It is then sent to the Disaster Relief Council. Half of the members of the council are from the private sector and 50% are from the public sector. It is solely their responsibility to evaluate each claim individually and then to make an ex gratia payment to that particular person. For that reason one will find that in some cases the payment is small while in other instances it is more. It depends on how big the actual loss has been. That is how it is dealt with. Does the hon member have any other questions? I would love to answer them. [Interjections.] Is there anybody else who would like to ask a question? [Interjections.]
*Are there any other hon members who would like to put a question to me? [Interjections.]
Mr Chairman, since the hon the Minister is now inviting us to put questions, there is a question I should like to ask him. He mentioned that tremendous amounts would now have to be spent on widows’ pensions in order to raise them to 75%, but can the Government not consider, as other bodies have done, making provision for widows’ pensions being increased to 75% in future?
Mr Chairman, I want to thank the hon member for Pietersburg for that question. It is a very good question; to tell the truth, I think it is a very relevant question. It is true that we have asked the actuary who has now started making a new actuarial enquiry to look into the matter because we have to see whether it might not perhaps be desirable to grant 55% or 60% or 65% or 70% or 75% instead of the present 50%. He must then tell us what he thinks can be afforded actuarially by the fund.
We must look into that, because I think the hon member and I are in complete agreement that the widows are the ones who present us with a problem, because it is simply the case that a White man’s life expectancy today is 68,5 whereas that for a White woman is 72,5. Our old age homes are therefore full of White women. The hon member for Pietersburg knows as well as I do that the reason for this is that men look after women better than women look after men … [Interjections.]… otherwise there would surely have been more men in the old-age homes than women. [Interjections.] I have never yet visited an old age home that had more men than women. The point is that those poor ladies become older and older while their pensions shrink as a result of inflation. I therefore think that the hon member has put forward a very good suggestion, but we are already looking into the matter and we shall keep him informed.
Mr Chairman, is there no hon member from the governing party who wants to put a question? [Interjections.]
Mr Chairman, I should like to make use of the hon the Minister’s invitation. He indicated to us here that as far as flood damage was concerned, certain arrangements had been made—for which we are very thankful—for farmers to be paid out for livestock losses. I should like to hear from the hon the Minister whether there will also be relief as far as crop damage is concerned.
That is an excellent question! [Interjections.] It is an excellent question which the hon member Mr Hattingh asked. It is excellent. [Interjections.] I shall reply to it at length. The point here which is very important is that the question concerns damage to crops. When the crops are no longer on the land …
The hon the Minister of National Education has just arrived.
I shall reply briefly to the question. [Interjections.] When the crops are no longer on the lands, for example when pumpkins are on rooftops and those pumpkins had been washed away, then it is the responsibility of the Emergency Fund to pay, but if the crops are still on the lands, agriculture has made provision, in the same way as is the case with livestock we gave them the opportunity to start over again with a nucleus as far as their agricultural activities are concerned. I think that answers the hon member’s question.
Mr Chairman, since the hon the Minister is in such a good mood at the moment, could he not also consider increasing the first and second stage remuneration which newly certified mineworkers received, since it does not come from the Treasury?
Mr Chairman, I am always in a good mood, and I shall do that.
Was that also a good question?
It was a very good question. [Interjections.]
Mr Chairman, allow me once again, in conclusion, to thank all hon members who participated in the debate and especially for the congenial way in which hon members conducted the debate. I should also like to thank my department for their contributions.
Vote agreed to.
Vote No 8—“National Education”:
Mr Chairman, I request the privilege of the half-hour.
On behalf of the Official Opposition I want to take this opportunity to thank the Department of National Education. A very fine annual report was submitted to the hon the Minister by the Director-General, Dr Venter, and I should like to congratulate him on it. It covers a very wide spectrum of activities and attests to people who worked with diligence and dedication in this department during the past year.
Other hon members of my party and I have already put certain questions to the hon the Minister in previous debates this year. However, it struck us that as far as education matters were concerned, the hon the Minister was always as silent as the grave. I am not going to repeat everything here this afternoon, but I do want to remind the hon the Minister that he owes this House a reply to the questions that were put to him in connection with the backlogs in the compensation packages of teachers. Nor have we heard the hon the Minister’s side of the story with regard to the allegation that he handled the salary issue with the FTC in an extremely unsatisfactory and inept manner. Hopefully he will use this debate to put his side of the case in this connection.
This year, for the umpteenth time, we again broached the subject of the formula according to which education funds are allocated to the respective population groups. I do not want to be spiteful towards the hon the Minister, because I realise that he is a very busy man. He has ministerial and also party-political obligations. At the moment his party-political obligations are making very heavy demands on him. He must try to save his party from ruin in the Transvaal. He has to contend with Club 22 which, as we heard last Wednesday evening, is by no means dead. He is more than just a keen contender for the State Presidency. Nevertheless, all these obligations of his do not compensate for the fact that today we do not yet have the formula he announced in this House on 16 April 1986—two years ago.
Allow us, Sir, to tell the hon the Minister this afternoon that this formula is no small matter to those of us on this side of the House. As we understand it, it concerns the distribution of education funds among the different peoples so that parity, ie equal provision of education, will be a reality for everyone in the country by 1996. What we on this side of the House are interested in is how this affects the provision of White education in this country. We also expect the hon the Minister to react to this matter at some stage or other.
I feel the time has also come for us to discuss the activities of the Human Sciences Research Council. The HSRC was established 20 years ago, for the purpose of undertaking research into the human sciences. This year an amount of almost R52 million was allocated to the HSRC. I believe that the HSRC is a useful and an essential organisation. There are countries in the world which neglect the human sciences, and specifically research in this regard. Emphasis is placed fully on the other sciences.
We are grateful that this is not the case in South Africa, and that the State has for many years now made ample financial provision for research to ensure that human sciences occupy their rightful position here. I want to add that the HSRC does very good work. From the department’s annual report it is apparent that in 1987 innumerable reports and magazine articles were published, that four journals were published and that approximately 130 psychological tests were available, which approximately 1 million people took.
Every year approximately 4 000 educational qualifications are evaluated, and a large number of item bank and scholastic achievement tests are made available, which are drawn up in partnership with the education departments.
While this side of the Committee wants to give recognition for the good work done by the HSRC, we want to express our concern at the same time about a trend towards left-wing political bias which we have noticed in some of their research projects.
I want to refer as an example to Newsletter No 177 of 1987, which dealt with the national symbols in the RSA. The tenor of this newsletter, which is supposed to be based on purely scientific facts, gives us the impression that it was written by biased politicians instead of scientists who should be working with facts.
The following inter alia was said about the ideological basis of the national symbols:
It is not scientific language to speak in such a derogatory way about the power of the so-called “guardians of culture” in South Africa. [Interjections.] We on this side of the Committee take strong exception to cultural people, whether this refers to leading figures in the Afrikaner-Volkswag, in the FAK or whatever other cultural organisation, being addressed in such a derogatory way by an organisation which is supposed to concern itself with scientific facts.
I also want to discuss the contents of this newsletter. If hon members listen to the following statements, they will understand what the tone of this newsletter is. I am quoting:
A little further on it reads:
And then it says:
And it concludes as follows:
I want to tell the HSRC—and this is all I have to say to them—that the CP considers it unacceptable for such an organisation to meddle with the country’s symbols without being asked to do so. This is not only a sensitive matter among the Whites in general, but it becomes even more sensitive when one starts talking about common symbols for all the inhabitants of one undivided South Africa. To suggest that “Nkosi Sikelel’i-Afrika”, no matter how beautiful a tune it may be, should also become the national anthem of the Whites in this country is, to say the least, looking for serious trouble. [Interjections.]
Let us tell the HSRC: Stick to human sciences research and you will have a friend in the CP; but carry on with your left-wing party-political propaganda, and you will come into serious conflict with this party. [Interjections.]
In this regard I want to address myself specifically to the hon the Minister this afternoon. He has already issued a statement in which he said that the Government did not authorise this investigation, and we accepted this. The hon the Minister also had occasion to say that the vested rights of the Whites in this country would be protected.
One of the vested rights of the Whites is their exclusive say over the symbols of the RSA, including its national anthem and its flag. This afternoon I am asking the hon the Minister to tell the Whites in our country whether they are going to retain that right to decide on their symbols for themselves, whether they are also going to retain that right in the new South Africa which the hon the Minister and his party visualise for us, the new undivided South Africa which will accommodate one nation, the new South Africa in which, according to the NP, there will be equal privileges and equal opportunities, for all Coloureds, Blacks and Indians too.
I am asking the hon the Minister, to use the words he used a few years ago, whether it is within the NP’s pattern of thinking, philosophy or predictions for the future to deprive the Whites of the right to decide on the country’s symbols. I am asking the hon the Minister whether consideration is not being given to accepting “Nkosi Sikelel’i-Afrika” as an alternative to “Die Stem”. [Interjections.]
Hon members on that side need not be upset about the questions I am asking; I think we on this side of the Committee are justified in putting these questions to them.
A few weeks ago the hon the State President himself mentioned the matter of the national flag and made a statement which could be interpreted as meaning that a possible change in the national flag might be considered. Would this be the opportunity to ask the opinion of all the citizens of South Africa so that a decision on this matter could be taken by all the inhabitants?
I say I am justified in asking this question. Mr Lategan, a President’s Council member nominated by the NP, broached this matter as long ago 12 February 1985. He was participating in a debate on the principle of consensus versus the Westminster system and advocated a spirit of broad nationalism among the various population groups. According to the Hansard report of their debate he said:
I am not aware of any NP member in this Committee having repudiated this statement of his.
He was an NP candidate. [Interjections.]
A number of these predictions made in 1985 have already become a reality in the NP. “Acceptable political systems” is the policy of the NP. Totally integrated sport is the policy of the NP. Equal education opportunities is the policy of the NP. An equal share in the “economic cake” is also the policy of the NP. All that still remains of Mr Lategan’s predictions is “common symbols”, a flag and a national anthem which will be acceptable to the majority—ie the Black people—in this country.
The hon the Minister must tell us whether or not he agrees with this and if he has nothing to say about this in his reply, we must assume that he supports the standpoint of this member of the President’s Council, Mr Lategan. [Interjections.]
No matter how much this side of the Committee may disagree with the HSRC in this respect, from the viewpoint of a policy of power-sharing this council is extremely logical in its reasoning. The report reads:
This is, after all, essential if one’s point of departure is that all the people in South Africa belong to the same nation and must enjoy equal privileges in one undivided country which is inhabited by all of them. If this is one’s point of departure, I maintain that if one wants to claim that one is fair and one does not want to be racistic and discriminatory, one must concede that everyone in such a dispensation will have the right to decide on the national flag and the national anthem.
A political party cannot escape from the implications of the policy it adopts. One cannot promise people that they will be included in the highest executive and legislative authority of the country and then protect certain privileges such as control of national symbols for a small minority of Whites. The realities will catch up with one.
I am not pretending to be a prophet, but I simply want to try to be logical when I say this afternoon that if the NP is going to carry its policy of equal privileges to its logical conclusion, the HSRC was right in this investigation. Then the day will dawn when the NP will be forced by the reality of numbers to strike the flag as a symbol of our freedom, and it will have no say in the new flag which will replace it. Then the day will dawn when we will no longer sing, “In Thy power, Almighty, trusting, did our fathers build of old”, but another song will echo over the plains of South Africa, a song on which the reality of numbers will decide and which the Whites will simply be forced to accept.
Mr Chairman, the hon member for Brits has developed a well-known and stereotyped political style. I thought this was a debate on education, but he stood up here and fired a number of random shots in the hope that they would hit something. [Interjections.] However, that is to be expected, and that is of course the style of people who are not interested in real debate—in pitting argument against argument. For an ordinary member like me with limited time at my disposal it is virtually impossible to react to this.
One comes across a similar phenomenon as regards publications. The hon member spoke about HSRC publications, but last weekend I punished myself by reading three articles in the Patriot of 1 April, which were purported to have been written in the interests of education. It was a most depressing experience. Whoever wrote those articles did not have education as a priority. It was a poorly drafted, reckless, crude interference in the sensitive sphere of education by a person with objectionable political objectives. [Interjections.]
I should like to forget as soon as possible that I was exposed to such an inferior publication, but unfortunately certain unfounded statements were made in it which I simply could not ignore. I am not going to dwell today on the following blatant untruth:
We can discuss this in the Education and Culture Vote.
However, proceeding from this untruth the readers of the tabloid are informed that the quality and efficiency of White education is going to deteriorate. Of course this is an old story. We have even been told here that our White education is going to decline to Third World level. This is an aspect we can debate, because norms and standards for syllabuses and examinations are the responsibility of the hon the Minister of National Education, as is the certification of qualifications.
These matters are concerned with the quality of education in the classroom. These matters determine the quantity, quality and relevance of the knowledge with which the school-leaver is armed. Today I want it expressly placed on record that there is not an hon member on this side of the Committee who will allow the quality of our children’s education to suffer in the classroom or in any other way whatsoever. We will not allow this to happen.
I also want to state categorically that I do not believe our teaching community will allow this to happen either. [Interjections.] The allegation that the quality of education will decline is in fact a slap in the face of our dedicated teachers which they do not deserve.
Long before Christ lived and died Diogenes said: “The foundation of a state is the education of its youth.” This means that, in the interests of its own survival, the state must guard over the quality of education, particularly of everyone who is going to participate in the economy of the country, because in the final analysis the survival of the country will depend on its economy.
In practice this means that we dare not expose any child to inferior education. If it is educationally proved that an optimum teacher-pupil ratio is, for example, 1:30, then it is unacceptable if in certain sectors of education there is a ratio of 1:39 while in other sectors there is a ratio of 1:16,9, which just happen to be the ratio in Black education and in White education, respectively. This is indefensible. It must be rectified, but not at the expense of existing standards.
If this is not done at once, it must be phased in within the financial capabilities of the country. This is precisely what the Government is doing. It is upgrading the quality of those sectors of education which have lagged behind while retaining existing standards, and it is doing all this in a balanced, responsible way.
If in the process it is necessary to bring standards which border on prodigality down to realistic levels, this must also be done. Prodigality almost always gives rise to superficialisation of values.
Prodigality wastes scarce resources. Prodigality is not necessary for high standards of education. Any adjustments in this regard must also always take place with the maintenance of existing standards of education.
I now want to come back to the article in the Patriot. What I found specifically disturbing about it was that it was obviously aimed at making the teaching community uneasy. This is a transparent attempt to stir them up against the Government regarding salaries and conditions of service, which is also the general responsibility of this department. I feel it is deplorable that efforts are being made to involve our teaching community in dubious politicking. Once again, they do not deserve this. I advise the teaching community never to allow themselves to be misused in this way by any political movement.
South African teachers, in contrast to many other countries, are still highly respected by their communities. This is an honour which they deserve. They deserve this because of their years of dedication to a vocation for which no sacrifice is too great. They deserve this because of their quality as people and as experts. They deserve this because of their consistent fidelity to a code which gives them a unique professional status. I repeat that our teachers are a source of pride to us as South Africans.
We on this side of the Committee are aware that our teaching community is disappointed because their recent salary representations were unsuccessful—temporarily unsuccessful. We can understand their disappointment. We would like our teaching community to be happy and content, so that they can carry on peacefully with their work; this is in the interests of our children and our country.
We are therefore indebted to the hon the Minister for his encouraging announcement on 9 March, and we also appreciate the Teachers Federal Council’s very much calmer approach, as reflected in the most recent issue of their publication Nuusflitse. The hon the Minister placed on record that teachers in general could rest assured in the knowledge that any proven backlogs would be eliminated in the shortest time possible. I want to emphasise the words “would be eliminated”. That undertaking was placed on record, as was the undertaking by the Teachers’ Federal Council that they would co-operate in order to determine and eliminate salary backlogs once and for all. I should like to wish the two participants in this discussion success in their negotiations.
The quality of our future will be determined, inter alia, by the degree of success achieved in the constitutional, economic and social spheres. However, underlying all this, and determining it, is education. If we do not succeed with our education strategy, stability, prosperity and progress will always elude us no matter what wonderful political model is decided on. When I say that the success of our education programmes is going to determine the future, I want to add at once that the success of the education programmes as such will be determined by the quality of our teachers and educators in general and their dedication. This is how important we on this side of the committee consider our teaching community to be, and that is why we also believe in the future.
In conclusion I want to ask that we stop using education, where our children are being prepared for the future, as a party-political arena. I am addressing this plea to everyone who is involved in politics both inside and outside Parliament, because the children of South Africa are going to need each other in future—more than we need each other now. We must not allow our behaviour to polarise them through education to such an extent that they cannot find common ground in future, because they will be less privileged than we are to permit the dissension we are now arrogating for ourselves.
Mr Chairman, I would like to welcome the senior members of the Teachers’ Federal Council to the debate and trust that they will find something significant and enlightening in the proceedings this afternoon. I will be commenting on much of the hon member for Stellenbosch’s speech in the course of my own.
I should like to compliment the department on the work they have carried out in the past year and in particular on the various reports covering major policy areas and the departmental report which have been issued. I must, however, comment to the hon the Minister on the very expensive formatting of the HSRC Report which appears to have cost considerably more than the department’s own report. I think the hon the Minister should look at the matter.
Last night this hon Minister released comments on the Report of the President’s Council on Youth Affairs, and I thank him for making a copy available to me. I would like to make the following brief comments.
The PFP agrees wholeheartedly that “the establishment of youth organisations is a private matter” and that the establishment of bodies such as the Youth Council and the Youth Trust “would be welcomed if these came into being through the initiative of the private sector”. These we believe are the correct approaches to the question of youth activities rather than the department itself becoming directly involved in this matter. It is also worth noting that the Government acknowledges in the document that “there is a connection between the frustration of young Black persons and their political expectations”. We are pleased to note that the Government states clearly in this document that it intends to press ahead with political reform in order to ease this frustration. Generally, therefore, our reaction is positive.
There is one brief note: Recommendation No 14 of the report, which is referred to on page 6 of the media release, notes that sex education should be offered at an early stage in formal schooling—a matter on which the hon the Minister has not commented. I would trust that this receives the most serious attention of Government.
I should like to turn now to the funding of education, which is one of the hon the Minister’s most important areas of concern.
As the hon member for Brits has pointed out, in April 1986, two years and three days ago, this hon Minister announced “that the aforementioned ten-year plan will be based upon a real increase of total education expenditure of at least 4,1% per annum”. During last year’s debate in September we asked for further particulars, and the hon the Minister then indicated that he was very close to releasing the information. Yesterday, in response to questions I posed last week regarding the financing of education, the hon the Minister of Finance stated as follows:
That statement of yesterday afternoon and this hon Minister’s statement of two years ago are in contradiction. I think it in incumbent this hon Minister to tell this House and the country where we stand regarding the ten-year plan. I am told that one can approach anybody in this hon Minister’s department and they will not be able to show one the ten-year plan, and that it does not exist on paper.
Even the department’s report makes reference to where we stand in this regard. I quote from it as follows:
That is a very interesting statement which appears in the departmental report of 1987. However, we all know that this formula has been operating for three years now and that it still has to be finalised. What can the hon the Minister tell us? Is it not public? Only the hon the Minister knows that.
I wish to indicate to him a more detailed consideration of the formula. Briefly the problem is this: The formula within the bracket—the hon the Minister knows what I am talking about—is applied to all education departments taking into consideration the various demographic and other factors affecting them. Outside the bracket stands the so-called A-value. This represents what is currently being spent on education in a department, divided by what should be spent in that department if the formula were rigidly applied.
At present the A-value for Whites is about 1,8, which means they are spending more than they should be getting. For the Black department the A-value is well below 1. We understand the overall intention of the 10-year plan is that the A-value should move to 1 for all departments; in other words, for the White departments coming down and for the Black departments going up. However, what has dawned upon the Government is the effect on White education of getting to 1 in that formula. We understand that this would represent a shift to a teacher-pupil ratio in White education of 1:27 or 1:30 and the possible retrenchment of many thousands of White teachers.
So it appears that a political decision has been made at Cabinet level. I want to ask this hon Minister a direct question. Has this taken place? It would apparently restrict the drop in the A-value for Whites to a fixed figure of 1,4. Thus they will continue to get more than they should be getting under the formula. Incidentally, I understand this is now called the B factor.
The effect of this must inevitably be to entrench the favoured position of White education and to retard the movement of Black education to a position of equality, since quite clearly it is not possible to move to a position of equality on a factor of 1,4 for all education. The hon the Minister must accept that as long as he attempts to conceal the reality of education funding for the RSA there will be tremendous concern from all citizens that this Government is not in fact intent on reaching parity on education spending. In this regard the hon the Minister must state categorically that it is not the hon the Minister of Finance or his department that is determining policy on education spending, but that it should rather be the education department that determines the education policy. Then that department can approach the hon the Minister of Finance and say that that is the package they are looking for and that he should make the funds available to them. We know, because I addressed the hon the Minister of Finance last week on this subject, that if funding from other sources is required, it must be found. I hope the hon the Minister of National Education will respond to this.
I have not had an answer from the hon the Minister of Finance on the question of tuition fees, of the tax deductibility of donations from parents for primary and secondary education, of the concept of privatisation and the disposal of State schools, of whether the Government has considered the application of a voucher system of common value taken together with additional backlog funding for deprived communities—as suggested in Leon Louw’s The Solution and in other documentation. All of these are ways of funding education over and above the funds which the State is providing, but we have had no reply.
The hon the Minister makes much in his departmental report of the various aspects of general education policy which have been finalised. One of these, and I have the report here, is the service dispensation structure for educators. It is a comprehensive document which clearly sets out pay scales and all other key features of educators’ salary structures. But between the issuing of that report in November 1987 and now, something has gone severely wrong with negotiations on teachers’ salaries.
When we look back to 1987 the publications of the various teachers’ organisations inform us clearly that numerous movements were being suggested during 1987 regarding teachers’ salaries. This hon Minister also informed the House on 27 July last year:
That was in July 1987. Yet, by the end of January 1988 the Salary Work Committee of the Research Committee on Educational Structures, Reces, had not even met. [Time expired.]
Mr Chairman, the hon member for Pinetown must pardon me if I do not react directly to his speech. There is a portion he quoted to which I shall be returning at a later stage in my speech.
I should like to speak about the very distasteful experience the hon the Minister had in the course of last year, an experience involving the unfriendly clash between him and the universities. Permit me to say, at the very outset, that it was also distasteful to us on this side of the Committee, because we know what the attitude of the hon the Minister and the hon the Minister of Education and Culture is as far as this matter is concerned. I think it was an unpleasant experience to have ultimately become involved in a court case to discuss matters which could have been dealt with in some other way.
Let us also state, at the very outset, that the government of the day has the right and the responsibility to ensure—and is instructed to do so—that the taxpayers’ money is correctly spent, and this includes expenditure on something like education. There can be no doubt about that; otherwise we would be carrying out our terms of reference irresponsibly.
The second point I want to clarify is that the NP created and formulated the idea of Christian national education within the context of “South Africa first”. This Government never gave substance to party-politicking within the class-room situation in any facet of education whatsoever. [Interjections.]
The third guideline in our policy is that education should never be held captive within its own sphere of operations as a result of external organisations which, with their own hidden objectives, want to interfere and prescribe what should be done within the context of education. Education is a product of the community and its diversity. It is not primarily there to reform the community. I think that this critical point should be accepted in education, because otherwise education becomes a means to an end and is dragged right into the sphere of social conflict. Once that happens to education, it will be no longer be possible to teach.
A fourth important point is that the Government has no desire to interfere in the academic programme of any educational institution or its philosophy or scientific findings. Nor would the Government enter into any dispute about the question of science being taught for the sake of science or of science being presented in conjunction with a philosophy of eternity as part of God’s master plan.
It is the great privilege of a convocation and its university council, by whatever method of its choice, to give a specific character to that institution. It must, however, be possible to test and evaluate the institution’s final product. Neither the community nor the parents should ever be deprived of that right. When a specific institution is on the wrong track, the State will enter into discussions with the university. As long as the State contributes funds to that institution, it will discuss the matter of cost-effectiveness.
Parents and the community at large have the right to ask questions in regard to disagreements with the views held by the specific institution. In other words, a university cannot and may not ever absolutise its autonomy and make its own philosophy sacrosanct. In the final analysis it will thus be the State’s duty to take deliberate action when a university is not able to implement disciplinary measures within its own sphere of activity—even if this must be done with the help of the police. That was the unsatisfactory position in which we found ourselves at this stage last year, a situation which ultimately led to an uneasiness between the hon the Minister and our universities.
This matter is a cause of great unhappiness to me. I should like to tell the universities that they are dealing with one of our most valuable assets and that they are engaged in shaping these young saplings in our society. We greatly appreciate that fact, but when the overall account of these universities runs to more than R1 000 million, and we critically begin to examine the expenditure patterns, we must be in a position to discuss this with one another. Some universities more or less stick to the lecturer:student ratio of 1:15, but at other universities the ratio decreases to as little as 1:8. Ways must be found to move closer to the desired figure. When the lecturer:student ratio, in some subjects which are less in demand in the professional sphere, decreases to a figure as low as 1:4,4 in some cases, we must be in a position to discuss matters with one another to determine in what way the situation can be improved in view of the financing problems that are being experienced. Then we must not rant and rave at one another—there should be an open-door policy between the university and the relevant Minister, because the university is the chief negotiator for what it needs for its work.
If the demographic profile at the Government’s disposal indicates that student numbers are going to decrease within the next few years, and the State puts it to the universities that their numbers will have to decrease and assume more manageable proportions, we must not be churlish to one another about this, but discuss matters instead.
I was privy to the discussions the hon the Minister held with the universities, and I want to thank him for the compassion with which he dealt with this matter. I want to thank him for having held frank discussions with them, for having opened his door to them and for having requested further negotiations. I am also grateful for the fact that he involved the own affairs Ministers in this issue and that he gave the universities an opportunity to enter into discussions with one another, by way of their own affairs Ministers, with a view to finding solutions to the existing problems. I want to make use of this forum to direct an earnest request to the few universities that saw this as an opportunity to hit back, and my request is that they should not behave in this fashion when we disagree amongst ourselves about a specific point. [Interjections.] That is not the way in which one should deal with these matters, because we approached the universities in a positive spirit, trying to prevent them from regarding this, in advance, as an attempt on our part to initiate conflict.
We must put matters right. Other avenues for discussion were opened up by these negotiations, and this will lead to better discussions in the future. This forum must be purged in the interests of the important, constructive work that universities do in our young country. They are a major factor in giving substance to the South Africa that lies ahead for us, and I hope that in this way we shall once more establish a sound perspective. We thank those universities which are doing their level best to function within these parameters and to approach as closely as possible to the ideal. Those are universities which are able to maintain sound discipline for themselves so that a healthy climate can be created for students to study in.
Mr Chairman, it is with pleasure that I take the floor after the hon member for Brentwood has spoken. In my view he dealt very responsibly with a specific matter of current interest to our universities, and I think the hon member made a good contribution.
In the time at my disposal in this debate I want to give attention to an aspect of the functions of the Department of National Education which generally does not receive attention in the debate. I am referring to the work of the cultural attaches in the service of the Department of National Education abroad.
From reports about the functions of the cultural attachés which have come to my attention, it is clear that those people are a very important part of the teams at the respective embassies. Although tremendous onslaughts are being launched on South Africa in the cultural sphere, as in the political sphere, our cultural attachés succeed in building extremely important cultural bridges and in making South Africa’s cultural activities known to countries abroad, because the old adage “unknown, unloved” is also applicable there.
The wide variety of projects successfully engaged in by cultural attachés abroad, and the large number of questions they deal with annually, are striking proof of the doors that are still open to South Africa in the cultural-educational sphere. Projects that are being tackled cover the whole cultural spectrum and vary from lectures and speeches to universities and other institutions and interest groups to exhibits of South African artistic and cultural assets, concerts and other public performances by South African artists and participation in book-exhibits. South Africa, for example, participated very successfully in book-exhibits in London, Geneva, Jerusalem and Antwerp.
The department has a programme in terms of which selected choirs travel on subsidised visits abroad. Thus, for example, the Stellenbosch String Ensemble, the KwaSiza Bantu Choir and the Durban Male Choir will be visiting Europe. [Interjections.] The hon member Dr Geldenhuys shouted “Hear, hear!” when I referred to Stellenbosch. I do not blame him, Sir! It is not his fault that he did not have the privilege of studying at the greatest Afrikaans university in the world. [Interjections.] I am merely saying that in passing.
Another aspect that we have to highlight is that of the youth exchange scheme. This is further proof of the open-door policy and the favourable way in which South Africa is still regarded world-wide. At present we have exchange schemes with France, Belgium, Taiwan and the Netherlands, whilst youth leaders from various European countries and Britain visit the RSA annually, as a group, at the invitation of the Department of National Education. The student bursary scheme for post-graduate research students to study in South Africa is also extremely popular, and between 22 and 25 students from all over Europe, Israel, the USA and South America annually undertake research, with the financial assistance of the Department of National Education, at various South African universities.
Another aspect of the functions of the Department of National Education and its cultural attachés that I want to highlight is that in accordance with the cultural-educational guest programme of the department specially targeted opinion-formers and influential people are annually invited to South Africa to familiarise themselves with the South African way of life, the economy, the social and political system and our country’s cultural heritage.
Without exception we obtain positive feedback after these visits have been completed, with those people becoming some of the most important contact-persons for the cultural attaches and other mission staff, and also for other South Africans on official visits abroad. These visits also embody tremendous benefits for South African institutions, for example universities, departments of education, museums, performing arts councils, individual artists and academics. Contacts which are built up in this way with colleges and institutions open up doors which were closed to us in the past. Attitudes are thereby changed and South Africa is given a forum in which to put its case—something which becomes increasingly important by the day.
The ripple-effect generated by the success of the guest invitation programme cannot be sufficiently emphasised. I myself have had contact with official guests of the department, and on this occasion I want to congratulate the department on the outstanding calibre of the guests invited to South Africa.
The music competition presented by the University of South Africa, in conjunction with the Department of National Education, is a great success. The recent competitions for piano and string instruments brought judges from 19 countries to South Africa. Overseas participation in the Roodepoort Eisteddfod has increased by 600% since 1981. I therefore want to pay tribute today to all those people in other countries who are, under the most difficult of circumstances, building cultural bridges which will lead to a better understanding of South Africa. I should like to thank those people. I think they deserve the gratitude of South Africa as a whole.
I am delighted at the appointment of Prof R H Behrens as cultural attache in Austria. There are countries in which such good progress is being made that more workers are needed there. I know that when the hon the Minister replies to the debate he will highlight the matter of the lack of finance. I really do want to make an earnest appeal to the hon the Minister to have us identify those countries in which such excellent progress is being made and then offer them more assistance.
In conclusion I also want to ask the hon the Minister, in co-operation with the department, to investigate the possibility of the appointment of cultural attachés for the TBVC countries and other friendly African countries too. I remain convinced that if other countries had a better understanding of South Africa’s cultural set-up, they would also have a better understanding of this country as a whole, and then of our political problems in particular. I therefore regard it as vital to dynamically extend the depth and scope of the work done by our cultural attaches abroad—overseas and in African countries.
Mr Chairman, there are two matters I should like to discuss with the hon the Minister. The first concerns the additional payments made to certain Black teachers in 1987. The second matter is that of parity in teachers’ salaries, set off against deductions in the form of pension and PAYE contributions.
Firstly I want to know from the hon the Minister why a certain female Black teacher—I have copies of the relevant documents here—initially received a cheque of R4 295,96 in October 1987 and then a further cheque of R3 874 on 6 November. [Interjections.]
Who signed those cheques?
Since the hon the Minister of National Education is entrusted with the policy-making and financing functions, I want to know from him what those cheques were for, why such a situation arose and whether similar amounts were paid out, during 1987, to other male or female teachers who were in the employ of the Department of Education and Training at that stage.
I am seeking an explanation for this state of affairs because the gross remuneration of this specific person to whom I am referring, excluding the above-mentioned two cheques, was only R9 614 for the 1986-87 financial year. This person falls in the qualification group designated as AA, and we therefore know that her qualifications are very meagre. She was also acting principal of the school, receiving R412 per month for that.
The problem I have here is that I cannot determine how she qualified for the two cheques jointly totalling more than R8 000. According to what policy or criterion was this additional remuneration made to this person? Is this situation going to repeat itself in future, and how did it become necessary for a female teacher with these poor qualifications to receive two such large additional amounts, and in such quick succession? So much for that.
Order! I was just going to say that the hon member should leave the matter at that.
Secondly, Sir, in Beeld of Saturday, 16 April, I read the following report under the heading “NP-LP se kritiek onwaar”, and I should like to quote the third and fourth paragraphs of the report:
Mnr Christophers het Maandag onder meer gese as staatsamptenare vanjaar ’n verhoging van 14% en onderwysers ’n verhoging van 37% gekry het, sou al die voordele van die Staat se verwagte hoër inkomste onmiddellik uitgewis gewees het.
I immediately want to give the hon member for Germiston the assurance that getting personal is never my way of doing things in this House, and I therefore apologise for having had to mention his name here in this quotation.
Two things become very clear to me from this report. The first is that in the ranks of the NP there is not complete consensus on certain matters concerning their own way of looking at things. In this case the NP’s problem is our delight! [Interjections.]
Secondly, the hon member for Germiston made the point that an increase of 14% for public servants, and an increase of 37% for teachers, would have neutralised all the benefits of the State’s expected increased revenue. In the interests of this debate I shall merely focus my attention on the increase for teachers, assuming that here we are talking of White teachers only. Is this the sacrifice that the State expects teachers to make for the sake of greater budgetary revenue?
Yesterday I listened very attentively to the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs saying that in the long run it would be worth double the money to have street-lighting for the Ben Schoeman highway. How much more worthwhile would it not be to invest in White education and White teachers’ salaries? I do not think there need ever be any doubt about this.
The Government is engaged in introducing parity amongst the teachers of various population groups. I want to present the hon the Minister with the example of a White teacher with a salary of R3 112 and an invigilating allowance of R389, having had R248 deducted for pension and R849 for PAYE. Added together, these amounts total R1 098. For the purposes of this argument I am not considering other deductions.
A Black teacher with a salary of R3 238 had deductions totalling R351.
I have the documents here in my possession, and I take it the amount includes pension and PAYE. The White teacher has therefore paid a great deal more in PAYE and pension contributions. How is this to be reconciled with the idea of parity? If we are saying equal pay for equal work—perhaps we should rather say equal work for equal pay—and if equal amounts of work were done in this case, we are asking why the White teacher, in this comparison, took less money home at the end of the day. Whites pay the major portion of the income tax which subsidises the service furnished to Blacks. Our opinion is that while the incomes of workers have been artificially equalised, the expenditure incurred by White families is higher than that of non-Whites.
The comparison I presented to hon members—I have the photostated documents here—is further proof of the fact that the NP has forgotten about the Whites, in this case the White teachers, has left them in the lurch and is using rules and regulations to deprive them of their political freedom. The NP wants to buy popularity from the other population groups at a cheap price for the sake of achieving its ideal of a unitary state behind the smokescreen of parity.
In the past White teachers have always nurtured the basis of Afrikaner nationalism and have furnished work of a high standard, and they can therefore rightly claim a decent living and also the right to take home a rightful share of their salaries. Thus the best and best qualified educators would be retained for the teaching profession, because they work with our most valuable asset, our White children. After all, the majority of those teachers are basically sound Afrikaners, people who have, over the years, made an outstanding contribution to the prosperity, peace and progress in our country. They are cultivated, decent, intelligent and thinking human beings with an unshakeable loyalty to their people and their fatherland.
Parity is a fine idea, but then it must be justly implemented. Will the hon the Minister give attention to this matter, or is his time being taken up by the speech of the hon member for Innesdal, who was so wonderfully supported by the hon member for Umlazi? We ask the hon the Minister to give his attention to this problem and to forget about the problems of his party about which we are jubilant.
Mr Chairman, the hon member for Delmas really jumped from one topic to another, from the Ben Schoeman Highway and street-lights to the small pleasures he derives from small things, and this merely goes to show once again what small ideas those hon members occupy their minds with. [Interjections.]
I merely want to refer, too, to one of the sweeping statements he has just made. Only yesterday the hon the Minister of Finance gave a detailed explanation of the question of taxation, and today the hon member comes along once more with the question of the major portion of taxation being paid by Whites.
But it is true, is it not!
I do not want to give any further attention to that, however. Today I want to discuss another aspect of the Department of National Education’s tasks, and that is sport.
Mixed sport!
Sport plays some role or other in every person’s life. Whether he is a participant or merely a spectator, everyone gets a degree of pleasure or satisfaction from sport. There is as much pleasure in participating in sport as there is in seeing Naas Botha score a drop goal against Western Province, for example. [Interjections.] It is not my intention to make contentious statements.
Over the past few years the Government has been extremely successful in removing sport completely from the political arena, and it is no longer the function of the Government—or the central Government—to take the initiative, its function being rather to play a supportive role in sport.
Sport is probably one of the most potent instruments for promoting sound interpersonal relations, and it is therefore a pity that politically inspired international action against South Africa has denied this country’s sportsmen and sportswomen an opportunity of competing internationally. Let me just mention a few examples of what happened in 1987 to deny South African sportsmen and the sporting public international participation. Owing to political considerations the Springbok rugby team was not allowed to participate in the world club series in Australia and New Zealand during May and June of 1987. In many fields, however, no team in the world can claim to be world champion if it has not competed against South Africa, and this applies to rugby as well.
Then there is also the pressure applied by the Australian Government against a prospective South African rugby tour, which was then cancelled. There is also the World Boxing Association with its negative attitude to the South African National Boxing Control Board’s continued membership. The Spanish Davis Cup team withdrew from the Standard Bank Trophy tournament owing to pressure from the Spanish Government. So I could go on.
So your concessions did not achieve anything. [Interjections.]
Fortunately international sportsmen have begun to rebel against the political interference of those countries in the activities of our sportsmen who want to participate in international sport.
As an example let me mention the case which has been in the news during the past few days, that of Zola Budd. For really incomprehensible reasons—or else there must be ulterior motives—she has been refused permission to participate in international sport. An innocent athlete, who is only interested in participating in sport, is now being denied participation as a result of unjust political interference. [Interjections.] Fortunately resistance to this interference is mounting in certain countries, and now in Britain in particular, and I hope that as far as she is concerned a decision will be taken which is in the best interests of sport and sport alone.
Today I want pay tribute to the South African sportsmen and sports administrators who, in spite of all these difficulties, still manage to arrange for international participation by sportsmen from South Africa and by sportsmen coming to South Africa. I just want to mention a few figures. In 1987 a total of 1 738 participants and coaches from 93 different countries, representing 87 types of sport, visited South Africa. There were 805 South African participants—44 types of sport—who visited 43 countries.
We in South Africa have world-class sportsmen and sportswomen in every type of sport. Let us just take a few examples in athletics. Take, for example, the world championship meeting held in Rome; there Johan Fourie would probably have taken first place in the 1 500m, because the times recorded at that meeting have been bettered by him on several occasions. Take, for example, Zuthulele Sinqe’s non-official world record during the South African marathon meeting in East London, with a time approximately one minute faster than the time recorded at this world-class meeting.
One could mention other athletes who achieved world-class standards. I am thinking of Desire du Plessis, Evette de Klerk, Johan Rossouw and Matthews Temane. [Interjections.] One can find examples in virtually every kind of sport. Take golf, for example, where David Frost and Mark McNulty have again had top-class achievements in world competition. Take cricket, for example—hon members know that in world competition Clive Rice’s achievements were absolutely fantastic.
Tell us something we know nothing about!
I am trying to adapt to the prevailing standards. [Interjections.]
Order!
In the modern society in which we are living today the free time people have is increasing, and I want to thank the department for the projects it tackled last year, in co-operation with other bodies, ie Trimweek ’87 and Big Move ’87, which were both a great success. Hon members know that the purpose of Trimweek ’87, presented by Trimsa, the red-meat industry and the department, was to re-establish an awareness, amongst the inhabitants of South Africa, of the importance of recreational exercise. This project was such a great success that it is planned to repeat it this year. Three hundred cities and 200 000 people participated in Big Move ’87.
Even though hon members of the Official Opposition referred so dismissively to this, I want to pay tribute on behalf of this side of the Committee to sportsmen for their achievements, despite all the difficulties they have encountered internationally. We thank them and we are on their side, proud of these achievements of theirs. They must go on adding to these achievements.
Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to take the floor after the hon member for Sunnyside has spoken. I am tempted to react to a few of the matters the hon member for Delmas broached, but I shall refrain from doing so and leave it to the hon the Minister to settle accounts with him.
Perhaps I just could mention that this is again proof of the fact that the hon member used this debate to make cheap politics out of education, and to continue with this transparent game of theirs in this House by distorting and wrenching out of context everything the NP stands for and everything the NP says. The hon member’s game cannot continue indefinitely, and he is underestimating the intelligence of the teachers of this country. [Interjections.]
On behalf of this side of the Committee I also want to congratulate the hon the Minister, the Director-General and his officials for a very elegant and comprehensive annual report which hon members have in their possession.
Today we have also noted, with appreciation, the Government’s standpoint on the President’s Council report on the youth of the Republic of South Africa. I also want to thank the hon the Minister of National Education, in his capacity as chairman of the relevant Cabinet Committee, for his very positive attitude to our country’s youth. This is confirmed by the Government’s comments and the youth strategy which has been announced.
South Africa’s future is in the hands of the youth of today. What I mean is that the further development in this country, and the achievements of this country in the future, but also the danger of retrogression and the possibility of what has been built up over the centuries being undermined, will be determined by the young people of today. For that reason a tremendous responsibility rests on the State, the Church, the family and educational institutions to guide the youth to the realisation of their full potential.
We are living in a changing world in which the increasing demands made upon our young people are alarming. Gone are the days when young people in rural areas grew up in a protective cocoon. These rapid changes have made the life of our youth much more complex in every sphere of life and have also brought them many problems. It is therefore gratifying that the Government has not simply taken note of these negative and destructive forces and influences on the development of young people, but has also helped to counter them.
Let us say once more that we have great confidence in the youth. It is reassuring to discover that the majority of young people have, within themselves, the wonderful potential to conscientiously pursue the national goals as set out in the Preamble to the Constitution; young men and women who at this country’s call will not falter, who will stand firm and steadfast and who will also live or die for the Republic of South Africa. May I also, in all humility, associate myself with the idea expressed by the hon the State President last week when he asked if the time had not come for us to consider having schoolchildren, at the beginning of each school-day, read the Preamble to the Constitution out loud.
Last year the President’s Council report of the Committee for Social Affairs on the Youth of South Africa appeared. On 6 February 1986 the President’s Council resolved to advise the hon the State President, in terms of section 78(1) of the Constitution, on the following matter:
The President’s Council also made comprehensive use of expert evidence and advice, and they also submitted that report of theirs. No fewer than 116 memorandums were received, 118 literary sources were consulted and 95 persons and groups furnished evidence.
The Government studied the report and reacted to it yesterday evening. The Government’s general viewpoint, based on the report, is the following.
Firstly, the report generally contains information which is valuable to all private and public bodies involved in youth work. Secondly, the Government wants to encourage all public and private bodies involved in youth work to study the report in detail and to take note of what it contains. Thirdly, although parents are primarily responsible, in the family context, for the upbringing of the youth, the Government realises that the State also has a responsibility towards young people. Fourthly, youth campaigns will take cognisance of the fact that problems involving the youth impact on a number of spheres in which both the authorities and the private sector are active. Lastly, in a democratic society it devolves upon the State to play a strong co-ordinating role in regard to matters affecting the youth in spheres other than education.
Linking up with the fact that the State’s activities in regard to youth have been well-structured within the framework of the Constitution, the Government has also decided to accept a youth strategy which will broadly serve to define goals for specific departments, without encroaching upon the autonomy of own affairs departments. The following praiseworthy objectives—five in all—have been accepted for the national youth strategy.
Firstly, sound values and positive attitudes, also in regard to other population groups, and including knowledge, acceptance, understanding and appreciation, should be inculcated in all young people. Secondly, young people should be presented with opportunities to practice leadership and self-development and to learn potentially productive skills. Thirdly, young people must be granted an opportunity to spend their time meaningfully, for example in playing sport and in involvement in community development campaigns. Fourthly, young people at community level must develop a loyalty and love for what is their own and also for our common cultural heritage, emanating from the points of contact at which the respective cultures interact. Fifthly, young people must be motivated to express joint appreciation for, and loyalty to, the RSA and its people.
With reference to the President’s Council report, I briefly want to deal further with some of the Government’s standpoints in which it is stated once more that the Government is fully aware of the State’s responsibility to our youth. In modern times, in fact, the provision of education and welfare has become one of the primary functions of the State on which enormous amounts from the Treasury are spent. The Government is also of the opinion that notwithstanding extensive publicly and privately initiated youth campaigns, more will have to be done in the RSA. Because the report deals with youth as a whole, numerous spheres of life, in which both the authorities and the private sector are active, have been placed under scrutiny. Some problems are only experienced by young people, but they cannot be tackled by focussing on the youth in isolation. The Government is of the opinion that the report should individually be borne in mind, in the realisation of their objectives, by bodies involved in youth work, rather than having the State accept an overall policy exclusively aimed at the youth. The recommendations are divided into four categories. I want to content myself, however, with one category of the President’s Council recommendations and the Government’s comments in regard to youth campaigns in formal education. There are quite a few recommendations—six to be precise—of the President’s Council dealing with the necessity for more ample provision to be made for bringing elevated spiritual and moral values home to young people; for school syllabuses to convey, even at an early stage, the basic principles of progress and the improvement in the quality of life, etc.
Regarding the Government’s comment on that, I merely want to mention that the White Paper on the Provision of Education in the RSA contains the Government’s standpoint on education in its various facets. Since then a great deal of progress has been made on the establishment of a new system of education. This has led to the creation of policy advisory structures in which all groups in the country participate and in which policy is determined for all education in the country. Within this framework, and within the context of the freedom of choice and the autonomy of the various cultural and geographic communities, recommendations of the President’s Council on the inculcation of elevated spiritual and moral values of the Christian religion will receive constant attention.
Departments of education will also, on the basis of the Government’s comments, have to adapt programmes to give attention, where necessary, to the promotion of family life, for example to career-orientated and community-orientated communication, to discipline in education and guidance about phenomena indicative of some or other aberration.
In conclusion I want to appeal to all the partners involved in the education of our youth to become conscious once more of the value and the abilities of our young people and to help in shaping men and women, some of whom are still young boys and girls, who will serve our fine country with grace and distinction.
Mr Chairman, the hon nominated member who has just resumed his seat said so many nice things about our youth that one is tempted to hope that he will soon come to understand why young people support the CP so enthusiastically. [Interjections.]
I should like to refer to the application brought by the University of Cape Town and the University of the Western Cape, in the Cape Supreme Court, against the hon the Minister of National Education, amongst others, an application which was awarded with costs. The judgment which was issued basically stated that the conditions imposed should be declared invalid. We take no delight at the embarrassment caused, in the process, to the hon the Minister of National Education and others. We take no delight at the fact that the Government’s efforts to ensure discipline and order on certain university campuses did not succeed. In fact, on more than one occasion the CP has asked the Government to take firm action against undesirable elements on certain university campuses. As far as the CP is concerned, it is vital that university campuses should not become springboards or breedinggrounds for those whose aim it is to jeopardise the good order and interests of the country and to replace the existing order by violent means with a Marxist order.
Now that the Government’s efforts at doing what the CP encouraged it to do have failed, there are two important questions that arise. The first is why the Government persevered with the relevant subsidy conditions, in spite of well-considered, expert advice to the contrary. We have information indicating that the Government received timely and appropriate advice not to proceed with these conditions. We are tempted to conclude that this is simply another of the many exercises which the Government did not want to succeed from the start. [Interjections.] We hope we are wrong. [Interjections.]
The second question is what the hon the Minister now proposes to do. Reasons for the finding were made known approximately a month and a half ago. We now confirm our repeated requests to the Government to take effective action in this matter. We should like to know what the hon the Minister proposes to do.
A second matter I should like to refer to involves the media-release yesterday by the hon the Minister about youth matters relating to education. Firstly let me refer to pages 5 and 6 which refer to the Government’s standpoint on the structures within which education will be provided by the State. I quote:
In this connection let me also refer to Press reports which appeared at the end of last year about the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid supposedly having told businessmen that it was Government policy to establish a single system of education for the country as a whole. This is in line with the view of the hon the State President. It is also in line with the views expressed in the De Lange report and the Government’s White Paper on education. It is probably a good thing for the voters to take note once more of the fact that no value can be attached to the Government’s claims about guaranteeing an own system of education for Whites in terms of the own affairs administration. The Government’s goal is one system of education for all the inhabitants of the country, regardless of race, colour, creed, sex or ethnic ties.
The assurance about own departments of education for each population group then becomes a farce, because one system for everyone would put increasing pressure on the unique character of the various departments and ultimately swallow those departments up in the equality and multiracialism of one system of education for everyone. The already extended multiracial education advisory structure is, even at this stage, undermining the distinct character of that department.
I also want to refer to the President’s Council’s recommendation that a comprehensive youth strategy be developed under the auspices of the Department of National Education. In the Press release the Government referred to the fact that a formulated national youth campaign already existed. I quote the following sentence from page 9 of the report:
The question that now arises is what precisely the Government’s aim is, specifically the aim of the hon the Minister of National Education in his role as co-ordinator and guiding light in this sphere. What is the aim with this single youth strategy and how much of this R22 million has already been spent on the ideal of one new nation for all the inhabitants of the this country, regardless of race, colour, creed, sex or ethnic ties. How much of this R22 million has already been spent on brainwashing and conditioning our own White youth to accept the one multicoloured, multiracial and multi-ethnic nation of the new NP?
We know, amongst other things, of the multicultural recreational courses and so on. We think that these are valid questions for fellow-Whites and fellow-Afrikaners to ask one another. I should like to know where these powers of the Department of National Education are to be found in the Constitution or elsewhere so that we can know where we stand.
According to Schedule 1, education at all levels, including certain specific matters, is an own affair. Theoretically only norms and standards for the financing of current and capital costs in education, salaries and conditions of service of staff, the professional registration of teachers, norms and standards for syllabuses and examinations and the certification of qualifications should be regarded as general affairs. It is not that simple, but I cannot go into that at the moment.
Of course it is not that simple! You are over-simplifying matters to suit your argument!
I am glad the hon the Minister is now at my level. I am tempted to tell him that this level suits him much better. Very clearly he is not suited to my hon leader’s level. [Interjections.] In the limited time at my disposal I cannot elucidate all the aspects of the Constitution, and the hon the Minister knows it.
The question is where these functions fit in. Where does the Department of National Education’s role as co-ordinator and guiding light fit into one national youth strategy, against the background of one system of education for all population groups in the country? We believe that this is probably in conflict with the expert advice of good leaders in the sphere of White education. We should like to have the hon the Minister’s reaction to that.
A third matter I want to refer to involves norms for syllabuses. That is one of the specific matters which I have just referred to and which the Whites are not permitted to have as an own affair. These days the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid is making statements about this. So-called core-syllabuses are the order of the day. We expect such statements from the hon the Minister of National Education, but we get them from the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid. This hon Minister of Education and Development Aid was reported in the Sunday Times as having said this among other things:
I quote further:
I quote further:
We are asking the hon the Minister of National Education whether these statements by his colleague do, in fact, refer to core-syllabuses for all population groups. Is this also going to be included in the syllabuses of our White children? It is interpreted in this light, and we should like finality on the matter, because although we understand that these aspects are the actual, logical consequences of NP policy surely we, as fellow-Afrikaners and fellow-Whites, can secretly hope that the hon the Minister of National Education has not yet gone so far as to promote so-called joint core-syllabuses for Whites and non-Whites to the point where certain elements of “people’s education” are taught in White classrooms. [Time expired.]
Mr Chairman, the hon member for Potgietersrus must definitely be the most arrogant back-bencher this House has ever had in its entire history. [Interjections.] I think I shall give him what he deserves and ignore him completely.
One is also very disappointed at the fact that hon members of the Official Opposition who are involved in education make no contribution to the debate on the National Education Vote except to rattle off a list of complaints and distorted cliches about their own warped political views. These hon members have become so accustomed to their cliches that they no longer know what they are saying. In this afternoon’s debate I drew up a short list, and I am going to share one of these cliches with hon members.
I found it very interesting that an hon member, who is so accustomed to using certain terms, said: “Our most precious asset is our White children.” I want to know whether that is an admission. I have only White children. [Interjections.]
Mr Chairman, I would rather bring another, more serious matter to hon members’ attention. Let us rather debate those aspects which can be of benefit to education and training in South Africa. Let us look briefly at the whole question which has become such a serious one, ie that of the rationalisation of universities. The scenario in terms of which our universities have had to function during the past few decades has changed dramatically, chiefly owing to three considerations. Firstly there was an explosion in student numbers. Between 1965 and 1985 the number of students at universities in South Africa increased from 59 000 to 215 000, virtually a fourfold increase—an increase which was much greater than the annual population growth and our economic growth. What is interesting is that until now there has not yet been a significant levelling off of this growth in student numbers.
At the same time, however, there has also been a tremendous explosion of knowledge. This has resulted in increased costs in regard to research apparatus and research material, particularly in the form of literature. It has given rise to a greater need for specialisation, and here too there is still no indication of a decrease in the rate at which the marvels of science are manifesting themselves.
Thirdly there was also an explosion in the demand for manpower. The rapid development of technology and the accentuation of social and constitutional problems have intensified the demand for skilled labour, and this has exerted specific pressure on the universities—primarily we have looked to them to supply that demand.
How have the universities reacted to these explosions that have hit them from three sides? The universities have reacted by growing in accordance with the demands made upon them. Spontaneously—as has happened in other countries, and one cannot blame them for that—the universities have specialised and diversified, and this has led to a considerable increase in courses, departments, institutes, bureaus and faculties. Courses of study have increased and have been adapted. Degrees and diplomas have increased in number and have been adapted. This has happened specifically because our universities are dynamic institutions; because they are institutions which can react and which have inherent growth potential owing to the quality of the people connected with our universities.
It was logical, against the background of this explosion in numbers, and the further demands made upon them, that the universities would react in this way, but uninhibited growth has come up against economic considerations. Uninhibited growth has given rise to the question: Do we always make optimal use of available funds? And it is specifically this question that brings the whole issue of rationalisation into prominence. This has compelled us to give attention to the question of how optimal use can be made of the available funds. The universities are therefore experiencing a period of assessment and reassessment of their specific role and function in South Africa, specifically against the background of these demands we are experiencing. A process of reorientation and the redefinition of the function and the functioning of our universities is at hand.
There is already the realisation, too, that universities cannot encompass the entire field of tertiary education. The demands in regard to numbers and the provision of labour, particularly the latter, must devolve upon technikons. We shall also have to give serious attention to the question of whether universities and colleges of education should not seek points of contact so that greater rationalisation can be effected. Today universities already accept the fact that they should chiefly confine themselves to fundamental, scientific investigation and to the fundamental scientific education of students. This means, therefore, that universities will have to revert to the basic disciplines, because in those disciplines lie their primary function—the long-term provision of high-level manpower.
Skills, applied knowledge, are useful, and good and necessary in the short term, but fundamental or basic knowledge is a long-term investment. That is why we very appreciatively take note of the fact that the Committee of University Principals has already undertaken an in-depth study of this aspect, and is continuing to do so. The hon member for Rissik will probably elaborate on this in more detail. The important point we should take note of is that we can trust universities themselves to make a basic assessment of their own role and function. I believe that the State should also understand this process, because it is a traumatic experience to be dealing with bodies which are dynamic in character. It is a traumatic experience for institutions which have to adjust those dynamic characteristics to a specific framework or to specific limits. It is nevertheless my conviction that if the dynamic aspects inherent in our universities can be directed, with a concentrated focus, on whatever field of endeavour they select, our universities can reach unparallelled heights.
In this context, too, our universities can depend upon the support of the State. There must not, however, be any tension between the State and the universities. That is not in the interests of the State. Nor is it in the interests of science or in the interests of universities. Apart from the reassessment of their academic role, however, some universities will also have to reassess their role in the community and the ideological role they have chosen to play.
Nor must any tension be allowed to exist between the lecturing staff and the Government. I state unequivocally that there is the utmost appreciation, on the part of this side of the House, for the contribution made by the majority of our lecturers as both scientists and educators. Unequivocally I also state my understanding of the fact that university lecturers have fallen quite a long way behind as far as remuneration is concerned. I believe that with calmness and wisdom we shall be able to negotiate this phase of adaptation that universities are going through at present with the object of confirming their leadership role. Universities are the cradle of the highest values of our Western heritage—the values of freedom of spirit and freedom of thought. Do we not, more than ever before, specifically need people now who can think freely, but with fundamental honesty, about the future of South Africa? [Time expired.]
Mr Chairman, it is a singular privilege for me to take the floor after the hon member for Sundays River has spoken, because there is a specific matter on which I should like to cross swords with him. After the recent national rugby club championships in Durban, I think the hon member for Sundays River would like to be known as the hon member for Despatch, a town in his constituency. [Interjections.] From that hon member’s speech it is clear that he is a great expert who has a vast degree of experience of university life. I want to put it to him, however, that the way in which people from his constituency have disrupted university life on the rugby field is a matter that universities will competently be rectifying as quickly as possible. [Interjections.]
A second matter I should like to raise at the beginning of my speech involves the fact that when the question of the irritation between the State and certain universities is discussed, mention is made of the quality of the young people on campuses and of the matters that engage their attention.
I should like to mention that during the past few days I have had the privilege of being host to the Students’ Representative Council of the University of Pretoria which visited Parliament. This is an occasion on which they were subjected to a wide gamut of political views. I was impressed throughout by the exceptional quality and responsibility of the views of these young people. If our campuses are producing such student leaders, one can in fact face the future with great confidence. As far as their philosophy of life is concerned, they have their feet firmly on the ground, but they nevertheless have a sound modicum of critical judgement which is necessary to allow every new generation to improve upon what a previous generation has established.
I should like to confine myself to certain aspects of universities and, in particular, relate these aspects to our financial and economic challenges in South Africa. The decisive word here, which is also emphasised by the whole strategy, is rationalisation. It is specifically in relation to this that I want to highlight certain matters here. With a singular understanding of the autonomy of universities, I should like to mention what universities themselves are apparently doing, of their own volition, in the sphere of rationalisation.
The groundwork in regard to what they are doing is very comprehensively set out in the report published on the initiative of the Committee of University Principals by a committee which it appointed under the chairmanship of Prof De Lange. Many of the matters touched upon in that report have already been mutually agreed to by members of the Committee of University Principals, while certain other matters have been referred for further investigation. I want to emphasise that no one who wishes to speak critically or with authority about universities these days can do so without taking into account what is contained in this report. The report of is of a sufficiently general nature to include every university with its own unique view of things and its own unique character, and yet it is specific enough not to be irrelevant.
An important aspect touched upon in this report concerns the guidelines with which universities must comply and the challenge facing universities in South Africa. I should briefly like to sum up the five guidelines laid down in the report by the Committee of University Principals and state these guidelines in simple language. In this connection I must mention that that report was written in university Afrikaans which has a unique and individual character.
The first guideline the universities agreed upon was that the demand for the relevancy of universities should be taken into account, but without sacrificing intellectual creativity.
The second guideline was that as centres for cultural development, universities should tie in with the social and cultural values of their support communities, but in such a way as to facilitate the promotion of a wider experience of a human nature across cultural boundaries. We in the NP speak of own affairs and general affairs and of a specific balance that has to be maintained between the two.
A third guideline laid down for universities was that they should acknowledge that their autonomy should be exercised with responsibility and self-discipline, but that universities ought to maintain their claim to autonomy as an indispensable precondition for the efficient implementation of their academic functions. At the same time they ought to acknowledge the limitations to which their decision-making powers are subject.
The fourth guideline which was agreed upon was that the benefits of university study ought to be accessible to everyone who had the ability, aptitude and interest, due regard being had to the financial limitations to which universities are subject and the nature and scope of manpower requirements. It was also stated that academic standards should not be sacrificed as far as universities are concerned.
The last guideline which was agreed upon by the Committee of University Principals, and which is contained in the report, was that universities, as legal entities, should acknowledge their dependence upon and accountability to the State. By their own nature, however, the universities are also a community of truth-seekers who with academic integrity play a role, in a free and open dialogue, as a conscience of the State and society.
I think that these are balanced guidelines reflecting viewpoints that one can live with. They establish a basis for the role and function of universities, one on which universities can continue to make an important contribution, in future, to manpower, training and the provision of leadership in South Africa.
This report specifically mentions that there is a threefold approach to rationalisation which, I think, it is particularly meaningful to bear in mind at all times. Firstly it is stated that there can be rationalisation within the tertiary educational sector. Here it is specifically mentioned that every tertiary educational institution should very clearly define its purpose in tertiary education so that the defined tasks of universities, colleges of education and technikons, for example, can be clearly apparent. To a specific extent the contribution and role of each institution in the research function should be spelt out very clearly.
A very important aspect of this matter of rationalisation is mentioned as falling within the province of the State. One would also like to have the hon the Minister’s comments on this. It is stated that if the institutions cannot jointly take relevant action within the context of tertiary education, it will be the State’s task to take a lead in rationalisation at this level and to bring these various institutions together.
A second way in which rationalisation should be carried out is at the inter-university level. Numerous examples are mentioned of what can be done, amongst other things the elimination of specific faculties at universities so that the remaining faculties can obtain more funds to do work of a higher quality. Certain universities could also specialise in post-graduate fields which do not necessarily have to be available at other universities.
The last level of rationalisation which is addressed is that of rationalisation within a single university itself, for example by restructuring courses, diplomas, degrees, departments and faculties and by reassessing the nature of lectures and the way in which they are given and, in particular, by placing increasing emphasis on extramural training and the combination of full-time and extramural classes.
I am convinced that what is said in this report about rationalisation is, in principle, impressive and commendable. It shows that universities can, on their own initiative, take decisions on matters such as rationalisation and other concomitant aspects, as the hon member for Sundays River also stated. [Time expired.]
Mr Chairman, I will be dealing with universities a little later in my speech. I would like to begin where I left off and refer to the salaries dispute. There seems to be a conspiracy on the part of the NP not to make any reference to it, and to leave it entirely to the hon the Minister. That may be a wise approach.
I said that by January 1988 Reces had not been called to meet. Then came the hon the State President’s opening address indicating no general salary increase. The teaching profession, represented by the Teachers’ Federal Council, then moved to highlight the backlog existing in the profession. The hon the Minister of National Education knows that they met with the hon the State President in what can certainly not be described as a meeting of like minds—I think that is an understatement—at which the hon the State President indicated that the teachers could not be met in their demand that their backlog of 11% in comparison with the rest of the Public Service be eliminated.
Subsequently these teachers met with the hon the Minister on 9 March, when a change became noticeable in the Government’s attitude to the backlog. In a statement on that day, the hon the Minister indicated the following:
That is the private consultants’ report commissioned by the TFC—
It has become clear that the chronology of events after 9 March indicates that both Reces and Ces have met and, it is felt, viewed the teachers’ backlog with some sympathy. The events which follow the two meetings of Ces and Reces would necessarily mean—if we follow the normal pattern of events—that both departmental and ministerial meetings need to be held to consider the recommendations of Ces. Clearly this hon Minister is in a position where he has to balance the amount required versus the percentage of the backlog as assessed, versus the time of date of delivery. That is the hon the Minister’s position today.
An educated guess is that the Government could meet the legitimate demands for covering the backlog by paying an increase of some 10% or thereabouts some time in the second half of the year, possibly on 1 October. That is where I believe the hon the Minister is at presently.
In this regard I must also refer to the activities of the Natal Teachers’ Society. The hon member for Pietermaritzburg South, particularly, has had no contact whatsoever with the executive committee of that organisation. When, however, I was invited to speak at a teachers’ protest meeting in Pinetown, I indicated to them clearly that I would only do so on condition that a spokesman for the NP was present. Possibly the NP will acknowledge that as a courtesy at some stage. That meeting of over a thousand teachers was emotional, but controlled, in its displeasure of Government action.
It was fascinating that I, who spoke after the member for Umhlatuzana, was the one that actually had to put the case for fighting inflation, as stated in the hon the State President’s address. It was the PFP, and not the NP, that reflected other claims of the Budget pertaining, for example, to social pensioners, nurses and others.
You should all buy a parrot!
Mr Chairman, the NP was certainly not concerned about doing that. It was the PFP who noted that when the National Union of Teachers took on Margaret Thatcher, she won, but that the big difference here was not the pressure the NTS could exert, but that of the Transvaalse Onderwysersunie and other bodies which are traditionally close to Government. It was the PFP who warned the NTS not to alienate the parents of pupils but to work with them in any action they contemplated.
It has been suggested that my colleague from Durban North and I might be aggravating the situation, but who is aggravating the situation? All I have to do is to send copies of the speeches of the hon member for Pietermaritzburg South and that of the hon member for Germiston to the TFC and they will become aggravated. I quote from a speech delivered by the hon member for Pietermaritzburg South on 23 February. Referring to the TFC’s pamphlet he said:
[Inaudible.]
Order!
Mr Chairman, I am quoting from Hansard. The hon member said:
This is totally incorrect, as the hon member now says. Why does he say these things then?
I now quote the hon member for Germiston from his uncorrected Hansard:
Mr Chairman, we are not doing the aggravating; it is the hon members on those benches who do so. [Interjections.] I suggest that the hon the Minister and his colleague in the House of Assembly speak to those backbenchers about this kind of thing. [Interjections.]
I stated to the NTS that I believed they would come up with a considered action, and they did. The hon the Minister must take careful note of what I have to say today. I believe the NTS needs to give clear consideration in consultation with the leadership of the TFC to a cool and calm assessment of the likely chronology of events over the next two weeks, and they must accept a satisfactory agreement which may result for the payment of the backlog. It will not serve to demand all and get nothing. It may well be necessary to accept what the TFC and the majority of teachers’ bodies can achieve in this case. The hon the Minister knows that there is great unhappiness regarding the negotiating mechanism, and that progress in this regard needs to be seen together with the response of the hon the Minister of Finance to the outcome of negotiations.
It is useless to negotiate for two years and be told two weeks before the Budget as the hon the Minister’s and other departments were told, that there is no money for what has been negotiated. That is not negotiation. That is ridiculous.
In this connection a clear example concerning the private schools comes to mind. The hon the Minister has a formula for funding the private schools. It is a good formula and we have supported it. However, in the end we hear that no money is available.
There are two questions I wish to raise with the hon the Minister regarding this. Firstly, when is he going to meet with the National Federation of Parent Bodies, who, it is understood from Press reports, have called upon the hon the Minister to meet the legitimate demands of teachers for backlogs to be resolved?
I have already met them.
Good! I am very pleased. I trust he will respond concerning what happened at that meeting.
Secondly, on a lighter note I should like to ask the hon the Minister whether he could tell us what happened when he met the teachers in his constituency. Did he get as rough a going over as the hon members for Pietermaritzburg South, Pietermaritzburg North and Umhlatuzana did when they met the teachers? I understand, from what we have been told via some of our colleagues on the right, that he found life a little difficult at that meeting.
It was a constructive meeting. [Interjections.]
If I could turn to the remarks of some of the hon members who spoke before me, I should like to make a remark particularly appropriate about the universities. There have been three or four speakers, particularly the hon members for Brentwood, Sundays River and Rissik, who spoke regarding the size of the universities, and they particularly used the term “rationalisation”. I wish to put it to this hon Minister that what still has not been come to terms with is the question of the growth in the Black demand to go to a tertiary institution. I quote from the Syncom document of which the hon the Minister will be aware. It states that in 1984 there were 1 800 White students per 100 000 Whites at university, while there were 58 nonWhites. That gives us an average of 434, or 130 000 students if we exclude Unisa.
If we think that the number of White students who wish to go to university is still likely to increase, and even if we put the figure at 2 000, and if we put the figure for Black students who want to go to university at only 500 per 100 000, we get an increase in student population in 20 years’ time of over 175 000. Rationalisation is all very well, but we still have not come to grips with the question of equalising the student demand for those facilities.
It is speculated in Syncom that 17 giant new universities would be required to meet that need. They say it seems unaffordable. I agree with them. What we cannot assume is that the number of White students going to university will remain the same or increase, while the number of Black students will decrease. It will not. It will continue to increase and increase greatly. We have to come to terms with that. [Time expired.]
Mr Chairman, in his speech the hon member for Pinetown concentrated mainly on two topics. The one was the salary position of teachers, and the other was the Natal Teachers’ Society. As regards the salary position, I should like to refer the hon member to the comprehensive announcement on this matter by the hon the Minister of National Education, which clearly shows that this is constantly receiving the sympathetic attention of the Government.
As regards the Natal Teachers’ Society, I feel that this is a topic which actually belongs in the own affairs debate. I believe that the matter will be broached there again.
In the time at my disposal I want to draw the attention of hon members to the cultural services which the Department of National Education renders. We are living in a time in which great emphasis is placed on material welfare. This is also the right thing to do. It is important for South Africa, with its complex society, to have a strong and sound economy, because the solutions to our socio-political problems rely heavily on the economic resources of our country. In our pursuit of material prosperity we dare not, however, neglect the spiritual welfare of our population.
Through the Department of National Education this Government is in many respects taking the lead in the promotion of our culture. It is important for the House to consider a few aspects of this. In terms of the Culture Promotion Act of 1983 the Directorate: Culture of the department is responsible for the preservation, development, fostering and extension of culture as a general affair in South Africa. In this process the department gives financial assistance to various declared cultural institutions, conservation bodies and the regional councils for the performing arts. I want to refer briefly to the functions of the regional councils for the performing arts, those of the Human Sciences Research Council and those of the museum services.
Since August 1987 a very important development has taken place with regard to control over the four regional councils for the performing arts in South Africa. Since the said date these councils have no longer been linked to the Department of National Education. In consequence of investigation into the reclassification of Government functions the Cabinet decided that as far as these four regional councils were concerned, transfer payments and specific executive functions should devolve on the respective provincial administrations. The Department is entrusted with determining the national policy on the performing arts, as well as the policy on norms and standards for the financing of these councils. Therefore from this year provision is made in the Budgets of the provincial administrations for the subsidies for these councils. It is important for this House to take cognisance of this development, as well as the extensive work done by the four regional councils for the performing arts during the past year. The productions which they presented, were generally of a high standard. The lively interest which the public showed in these productions attested to this. One would like to see the Black, Coloured and Indian communities supporting these productions in even greater numbers. I wish the regional councils everything of the best in their endeavours to involve all the communities in our society. Only good can come of this. These councils, and particularly their staff—our artists over a very wide front—deserve our thanks and appreciation for their indispensable contribution to the promotion and enrichment of our culture.
I as a Free Stater would like to thank the Performing Arts Council of the OFS for their praiseworthy contribution to the promotion of the performing arts in the OFS. Pacofs and the beautiful Sand du Plessis Theatre have indeed become the Mecca of the performing arts in the Free State. We wish them everything of the best for the future.
Another sphere of assistance in which the Department of National Education is involved, is that in respect of scientific organisation. Here I shall only refer to the functions of the Human Sciences Research Council. It is interesting that the hon member for Brits also referred to the HSRC in his speech this afternoon. He expressed his concern—I hope I am quoting him correctly—about the trend towards left-wing political bias, as revealed in a newsletter of the HSRC on national symbols. The hon member warned the HSRC that it would come into serious conflict with the CP if it continued with left-wing party political propaganda. These are harsh words to address to an organisation like the HSRC, which has done work of unimpeachable quality for 20 years. I do not begrudge the hon member the right to disagree with the HSRC if he sees fit to do so. I did not see the relevant newsletter of the HSRC and I do not want to voice an opinion on its contents. What I do want to say is that I find it interesting that if the HSRC were to proclaim the policy of the CP in its publications, the question arises whether the hon member would then consider it to be scientific. That is the question. I think the hon member’s problem lies between his own party political standpoints and those of scientific objectivity. I think the attack he made on the HSRC earlier this evening was unfair.
Only yesterday we received this very colourful annual report of the HSRC which, by the way, is a very interesting publication the HSRC can be proud of. The overall mission of the HSRC is, through research, study and the putting across of its expertise, to make a contributions to the quality of life of all the inhabitants of our country. This implies that scientific contributions must be made so that all the inhabitants of our country will have an optimum say in and control over their own lives and futures, as well as being able to develop their potential and to achieve total self-realisation.
It is apparent from its activities that in another respect 1987 was a very significant year for this organisation. It was decided inter alia to market the research expertise of the HSRC under the slogan: “Research for Prosperity”. In my opinion this is an apt description of what the HSRC is aiming for. I should like to wish it every success in this regard.
In conclusion I want to refer to the museum services of the Department. Hon members will forgive me if in this regard I refer in particular to the activities of the National Museum in Bloemfontein. One of its satellite organisations is the Olievenhuis Art Museum. This was the home of the Govemors-General and of the State President under the previous dispensation. When the present Constitution came into operation this stately building, with its beautiful garden, was converted into an art museum. We as Free Staters are proud that this old historic building is being used in this way and at the same time it meets a real need for an art museum in Bloemfontein. It is also apparent from the annual report that the planning and conversion of this building has been completed and that building operations can probably start in the course of this year.
I have merely referred to some of the organisations which are supported financially by the Department, and which do important work in the promotion of our culture. However, this is not the work of the State alone, but that of every inhabitant of our country. It is a debt of honour which every generation owes to its descendants. May I therefore appeal to hon members for each of them to make their contribution towards the collecting, the preservation and the utilisation of our cultural heritage.
Mr Chairman, I am not going to react to the hon member for Bloemfontein East, because I want to touch on a completely different topic.
We are aware of the fact that education is in a crisis situation throughout the world. In South Africa, too, we have definitely not escaped this. In our case the root of our problems definitely lies in numbers, particularly in certain of our groups, as well as the small base of the group from which tax can be levied to finance this expenditure. Many grievances are expressed in political terminology, but in reality they are of economic, social and cultural origin. This also applies in respect of education. In the Syncom Report on privatisation in education the following is said in respect of a community-based education system:
Throughout the world there is a growing awareness that education is a community responsibility. Al the same time the demand for equality in the provision of educational facilities under the present dispensation is something we simply cannot accede to fully in monetary terms in South Africa. What is the alternative here? Many other aspects will have to be investigated in the long term, but in reality we only have 12 years left between now and the year 2000 and we shall have to act very quickly in the shorter term, too, in order to tackle these problems.
Modern citizens automatically accept without complaint that they must pay for housing, furniture, motor cars and food. The only commodity which really enables them to pay for these things—ie their training and expertise—is, however, something they expect to get for nothing. Financial involvement in education will definitely lead to responsible choices, better utilisation and greater involvement on the part of everyone concerned.
There are three options we can consider at this stage in an attempt to solve our problems in respect of the provision of education for everyone. The first option is that things should remain as they are now. This therefore means that we must carry on, although we know that this will eventually mean that a tremendous burden will be placed on the Treasury by the year 2000. This would mean that if education goes on growing at the same rate—at the moment it consumes 4,5% of the gross domestic product—by the year 2000 it will have grown to 18,1%. This is almost twice as much as is spent on education in the United Kingdom.
The second option is privatisation. The most important reason for the State’s involvement in education is that it wants to prevent the country’s general level of civilisation from being jeopardised. At first glance, privatisation cannot be in the interests of the country, because it can in actual fact result in a monopoly developing. According to a principle contained in the White Paper on Privatisation and Deregulation, it must be to the long-term advantage of the community in general. The other matter we must never lose sight of is that many parents will not be able to afford education at all, because if education is privatised, we must accept that the profit motive will always be at the forefront.
In an interview on privatisation the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs said that a monopoly could not simply be transferred from the State to the private sector. The alternative is a partnership between the State and the private sector, and therefore in this case between the State and the parent community.
I want to devote the rest of the time at my disposal to the third option, namely semi-privatisation. This goes hand in hand with the devolution of power to local level in education. Parents become joint decision-makers because they now also make direct financial contributions. This will make parents see to it that children utilise their opportunities. What one gets for nothing, one does not always appreciate sufficiently. This is particularly important in Black education, where parent involvement leaves much to be desired at this stage.
In my opinion the State must provide the basic package which will be similar to what it does at the moment, and parents must be allowed by means of management boards to make further inputs to obtain the teachers that are really of the utmost importance to them at that stage.
At the moment the salaries of teachers are not linked to achievement, but are generic. Bad teachers are overpaid and good teachers are underpaid. [Interjections.] This encourages mediocrity in the educational system and discourages the talented and enthusiastic teacher, who chose his vocation in order to realise his ideals, from doing his very best. This also results in our losing teachers in key positions because there is as great a need for them in the private sector where they do get recognition for the fact that they are experts in scarce subjects.
If we were to consider such a supplement at local level, quite a number of very important advantages emerge. In the first place we could look at local conditions and we should probably find that certain subjects are far more important in certain areas than in others. It can therefore be decided to specialise in those subjects in those areas, and then to get the best teachers.
We will then have to introduce the ordinary, very important, principle of supply and demand in education too—something which can only give us a sound educational system in future, particularly in view of the problems we are experiencing with regard to the position of mathematics, science and also accountancy teachers.
The perception of priorities at each school will also be left to the parents in that community, and they will be able to decide what direction the children of that area should be specifically trained in, to meet the needs of the area as regards manpower.
Yes, there are negative aspects; there can be no doubt about that. The better teachers will be lured to better schools in higher socio-economic areas, but one can also consider this. In any case this will help to motivate people in the lower income groups to accept responsibility for the education of their children.
However, there are also many positive aspects—the involvement of the parents, the freedom of choice depending on local conditions and the better placing of pupils with regard to mathematics and science. There are many children taking these subjects who are really battling, whereas in reality they are never going to use mathematics directly in their careers. Meanwhile teachers are being kept busy who could be better used for those children who really need them, who are studying in a scientific direction.
There will be efficiency and competition, which we desperately need in education, as well as innovation. However, I am not suggesting that this is not the case at the moment, but the motivation will definitely be far better.
Another very important aspect is the depoliticising of education. Parents now hold the State responsible for everything that happens. They say all men must marry, because there are certain things for which one cannot blame the Government. [Interjections.] This is basically why one should perhaps also consider the depoliticising of education. This will reduce the tax burden and in this way we will promote the free market system and make the children aware of it from the outset. [Time expired.]
Mr Chairman, I should like to move that at this stage progress be reported and leave asked to sit again in order to enable the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning to make an announcement.
House Resumed:
Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.
Mr Chairman, on 16 February 1988 I replied to an oral question in relation to an issue that eventually formed the subject matter of a court judgement handed down on 15 April 1988. Since my department was not a party to the resettlement action itself of the Noordhoek squatters, the question was referred to the Cape Provincial Administration from which the information requested was received. My reply to Parliament reflected exactly the information received from the provincial administration which had concluded that the squatters had moved voluntarily. [Interjections.] In it judgement now delivered, the court found that the circumstances indicated that this had not been the case. This finding must be accepted unless it is overruled on appeal.
However, in the leader of today’s Cape Times, it is stated that the court had found that I had made an untrue statement in Parliament. I have had the judgement scrutinised, but no reference to me or the statement that I had made could be found in it.
I was neither a respondent in the case nor did I make any statement nor did I submit any evidence, as may be inferred from the editorial. The report in the Cape Times is therefore untrue and I am considering appropriate action.
The attention of the House is also drawn to a statement issued by the Administrator of the Cape Province reading as follows:
Of daar op of omstreeks 2 Desember 1987 plakkers vanaf Noordhoek na Khayelitsha verskuif is; so ja (a) op wie se gesag en (b) ingevolge watter wetsbepaling?
Minister Heunis het soos volg geantwoord:-
- (a) Die plakkers het vrywillig hul strukture gesloop en hul besittings op vragmotors gelaai nadat herbehuising te Khayelitsha op 2 Desember 1987 aan hulle aangebied is.
- (b) Geen wetsbepaling is toegepas nie, aangesien die plakkers vrywillig geskuif het.
Die Minister se voormelde antwoord is gegee aan die hand van gegewens wat deur die Kaaplandse Provinsiale Administrasie as die verantwoordelike Regeringsinstansie aan horn verstrek is. Die betrokke KPA-beamptes wat indertyd op die toneel was, was van mening dat die verskuiwing wel vrywillig plaasgevind het. Waar daar nou deur ’n bevoegde hof bevind is dat die betrokke plakkers nie vrywillig nie, maar onder dwang, verskuif is, moet daardie uitspraak aanvaar word, behalwe indien ’n hoër hof dié uitspraak ter syde sou stel of sou wysig.
Ek oorweeg tans om die uitspraak op appél te neem.
Ek wil graag die Minister verskoning aanbied vir enige verleentheid wat die aangeleentheid veroorsaak het.
So you misinformed the House! [Interjections.]
Chris, have you heard that Albert got R15 000? [Interjections.]
Order! It would be appreciated if the hon member for Overvaal would show respect for the Rules of the House. This hon member is a Whip of his party. He ought therefore to set an example to others.
Vote No 8—“National Education” (contd):
Mr Chairman, at the outset I should like to thank all hon members who participated in the debate for their participation. In general, the vast majority of the speeches testified to good preparation, and valuable contributions were made, which one would like to look at again in order to assimilate them fully and also to determine whether, out of the numerous suggestions and ideas which were advanced, there may be specific matters that require specific action.
I should also like to thank the officials of the Department of National Education, all the chairmen of all associated institutions, all the members of advisory bodies and everyone involved in the vast network of decision-makers and those involved in the administration of this department, which covers a very wide field of responsibility, for their work of the past year, for the constructive work that was done, and also for their contributions to this. This meant that we could make progress in attaining the important objectives we set ourselves during the past year.
I intend to try to react to every contribution made during this debate. However, right at the outset I should like to give this Committee something of an overview concerning the department and its activities, as well as the precise position we occupy.
†It is my privilege to defend this Vote in the House for the fourth time. It might be worthwhile to remind hon members that the Department of National Education was restructured in September 1984. From that date the department, although retaining a name which had been part and parcel of the education system, had a completely new task, and was really constituted as a new department.
There have unavoidably been the pains associated with growth and adaptation to a new situation. There have indisputably also been some major successes in various areas, and I would like to draw the attention of hon members to some of these achievements.
The first major objective which the new department set for itself in 1984 was to implement the new education system and to make it work. In the White Paper of 1983 the broad outlines of the new system were drawn. During 1984 the important Act No 76 of 1984—The National Policy for General Education Affairs Act—was passed by Parliament. This prepared the stage for the work of the new department.
As a result existing advisory bodies carried on with their functions and a number of new bodies came into being after September 1984. The Universities and Technikons Advisory Council had been in existence since March 1984. Its functions have since expanded in order to advise me on general education affairs regarding universities and technikons. It has also been empowered to advise all education Ministers on matters which they refer to the council.
The South African Council on Education was activated and its members were appointed in 1985. The informal Research Committee on Education Structures and its principal, the Committee on Education Structures, were established by law in 1984.
During 1986 Parliament passed the South African Certification Council Act as well as the Certification Council for Technikon Education Act. Both councils have been appointed and will commence their work soon.
Apart from these advisory and specialist bodies the Committee of Heads of Education Departments has been created. This committee has proved to be a most valuable asset in the new system, acting as a pivotal point in advising my colleagues on co-operation within the education system while also advising me on general education affairs. Since 1984 Parliament has also changed the composition of both the Committee of University Principals and the Committee of Technikon Principals to include the heads of all universities and technikons. The functions of both committees were also expanded quite considerably during 1986, especially as regards the new function of determining the conditions for admission to university and technikon study.
The proof that we have really succeeded in structuring and launching a new education system lies in the experience of leading the Committee of Education Ministers. In this informal committee we have had the most pleasant and fruitful co-operation over the past number of years. I would like to express my gratitude towards my four colleagues for the positive manner in which they have contributed towards making the education system work effectively.
A second major objective of my department was to formulate and determine general education policy. The announcement of general policy on certain aspects of education last year for various reasons represents a milestone in the history of education in South Africa. It is in the first place the first time that a general education policy as such has been brought into being for the whole of South Africa.
In the second place the essential nature of this policy is important—here the hon member for Potgietersrus must listen carefully. The policy does not restrict the bodies that have to implement it. It creates leeway for the utilisation of the administrative and educational outonomy that these bodies have.
A third important fact in respect of the general policy is that it has been designed specifically for South African circumstances, that it is sophisticated and that it is in many respects totally new also in international context. Although development work that was done at great cost, especially in the United State of America, was used extensively in the development of some parts of the policy, the final product is essentially an own South African creation fit for South African circumstances and our special challenges and requirements.
A fourth important fact is that appropriate control measures are built into the policy to ensure that public funds are used responsibly. The policy confirms that there is a social contract between education bodies and the State, according to which, and subject to certain control measures, resources are provided for use by the education bodies to achieve particular aims.
Educators are the most important resource in education. Since we had to integrate into one system education departments which had been developing in different circumstances for years—these are autonomous education departments which will retain their autonomy—my department set itself, in the third place, the task of formulating a coherent, sound and relatively simple general policy on conditions of service for educators. I am proud to state that, with the co-operation of the education profession, the employers in education, various advisory bodies, the hon the Minister of Finance and the Commission for Administration, we have succeeded in attaining this objective.
I think that by introducing a concept such as that of post level ratio norms we have solved one of the most vexing problems in education. We have been enabled thereby to allow Ministers responsible for education to create posts and to utilise such posts without external interference, while at the same time ensuring that public funds are used within certain constraints and controls. I regard the general policy on the service dispensation of educators as a major success. I wish to thank all who have contributed towards finalising it and making it work.
*However, no large system can function effectively if reliable administrative information is not available. Over the years education statistics have been collected and published by education departments in a fragmented and uncoordinated way, and this has frequently given rise to unscientific comparisons in political debates. Consequently it was never possible to make really reliable statistical analyses. That is why I consider the creation of a number of integrated—I am not using the word in its political meaning but in its scientific meaning—information systems to be the fourth great achievement since 1984. The general policy which I announced in November 1987 contains the particulars of the information systems. Today I can say that considerable progress has been made in processing the information in the systems by way of computer and using it, for example, in calculating the subsidies of universities, technikons and education departments.
I hope that researchers will utilise the information which is becoming available and which will be tabled in Parliament in their studies on the education system. I am aware that the information the universities are already furnishing, for example, is being put to particularly good use in the administration of universities.
I want to refer to a fifth sphere in which specific objectives were set and achieved. This affects the way in which relations with the associated institutions of my department are arranged, and also the State’s administration of the scientific research councils.
These institutions are all statutory bodies with specialised functions. Experience has shown that they require a large degree of administrative autonomy to attain their objectives effectively and efficiently. They must not become entangled in bureaucratic red tape, but they must also be held liable in public for the utilisation of the resources. Consequently a system has been designed which is known as framework autonomy and which achieves these requirements effectively.
The basis of this system is that the relations with the institutions must be structured in such a way that they can attain their objectives effectively. At the same time the State must be indemnified against unbridled claims on the Exchequer. By means of personnel administrative measures, financing measures and systems of reporting, these objectives are being achieved within the system of framework autonomy in an exceptionally elegant way. I am convinced that the gradual introduction of this system with effect from the 1987-88 financial year will usher in a new era for the various institutions. The successes achieved do not mean that the Department of National Education has already attained all its aims. A tremendous amount of work still remains to be done in this period of establishment. I want to single out four objectives which the department wishes to attain this year.
Firstly we envisage finalising the general policy concerning the financing of the current and capital expenditure of the schools and training colleges. This will dispose of the general policy on the way in which education as a whole is being financed.
Secondly we envisage disposing of the general policy on the educational facets of pre-tertiary education. At present my department and advisory bodies are working on a huge project in terms of which the prevailing position in regard to syllabuses and schools and technical colleges in South Africa is being placed on record. At the same time the rules and regulations of all education departments are being combined in a proposed general policy. After that it will be possible to make a start with the gradual revision and renewal of the existing situation.
A third objective is to use the information from the information systems in compiling authoritative publications with education statistics. I believe that the envisaged publications, which will be maintained as a series, will make a stimulating contribution to the knowledge and understanding of the education system and its operation.
A fourth objective is to test specific facets of general policy and, where necessary, to refine these in co-operation with those involved. The Commission for Administration has recently adopted resolutions in terms of which serious administrative problem areas in the department are acknowledged. Authorisation has been granted for the necessary adjustment to the personnel structure, without increasing the total number of posts or the department’s budget being increased. This will considerably strengthen the department’s ability to render service to the education system as a whole. I hope that I will be in a position, in a year’s time, to present to hon members further progress in the development of our education system from the point of view of my responsibility.
In our development of general policy there is one key factor that I want to emphasise. Up to now general policy has always been developed and finalised after achieving consensus with the various own affairs departments and with my hon colleague, the Minister of Education and Development Aid.
The input of the own system on the basis of their autonomy as regards the formation of general policy is therefore a key factor, and is not done from above or unilaterally. For that reason hon members of the CP need not be afraid that the existence of a general department threatens autonomy; there is the most cordial co-operation, with recognition of autonomy, within the framework as set out in the Constitution.
In replying to hon members I should like to react rather comprehensively to three speeches which were made by hon members on this side of the Committee because they offer a reasonable framework for replying to speeches made by hon members of the opposition.
I want to begin with the hon member for Stellenbosch and thank him for the work he does as chairman of the Standing Committee on Education, to which legislation from my department is referred, and also as chairman of the study group, as well as for his participation in this connection. I want to thank him for the perspective he gave hon members on rationalisation and the negotiation process on salaries. The hon members for Pinetown and Brits also referred to the salary question, and for that reason, in reaction to all three, I want to say something about it.
At the beginning of the year the hon the State President announced that there would be no general salary adjustments in the Government sector during the present financial year. The reasons for that have been fully debated in public and reiterated in discussions between the organised teaching profession and myself, and I do not want to cover the same ground again today.
For specific occupational salary adjustments, however, a specific amount was set aside for utilisation in the case of occupational groups in which the highest priority for such adjustments exists. Pursuant to specific investigations instituted by the Committee on Education Structures and its research committee, I have in the meantime been advised by these advisory bodies that education finds itself in a backward position relative to the rest of the Government sector.
I also received advice on the extent of this backlog and on the adjustments which would have to be effected to get education correctly positioned relative to the rest of the public sector.
Having regard to this advice, as well as the salary positions of other professional groups within the remainder of the public sector, I am now able to negotiate on the matter with my colleagues in question. It is the declared policy of the Government to take remedial steps in the case of proven backlogs in the Government sector. That is why I want to repeat what I have already said before. Educators may rest assured in the knowledge that all proven backlogs will be eliminated—within the shortest possible period.
In the nature of things the costs involved in such an operation, coupled with the ability of the Exchequer in the light of the prevailing realities, influence the precise manner and stage at which steps can be taken. I am not in a position to give hon members any prospects in this regard today, but I do want to give the assurance that this matter is viewed as a high priority, and within the framework of my activities as virtually the highest priority in the short term, one which must be disposed of, and to which I am giving urgent attention. [Interjections.]
Once again I want to reaffirm the good faith of the Government in respect of the high priority which is being accorded to education in Government decision-making. The interests of educators are being looked after in a responsible way, and we shall continue to do so within our means. [Interjections.]
Secondly I want to refer to the hon member for Brentwood. He raised the question of subsidy conditions for universities. I want to thank him for the excellent way in which he stated a fundamental framework. The hon member for Potgietersrus also referred to this matter, and what I am now going to say is therefore partly in reply to that portion of his speech.
He asked why we had carried on, contrary to the advice given. Let met reply to that point first. I am aware of advice to the effect that a court might possibly find against us. Because that was so, we did not content ourselves merely with the advice of our own law advisers before we finalised the conditions and made them effective; we also called in top-level advice from outside, and the advice we received was that the conditions were basically in order—intra vires—and had been defined clearly enough—two of the main grounds on which the ultimate judgment was based. We therefore took that decision with double-checked and sound legal advice, and did not merely rush into things. I shall not condescend to reply to the statement he made that we wanted to go into things with a view to causing them to fail. That is not how this party governs the country. That is more or less the propaganda style of the CP. [Interjections.]
He asked what we were going to do. Firstly, I want to say that when the subsidy conditions were determined, the Government wanted to achieve four basic objectives, in regard to which, according to my perception and impression, there was a reasonable measure of consensus when a round of talks was held between all the Ministers involved in education, the chairmen of all councils and the rectors of all universities. Those four objectives were the following:
It is well known that the universities had these conditions tested in court, and that two divisions of the Supreme Court subsequently declared them invalid. The Government has respect for the South African judiciary, and has always had respect for it.
However, the Government is still determined that these objectives must be attained. We must distinguish between the objectives and the method we applied. The court judgment referred to the method, but the objectives as such were not affected by it. We, and the respective Ministers’ Councils, must now consider various options. One of them is to apply to the Appeal Court for leave to appeal. A second option is the amendment of the existing legislation. A third option is to achieve consensus through negotiation among the universities and the authorities on what procedure can be adopted, to the reciprocal satisfaction of all, to achieve the stated objectives. The fourth option is merely to leave the matter at that. I want to say at once that we do not consider this fourth option to be an option. We remain dedicated to the objectives, and a method must be found of ensuring that those objectives are attained.
The situation which gave rise to the entire matter has in my opinion not yet changed adequately to enable us to leave this matter, as was proved again only yesterday when students of the University of the Western Cape refused to attend classes. This is contrary to the stated objectives, and the situation cannot carry on in this way. That is why the Government and the Ministers’ Councils will, in respect of the first three options I mentioned, take decisions and plan and announce further steps.
The hon members for Sundays River and Sunnyside expertly focused attention on the universities, and the hon member for Pinetown also referred to certain facets in this connection. I should like to react to them. I want to state unequivocally that first of all the State and the Government have great appreciation for the work our universities are doing. Without the contribution these institutions have made over the years, South Africa would have been much worse off in many spheres of life today. During the sixties and seventies there was strong growth in the universities. The necessary resources were there to expand them into strong institutions. In that expansion phase, which incidentally is a phenomenon not confined to South Africa only, the universities diversified strongly and offered many new fields of study and degrees. Consequently they began to spread their resources thinly. The result was that they were no longer able to work as cost-effectively in certain spheres. We are now living in times in which the State has to tighten its belt, financially speaking. Together with the State the universities must inevitably be rationalised as well and must rationalise themselves and count every penny. For this process I want to state four objectives.
Firstly, universities must become leaner but fitter institutions. Consequently they must organise their activities in such a way that they can deal effectively with those things they do tackle. Secondly, universities must administer the process of self-examination and rationalisation themselves. We do not want to be prescriptive. From information I received on efficiency investigations which universities initiated and carried out themselves, I am certain that the universities themselves will be best able to carry out the process of rationalisation. Thirdly, the universities must continue to strive for the highest scientific and academic standards. I am absolutely convinced that we may not tolerate the lowering of academic standards anywhere in education, and that goes for the universities as well. The State cannot maintain academic standards. The universities themselves must, faithful to their actual task and their nature and character, set the norms for making this possible, and must maintain those norms. Finally our universities—in fact all our tertiary institutions; in other words the whole of education—must be a source of stability in society. That is why change and rationalisation at university level—let me say at school level and at technikon level as well; that is to say, as regards all educational activities—may not have a destabilising effect on standards or on the provision of this crucial service in our society.
†Against this background I now want to react to other hon members who participated in this debate. Let me first deal with the hon member for Pinetown. The hon member, as well as the hon member for Brits, referred to the 10-year plan about which we have had debates here and announcements have been made. The aim of this plan was to attain the goal of equal education opportunities within the shortest possible time by means of certain proposed subsidy formulas. I want to reiterate the following because even hon members of this House have a tendency to forget this. At the same time, however, I indicated that although real progress and even dramatic progress can be made over a period of 10 years the goal of equal education opportunities for all population groups would not be fully realised by the end of a 10-year period. I said that and hon members can go and check it. I want hon members and the Press to quote me correctly when they talk about this and not to say that we at any time stated that within 10 years fully equal education provision could be attained.
It was the intention to base the 10-year plan on a real annual increase of 4,1%—I have announced it—in education expenditure. That percentage was linked to the then expected growth in the economy. Since the announcement was made the economy has not shown the expected growth and it has therefore not been possible to attain a real growth of 4,1% in education expenditure.
But last year was worse than this year!
Last year we almost attained it. A plan has already been worked out in the necessary detail. That plan addresses such critical matters as for example, growth in pupil numbers, per capita expenditure and alternative methods of financing education. Important progress has therefore been made in regard to a 10-year plan. However, before such a plan can be finalised and announced in all its details, it will have to be reviewed within the framework of the Government’s new economic and financial policies in terms of which this Budget has been drawn up. I am in the process of negotiating with the hon the Minister of Finance about the effect which these policies have on the 10-year plan.
He is determining your policy.
The financing of all State activities in the first instance lies in the hands of the Cabinet under the prime initiative of the hon the Minister of Finance. That is true of defence and of every activity of the State. In the final analysis this Parliament passes the Budget and only then does that Budget become law and is implemented. It is therefore not a question of any Minister of Finance interfering in the internal affairs or the autonomy of another department, but it is his responsibility to cut the cake. We accept joint responsibility for how that cake is cut, because we have joint responsibility in terms of the Cabinet system and because we have a forum where we can stake our claim and where priorities can be arrived at.
Mr Chairman, is the hon the Minister prepared to take a question?
Just allow me to complete this point. I want to emphasise that what I have now said does not mean that the 10-year plan will not materialise. It does mean that the present economic situation has a stalling effect on real progress towards actual finalisation of the plan in its entirety. This is an economic reality beyond the control of education. I will now take the question.
Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister said they were in the process of formulating a second plan for achieving this object, but we still do not even know what the first plan is yet. Would the hon the Minister not make the first plan known to us, so that at least we could debate it? After all, it is summarised in the formula … [Interjections.]
I said in previous debates that when we reached the stage at which it would be meaningful to discuss this matter with members of the standing committee, I should like to do so.
At this stage the scientific framework of the plan has been determined to a certain extent. We have negotiated with colleagues on what type of data must be processed and in what way, precisely, one can draw up such a plan. The crux of the matter, however, is the availability of funds, and this is a process of negotiation.
What does the plan state?
We can debate the plan when it has been finalised. [Interjections.]
Order! Too many comments are being made now.
The hon member also referred to A-values. However he made a single error of reasoning. I have said on more than one occasion that the formula which exists at present for college and school education is merely being used as frame of reference in the drawing up of education budgets at this stage.
But you use it!
The so-called A-values indicate the ratio of a department’s actual budget in a specific year to the results of the formula in the same year. However, no final decision has yet been taken in regard to the ultimate goal value of A, and that is where the hon member made his error of reasoning. He rattled off a whole lot of things, concerning which the hon the Minister of Finance had not replied to him. It was impossible to make notes of everything, but the one thing I did hear was a reference to ways and means of financing education expenditure from other sources as well. I think he referred to compulsory parental contributions, tax rebates on donations to primary schools and the privatisation of education, as ways of financing a portion of the expected education expenditure. The question of a tax rebate on donations to primary schools has already been dealt with positively in the White Paper on the Margo Report and I give him the undertaking and the assurance that the other aspects mentioned will be thoroughly taken into account. This is going to, and must, figure in the final drafting of the 10-year plan for the upgrading of education.
Finally the hon member referred to private schools, and made the unkind remark that we had a fine formula, but that money was not available when they needed it. I want to mention a few statistics to him. In 1981 private schools were subsidised on a basis of approximately R5,6 million per annum. In 1988-89 provision was made for R43 million per annum. This represents a dramatic increase and improvement.
We said thank you for that!
I should like to thank the hon member Dr Golden, who discussed the cultural attaches, for having emphasised the importance of these missions. I associate myself with what he said about the important role they play in respect of the improvement of cultural-educational relations, and I want to give him the assurance that if the financial means of the RSA permitted, this irreplaceable service would be developed further abroad—this includes overseas countries and neighbouring countries.
The hon member for Sunnyside referred to sport. I appreciate his contribution and I am pleased that he pointed out the cynical bans to which our sportsmen and women are subjected. I want to add that I have great appreciation for the considerable skill with which our sport administrators oppose and frequently defeat the sports boycotts. I have just as much respect for our young sportsmen and women who, in spite of being excluded from international sport, continue to notch up achievements of a very high standard and show the world that we do not allow ourselves to be intimidated by boycotts.
Hon members are aware of the provision in the Income Tax Act which provides for a sponsorship-reduction scheme for international sport, education and cultural functions. I can report to them that there is a tremendous rush to make use of these benefits, so that it is becoming difficult to supply all the needs. We can however state that it has been found that the scheme is contributing to a considerable revival in international sport opportunities in South Africa.
The hon member Mr Aucamp focused the spotlight on the Government’s reaction to the youth report of the President’s Council. Other hon members also referred to this. In the general community there is a network of youth organisations—bodies which support young people. I think that they, and particularly the many individuals who devote their time and talents to the youth on a voluntary basis and out of their interest in young people, deserve our appreciation. I shall come back to this matter and discuss it in more detail when I reply to the hon member for Potgietersrus.
The hon member for Bloemfontein East once again focused on cultural institutions, and I thank him for doing so.
Perhaps I could just convey an interesting fact in this connection to hon members. These declared cultural institutions are having a hard time of it, as are the National Monuments Council, our national libraries, the general dictionary institutions and the Africa Institute. It was possible for us to distribute an amount of R2,8 million, which we were able to obtain from savings on the budget of the Department of National Education for 1987-88, among all these institutions, in the same proportion as the basis of the initial allocations they received for their 1987-88 financial year.
In the dying moments of this debate the hon member for Kempton Park made an important speech. I want to tell him that it was not possible for me to make sufficient notes to enable me to reply to the speech in a really meaningful way, but I undertake to read through the speech and communicate with her directly.
That brings us now to the contribution we had from the three speakers of the Official Opposition. When I analyse these three contributions, they have a single thread (een draad) running through them, and I cannot call it a golden thread (goue draad).
Barbed wire (doringdraad)!
I shall probably have to call it barbed wire. Those contributions had one thread running through them, Sir. All three of them tried to achieve one thing, namely to sow suspicion in regard to the Government’s approach to the activities of this department. Sir, this is the same barbed wire that one finds running through their total strategy. When they talk about constitutional matters, we find it there. What are they trying to bring home to us in this way? They are trying to say that this side of the House is wilfully selling out and showing contempt for the interests of the Whites, and everything they do, Sir, is construed and planned to bring home that image to the listener, the viewer, and the reader at home. I do not know whether the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke is the architect of this strategy; I do not think so. I do not know whether he is merely advising them on the fancy footwork necessary to achieve this objective, Sir … [Interjections.] … but I want to tell them one thing today …
Why pick on him?
What they are doing … Because he is the only communications expert in their ranks.
Let me tell the CP one thing today. The one great truth in regard to the strategy of the CP is that in this process the CP is marketing a huge lie …
Hear, hear!
… because what they are saying is not true in regard to politics, education or culture. There are deep-rooted differences between us on how White interests ought to be maintained. There are deep-rooted differences between us on how the vested rights of the people and the population group of whom we form a part should be protected against the tremendous risks to which they are being exposed in South Africa and also internationally, but there is no difference when it comes to the question of whether we want to uphold the interests of our people.
I am also prepared to accept that there is no difference between us when we say that we are in earnest about allowing members of other peoples and population groups, in a Christian and just way, to come into their own, but there, too, there are deep-rooted differences between us on how this can be done.
We say it must be done separately!
I say the time has come, in the really serious times which we are experiencing in South Africa, for us to refrain from questioning one another’s bona fides and the honesty of our respective objectives; for the CP to stop marketing this lie about the NP—something the CP is engaged in at the moment; for the CP to take issue with us about our method, and to prove their own method to be a better one than the one we are putting forward. However, they cannot do that!
We are proving it at the polls!
That is why the CP is making use of these tactics, because the moment the CP actually has to argue the merits of their standpoint, they come up against the obstacle that it is not feasible. They come up against the obstacle of figures and statistics, they come up against the obstacle of the realities of attitudes. In addition, they come up against the reality that the CP policy cannot succeed if it does not at least enjoy substantial support from sections of the other population groups. [Interjections.]
That is the point we must arrive at in our debating.
I now want to turn to the hon member for Brits. He said we provided no answers to these matters concerning education. Except in own affairs debates on education, in which he did receive answers, when has he participated in a general debate on education?
Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister a question?
No, unfortunately the hon member cannot reply to me now. I want to ask him …
Order! Apparently the hon member wants to ask a question.
Oh? I am prepared to reply to his question, Mr Chairman.
Mr Chairman, can the hon the Minister tell me whether he was present when a private member’s motion on education was moved by the hon member for Brentwood? Was the hon the Minister present here, and did he furnish replies to the questions we put to him then?
No, Sir, it was another hon Minister who officiated here on that occasion. It was the hon the Minister of Education and Culture; not I. Nevertheless the hon members received replies that day. [Interjections.] The hon member is simply resorting to vague cliches again by asking such a question. [Interjections.]
I have already discussed the essence of the problem in regard to teachers’ salaries. The hon member for Brits maintains that I dealt with this matter unsatisfactorily. When we have to take a test to determine whether we provided satisfaction it is clear, of course, that we did not do so. The only way of providing satisfaction would have been to grant an increase; and a rather drastic increase at that.
No, just a decent increase!
At this stage we were not able to provide satisfaction, no matter how badly we wanted to. We were not able to satisfy a proven need, one which was also acknowledged by the hon the State President. I also acknowledged the need. This is therefore a debate on the question of whether we are correct when we say that we were not able to do it. We can debate that matter in economic debates. Nevertheless the fact of the matter is that the relationship between my department and myself and the organised teaching profession is essentially sound. It is not a relationship—this is after all what the hon member tried to imply—which has turned sour and in which there is a lack of co-operation. Allow me to quote to him the introductory paragraph from the latest Nuusflitse of the Federal Teachers’ Council, Sir. It reads as follows:
What does that sound like, Sir?
Therefore those hon members can try to stir up trouble between us. However, as long as there is an honest and frank dialogue between us, and there is mutual respect and trust between us, a constructive dialogue will take place between us and the organised teaching profession, because we are in earnest as far as education is concerned. That feeling is experienced and accepted when one looks at the matter in an unprejudiced way; not through political spectacles.
This point may as well be proved at the polls too!
I do not have time to read out my full statement on this matter to hon members. The hon member will simply have to go and read it again himself.
The hon member for Brits then went on to refer to the HSRC. Another hon member has already given him a partial reply. However, he then referred to a circular—I think it was circular 177—sent out by the HSRC. He tried to hang this around the neck of the Government. Nevertheless that hon member is six months too late. I adopted a standpoint in that regard at the NP congress of the Cape, as reported on 11 November 1987. When the first reports in that regard appeared, I reacted to them immediately. On that day I said, and I am quoting from the newspaper report in question:
.
But do you not have an open agenda?
Sir, …
Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon the Minister?
Mr Chairman, I would really like to finish stating my point first. I am still replying to an hon member of his party, when the hon member for Brakpan already wants to put another question to me. [Interjections.]
My question deals with that very point!
Order!
I am still dealing with the point. [Interjections.] The question of symbols, I said on that occasion, was not considered by the Government in the way stated in that circular, namely that it should be a starting point towards effecting better co-operation among people. I shall quote further from the newspaper report on what I said:
The national symbols we have, have outgrown history. After all, a republic does not merely start with a flag. It grows; it evolves. The symbols we have in this country are not less dear to those of us on this side than they are to hon members opposite. We who come from the Transvaal also have tears in our eyes when “Kent gij dat volk” is sung. If one comes from the Free State—or even the Transvaal—one has tears in one’s eyes when “Hef burgers’t lied der vryheid” is sung there. [Interjections.] At all national festivals, political meetings and all the other occasions at which the Call is sung, we honour it as the national anthem of this country. It then happens—as probably happens to hon members opposite too—that one is sometimes moved by the specific circumstances. The other evening, at the Huguenot festival in the amphitheatre in Paarl, when we had spontaneously risen to sing the Call and one saw the mountains and the Voortrekkers bearing torches, it was moving. Why do hon members want to spread a lie about our love for these matters? Why do they try to imply that we are renegades, who do not love what is our own; that we are tired of it. [Interjections.]
I took exception to that; it was absolutely unnecessary and I conveyed the standpoint of the Government to the HSRC. It can happen, in a body such as the HSRC, that an investigation is initiated at a specific moment when it is certainly not desirable. When that happens, the Government, without being prescriptive—this is a scientific institution—and without interfering in the scientific nature of that system, has the courage to say so. That is what we did in regard to this matter.
Then the hon member jumps up—I shall give the hon Chief Whip of the Official Opposition a chance to put a question in a moment—and says that that is what we want to do in the whole constitutional sphere. He is insinuating that we want to get rid of “Die Stem” and accept “Nkosi Sikelel’i-Afrika” for everyone.
That is the logical conclusion. [Interjections.]
In exactly the same way we want to destroy completely the say of the Whites over themselves and their right to make decisions concerning themselves, and simply replace this by a multiracial system of one man, one vote, in which a typical Black majority government will come into existence. While he is saying that, he knows that it is not our policy.
It is inevitable.
He knows that, and yet he still says it. While I was listening to the three hon members I could see how, when there was no speaker on this side of the House to refute it, they misled audiences, set up an Aunt Sally with their own skittles and stirred up and incited the people. That is why their success is a temporary success, because the truth about what the NP is saying and doing and the truth about what it believes and the truth about how its heart beats, will get through and we will not stop until it does get through. Then the CP’s temporary little sun will sink in a feeble sunset.
Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister why he said in a written reply to my colleague, the hon member for Brits, that he was not acquainted with that circular?
In the written question reference was made to circular 117 of 1987, and it does not exist. [Interjections.]
The hon member for Delmas did precisely the same in regard to another matter. He asked a question about a specific Black female teacher whose “papers” he had—I do not know whether that perhaps refers to correspondence. [Interjections.]
Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister a question?
No, Sir, I am in the process of replying to his speech.
You need not shout; you need merely speak.
Sometimes I think one has to raise one’s voice a little to some of the hon members of the CP; perhaps then something might get through to them. [Interjections.]
The hon member for Delmas asked about a specific Black female teacher who had received two cheques on specific dates. He asked me for an explanation of why she had received two cheques and the White teachers none. What is he trying to say? He is trying to say that we are paying Black teachers more than White teachers. He came forward with other examples and mentioned how much the PAYE deduction from the cheque of a White teacher was, and how small the deduction of a Black teacher was. He was trying to imply in that way that the Whites pay more tax than the Blacks do.
There are auditors and attorneys sitting over there. Why does he not consult them before he makes such an irresponsible speech? [Interjections. ] Perhaps he should rather consult us on this side, because then he would receive unprejudiced advice on this matter. [Interjections.]
What is the truth? There is absolute uniformity in respect of salaries for the same qualifications. No White person receives more than a non-White person who has the same qualifications and experience in education. However, the reverse is also true. No non-White person receives more than a White person with the same qualifications. Those cheques that were mentioned could have been attributable to anything. Possibly it was through negligence: possibly that Black female teacher had not received payment for four months. [Interjections.] It could have been attributable to the fact that she had been underpaid.
Correct; that was the case.
How do I know? The hon member must submit the name and file of his correspondent to the Minister concerned, and then that hon Minister can explain the matter to him. However the hon member did not mention it for that reason. He wanted to create the impression that we are cheating the White teachers … [Interjections.]
You are!
… to the benefit of the Black teachers. [Interjections.] Did you hear what that hon member said, Sir? They are exposing themselves in this debate this afternoon as people who are prepared to conduct politics on the basis of untruths. [Interjections.] I ask the hon Chief Whip of the Official Opposition whether I am wrong when I say that we pay uniform salaries for the same qualifications in education. [Interjections.] I am therefore telling the truth.
Anything is possible.
I appreciate that admission.
I want to tell the hon member something about PAYE. If one has a housing subsidy, one’s PAYE deduction, together with one’s salary, is calculated in a completely different way to the way in which it is calculated if one does not have a housing subsidy.
Of course.
Does everyone who earns the same salary pay the same amount of tax? [Interjections.] No, they do not pay the same tax. The hon member is absurd. [Interjections.]
The hon member for Potgietersrus, in a more academic way, tried to do precisely what the other two hon members had done. He said that because there was one education system it was in conflict with the concept that there was own education, which was autonomous. That is not true. Firstly one must ask whether, prior to the new dispensation, there was not one education system in a certain sense. He referred to curriculation. Did he find out whether, prior to this new dispensation, there was not interaction in regard to curricula? The Whites did in fact have their own situation in regard to curricula, but does the hon member know that owing to the simultaneous physical presence of people and the fact that they had to sell their labour on the same labour market, it was necessary to involve people from the other education systems and bring about co-ordination? Does he want the chaos of having 20 matriculation certificates, so that no employer can know how to evaluate them?
There is a vast difference between coercion and a voluntary situation …
In respect of curricula, education administration, the enrichment of syllabi and control of education, the autonomy of own affairs is absolute. My powers are limited to those norms and standards of financing, and so on, that are stated in the Constitution, that is to say the four points he enumerated. When I decide on those matters I do so after consensus has basically been obtained. It is not necessary, but we developed, refined and established that method of operation.
That is why I want to tell him, also in connection with the co-ordinated youth strategy, that there is nothing sinister in this co-ordination. The reason for co-ordination, the reason why one needs a general policy within which the scope for own decision-making is fully spelt out, retained and reserved, is that we, as was also admitted by his hon leader, will never be alone in this country. Under their system too, according to the admission of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, Blacks, Coloureds and Indians will always be present simultaneously. The moment that is the case, and as soon as people sell their labour on the same labour market, a measure of co-ordination in respect of education is necessary.
I therefore want to conclude by saying that the hon members of the CP must stop …
Winning?
No! [Interjections.] The victory of hon members of the Official Opposition is a passing phase in three by-elections. [Interjections.] Hon members of the Official Opposition must stop misleading the electorate on the basis of untruths about what the NP is saying and doing. [Interjections.] Hon members have become weary of telling them this, but the truth is that they are grossly misleading the voters. [Interjections.]
Order!
This debate has contributed towards clarifying these sensitive matters. I hope that for a change the media will also publish what we have to say about education in respect of the ideological… [Interjections.]
Tell that to your own media.
No, I mean in respect of the ideological. The CP’s simple ideology and the lie they are marketing is regularly repeated in the media. What we say to refute it does not come through adequately, because preference is given to hard news. [Interjections.] We on this side are just as concerned about and just as involved in a safe future for our people. [Interjections.] However, we say that our people can only be safe if the other peoples and population groups of this country also have a safe and prosperous future, full of opportunities—including a future in respect of education. [Interjections.] That is why we shall continue along the course we have adopted.
Vote agreed to.
Chairman directed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.
House Resumed:
Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.
Mr Chairman, I move:
Agreed to.
The House adjourned at
Mr J DOUW, as Chairman, presented the Fourth Report of the Standing Select Committee on Finance, dated 19 April 1988, as follows:
Bill to be read a second time.
Mr Chairman, on behalf of my party and of the House of Representatives I should like make use of this opportunity to convey our good wishes to the Muslim members of this House as well as to the whole Muslim community at the beginning of the fast. It is a period of self-examination, introspection and, certainly, sacrifice; and we hope that this religious period will be of great value to them and through them to all of us.
Mr Chairman, the Budget for 1988-89 is geared towards taming inflation in this country which is usually measured by the consumer price index. We know that last December the consumer price index fell to 14,7%. One wonders whether that is still the position today, because things have changed since December. Already prices are spiralling and the people hardest hit are the pensioners. Some consideration should at least have been given to their desperate plight.
The teachers’ organisations have not resigned themselves to their fate. They have knocked at the door several times. The hardest hit are teachers in the lower categories. Sir, the whole future of South Africa depends on the educationists. The teachers’ corps has a feeling that their present backlog will not be addressed immediately.
I agree that in an attempt to beat inflation MPs, public servants and the public as a whole must tighten their belts. This would undoubtedly lead to an improvement in the economy of this country.
The teachers and MPs can manage, but the pensioners cannot. To ask pensioners to tighten their belts when they are receiving a meagre sum of money from the State is not good enough. It is a terrible mistake to lash at the pensioners with the same belt as at the MPs. Such a measure makes it exceedingly clear why the fortunes of the NP were dealt such a terrible blow in the Randfontein by-election.
It is debatable that the private sector will not compromise in keeping the prices down. Enough has been said about the evil of inflation. Money must now be made available to the hon the Minister of the Budget in this House so that schools and hostels can be built. Most of those families who lived on farms—some of them on their own farms—in and around towns such as Tzaneen, Duiwelskloof, Louis Trichardt and Lydenburg were forced to leave the areas because of the consolidation of homelands. They were forced to send their children to Westenburg for their education. It would be ideal to build a hostel for these children. Besides, schools in the areas which I have mentioned, only offer teaching up to Standard 6. While the children are being educated, they need proper accommodation, and a hostel is the answer.
I want to ask the hon the Minister to make funds available to build clinics and creches. The hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare in this House cannot supply the necessary funds because his department has been inundated with demands. We need money to build creches and clinics at Westenburg.
Mr Chairman, a country that has a lot of police stations and prisons leaves a bad aftertaste. However, a country that has a lot of schools and educational institutions can make progress and can look to the future. Education is a lifelong process that starts from the cradle and continues to the grave. Hon members must address the needs of the country now and we should not dwell upon the cost of such needs, but rather upon the future interests of this country.
Whilst we believe that both parents can find work in order to upgrade their standards of living, their children in the formative primary stages of development need professional care and guidance. Therefore a crèche is necessary. Besides, children who have attended preparatory schools perform much better than those who have not enjoyed such an opportunity. That is a fact which cannot be denied.
It is also a fact that the physically able and economically viable persons should not go about begging and idling. They must help to build the economy of the country.
The Buysdorp community is suitably settled on the rich loam soil along the Soutpansberg Mountains in the Northern Transvaal. Those people have been the victims of drought for the past five to eight years. They have suffered a great deal. I trust, Sir, that the hon the Minister can provide the money so that this community can go on living on the farms. Their contribution could mean a lot to South Africa. They need irrigation schemes; they need a dam, above all. Water from the mountains is plentiful. Small loans to buy farming implements and a good breed of cattle can improve their stock. The hon the Minister of Finance should please make the necessary money available to our hon Minister. He has the answer. Young men are leaving the area. If we want to succeed, we have to approach the economic situation in the country from all angles and we have to tackle the problem.
Mr Chairman, as the relevant Minister who, broadly speaking, has to look to the health and welfare of our people, one of my major tasks is also to look after the aged in our community. Not only I, but the LP as a whole, have committed ourselves to negotiating a better dispensation for our aged in every respect. The LP will not shirk this task which it has imposed upon itself.
As you already know, Sir, recently the Ministers’ Council wished to make an announcement about the adjustment in pensions—I want hon members to underline the word “adjustment”. The Ministers’ Council, however, was prevented from introducing this adjustment. It is therefore understandable that confusion reigns amongst those who receive their pensions on a monthly basis. To eliminate all speculation on adjustments and pensions, I am going to take the opportunity today to put the true state of affairs to our aged so that they know precisely why they did not receive the adjustment.
Mr Chairman, at the outset this afternoon I want to make it clear that the fact that our people are not receiving an adjustment now seriously damages not only the image of the Ministers’ Council, but that of the whole dispensation. When the LP, of which I am a member, decided to participate in this dispensation in 1984, it undertook to strive to eliminate the gaps between the pensions of the Whites and those of our people. In our party’s constitution it is stated very clearly that our party strives to establish, maintain and extend the social security of everyone, with special provision for the aged and the handicapped. To give substance to this policy we established a parity programme for the achievement of parity within five years. After this five-year period, all aged would then receive the same monthly allowance. The LP has already been partially successful in doing this, in the sense that there is now parity in war veterans’ pensions. Last year, when my department investigated the extent to which we could narrow this gap this year, we discovered that we were in a position to allocate R40 million to the programme of narrowing the gap. The Ministers’ Council consequently resolved that it had the necessary funds to proceed with the programme which had already been announced, and that is precisely what we did.
Sir, I want to tell you that I expressed my delight at that meeting of the Ministers’ Council. My joy knew no bounds when I learned about that. I was also glad when the hon the Minister of the Budget stated in this House that R735 927 000 had been budgeted for my department.
Hon members will realise how pleased I was about this, because then I was certain that we could narrow that gap. After all, an amount had been budgeted for that purpose. The LP is not unsympathetic or irresponsible about the fact that the country is experiencing economic difficulties. The LP realises that the hon the Minister of Finance is experiencing problems in making additional funds available for the overall increase of social pensions. What has to be clearly emphasised here is the fact that the Administration: House of Representatives budgeted for such an adjustment in pensions—I am not speaking of an increase. Hon members must understand—hon members must please listen—that the LP’s endeavours are not aimed at an increase in pensions. We want to narrow the gap that exists between our people’s pensions and those of the Whites, and eliminate them. This adjustment, however, is being treated in the same way and it is being said: The Whites are not getting pension increases this year, so why must our aged get an increase? That is the argument—however unreasonable it may be—which is largely contributing towards jeopardising our intentions. I want to motivate that statement. On the afternoon of the relevant day, 21 March of this year, when I was to have made the announcement about the adjustment, the English-language morning newspaper, the Cape Times, wrote the following that very morning, and I quote:
That afternoon, in this very House, before I could rise to make the announcement on behalf of the Ministers’ Council, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council received a letter from the hon the Minister of Finance in which it was stated that such an announcement could only be made if we had budgeted for it. I want to emphasise once again that the adjustments which the Ministers’ Council has proposed should not be seen as a general increase, but should be regarded as a programme for the gradual elimination of the discrimination which has existed in the past. The difference in the amounts payable in old age pensions, war veterans’ pensions, pensions for the blind, and also disability and maintenance allowances for Coloureds and Whites, amounted to R63 in the 1984-85 financial year. That is the amount that the Whites received then in excess of the amount received by the Coloureds.
With the adjustment of R12 per month this year, the gap between Coloureds and Whites in regard to old age pensions and allowances for the blind, disability allowances and maintenance allowances, would have been narrowed to R39 per month and R44 per month respectively. In the four years since we have been in this House, the gap between pensions for Whites and Coloureds has only been narrowed once.
Sir, you will notice that I speak exclusively of an “adjustment” in pension benefits. I want to say again that I am not calling them “increases”, as some people are inclined to do. In my capacity as Minister of Health Services and Welfare, the Ministers’ Council and I are trying to eliminate discrimination so that as far as pensions are concerned, our aged can receive the same amounts as Whites for the hard work they did in past years. This is being seen as an increase, however, and not as an adjustment. Sir, is it fair to our aged to be told once again this year, notwithstanding all the difficulties and distress they experienced in helping to build up our country: “Sorry, you will have to resign yourselves to the fact that Whites get R51 more than you each month”? [Interjections.]
As long as the LP is in Parliament, it will leave no stone unturned at the constitutional level in the struggle for the rights of our aged. [Interjections.] Our aged have made an enormous contribution to our country’s future—even though this was as hewers of wood and drawers of water, and as domestic servants, factory-workers and farm labourers. [Interjections.] They are proud of that, and we are proud of it too. The LP will fight for their rights.
I want to ask the NP Government today how many sacrifices the Administration: House of Representatives still has to make for the country and general affairs departments when it comes to effecting savings. As far as budgetary matters are concerned, the Ministers’ Council—the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council can confirm this—has always evidenced great understanding for the country’s economic problems, consistently adopting a responsible approach in presenting requests for the funding of projects and programmes.
Permit me to illustrate this by way of two examples. In spite of the fact that at the beginning of the 1987-88 financial year my department realised that the allocation for social pensions and allowances was totally inadequate, it did not insist on having further funds made available for narrowing the gap this year. We accepted the position, but requested the Director-General of the administration to make representations, on every possible occasion, for the continuation of the programme to narrow the gap. Is that not an example of how accommodating we are?
With the permission of the hon the Minister of Education and Culture, I want to raise a further matter. Since the advent of the new dispensation, the educational budget of the Administration: House of Representatives has evidenced a deficit each year, notwithstanding the fact that the then Prime Minister gave an indication, in 1982, that steps would be taken to eliminate the backlog in regard to school buildings within five years. We did not insist on more than our rightful share of the educational budget. Although we had realised previously that the financing formula was not addressing our backlog and the question of the replacement of obsolete and dilapidated school buildings, we nevertheless tried to remain within the guidelines. What is more, our administration repeatedly had to augment deficits on our own salary appropriations for teachers and essential services of the administration from money obtained from the suspension of other services.
In 1984 my department and our administration became a reality. By contrast general affairs departments have been in existence for generations. It is certainly logical—politically and economically speaking—that such departments should be granted some leeway when strict economic measures come into operation. At the moment, however, our administration is receiving the same treatment as the own affairs department of the House of Assembly and other own affairs departments.
As far as health and welfare are concerned, the Whites are way ahead of the Coloured community in South Africa, but in what way, on the basis of what conviction, can we accept this challenge and eliminate this gap if we are continually being hamstrung? [Interjections.] At the end of last year I said—and today I again want to state this unequivocally—that I am tired, sick and tired, of the poverty that characterises the Coloured and Black communities of South Africa.
†I am tired of poverty, Sir. [Interjections.] I am tired of seeing people entrenched and remaining entrenched in the subculture of poverty. [Interjections.]
*Sir, do yourself a favour and visit the White residential areas. The aged live in nice homes for the aged, in comfortable circumstances, where they also feel secure and where they are looked after. If one subsequently visits our residential areas or those of the Black people, one cannot believe that one is still in South Africa. Hon members must read what the young Afrikaners say in their book Wat kom na Apartheid? They must read about how all the money that was earned in the sixties, South Africa’s heyday, all the funds which were obtained, were employed not for the Coloured or Black people, but for the White people! [Interjections.] Is that the price we have to pay for apartheid?
It is for their apartheid!
The Government is attempting to place our country’s economy on a sound footing by the adoption of economic measures. That is a sensible decision, but must that take place at the expense of our people? [Interjections.] Let me refresh hon members’ memories with the words of the Minister of Education and Culture in the House of Assembly. He said:
In the 1986-87 financial year the NP spent an amount of R7,6 billion on education. That includes the four national states. No less than R3,7 billion of this amount went to White education. No less than 12 cents in the rand is being employed by the Government to maintain and implement apartheid. More than 15% of the country’s budget goes for the maintenance of apartheid. Now this department and this administration come along, asking not for billions of rand, but for only R40 million. [Interjections.]
Today I want to give our aged the following message, and I say this with sadness in my heart: The LP committed itself to total parity in pensions for all the aged in South Africa. The LP will ceaselessly struggle and fight for this right of our country’s aged. If this can be given to the Whites, it must also be given to all non-Whites in South Africa. [Interjections.] As long as the LP exists, it will fight for this right, not allowing anyone to throw us off course in any way whatsoever.
We, and I in particular, are in this Parliament, not for the status we have as MPs or Ministers. I am not here for the salary and the pension I am to receive. I am not here to build up my image or satisfy my ego—that is not what I am here in Parliament for.
†We are in this Parliament to fight for our people, to dismantle apartheid and to bring about justice.
*We are here to dismantle apartheid. We are here to promote the socio-economic progress of all Black people, and I include myself in this—I am Black, because I am not White, although I am whiter than many of those on the opposite side. The LP, of which I am a member, is here to dismantle apartheid and to uplift our people.
†The hon member for Macassar reminded me of something I said in 1985. Therefore, I will go to my leader and to my people.
*I shall go to my people and to my leader, not to them. [Interjections.] Hon members must listen carefully, however. I said this, and I shall repeat it this afternoon. I shall go to my leader with this:
†We gave this Parliament five years, and I will have to go and report to my leader and to my people. I will have to ask them: Do you want me here to fight your cause or don’t you want me here? The people and the LP leadership will decide, not the hon member for Macassar. [Interjections.]
*I want to conclude by once again telling the aged that we shall fight and struggle for them until the ideal of equal pensions for all has been achieved in South Africa.
Mr Chairman, I rise to speak in support of the Budget as introduced by the hon the Minister of Finance.
At the very outset, before I deal with the Budget, I want to state here today that I fully endorse and support the statement made in this House yesterday by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and leader of the ruling party in which he supported the concept of joint sittings in the debates in Parliament. I agree with him that this—it has come about after much deliberation and negotiation—is one of the most important political breakthroughs and one of the most important developments in Parliament since the inception of the tricameral system. His eloquent, well-prepared and logical reasons for agreeing to these proposals totally eclipsed and completely overshadowed the pathetic statements in opposition by his former backbencher, the hon member for Durban Suburbs. [Interjections.]
Order! The hon member did say “backbencher”, did he not?
Yes, Sir. That hon member claims to be a senior Whip of the Official Opposition, whatever that means. [Interjections.] I believe history will prove that the decision to support this new development was the correct one. We have, I believe, laid another important stone in the pathway which will ultimately lead us to a single Parliament in South Africa.
You are a real “backbencher”. [Interjections.]
I do believe that White South Africa, and especially the NP, should be grateful that there are still men in South Africa today, and particularly in this Chamber, who are prepared to negotiate and compromise towards a peaceful South Africa.
Since the Budget was read in the Chamber of Parliament some time ago, all the experts and other financial commentators have had a go at it and, in some cases, at the hon the Minister. I shall try to avoid repeating what may have been said already. In terms of First World South African standards, this Budget is a fair one in the present economic climate with the low value of the rand, the fluctuating gold price and the rising high inflation rate as well as the continued economic boycotts by our Western allies. However, for the larger Third World sector of our country, this Budget has really brought no joy. The poorer masses of our community, the so-called Coloured community, are crying out for relief. The poor consumers of colour, with their low incomes, are being terribly hard hit by the ever rising cost of living in South Africa.
I do believe that something must be done to curb the monopolies of certain White-controlled business enterprises in this country. It is absolutely amazing, Sir. One of the biggest food retail stores can have a yearly turnover of R3 billion and a profit of approximately R112 million, but because of this monopolistic trend, food prices continue to rise. These large concerns, some of which are listed on the Stock Exchange, can surely not be thinking of the poor consumer of colour. I want to say today that I believe that price collusion must definitely exist.
The small retailer was totally annihilated by the monopolistic giants who are operating in this country. To give an example, I cannot believe that it costs R1,60 to produce one dozen puffy rolls. A few weeks ago a small bakery in the township was still selling rolls at the wholesale price of 70c per dozen. They are all climbing on this economic bandwagon of rising inflation—at the expense of the poor consumer, especially the consumer of colour. I feel that supermarkets, which now sell almost everything under the sun, including liquor, should be restricted to selling only food. The big buyers have caused havoc at the marketplace and between the producer and the consumer the price almost doubles before the produce reaches the marketplace where the poor consumer has to buy. Then one still has to add 12% GST to this.
I appreciate what the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare has said in regard to our pensioners. In support of his sentiments, I want to tell him today that our pensioners can hardly exist on the paltry pay-outs which they receive monthly. I want to ask the hon the Minister of Finance to give me one sound, logical, Christian, ethical, acceptable reason why, in 1988, in the fourth year of reform politics in South Africa, there should still be such a low pay-out to pensioners in general and why there should be a disparity in the pay-outs to the various races. The Sunday Times stated that “at present a White social pensioner gets R218 per month, while Indian and Coloured pensioners get R176 a month and African pensioners R117”. Why is this so, Sir? Why does this unacceptable disparity still exist?
I would also like to know from the hon the Minister why the hon the Minister of Health Service and Welfare in the House of Representatives cannot proceed with his proposed annual adjustment of so-called Coloured pensions.
I want to say in closing that far too many Whites in South Africa are still unaware of the socioeconomic realities and the hardships under which our people are living in the townships. The fruit of reform and the crumbs of the effect of the real slice of the economic cake have not yet filtered through and touched the lives of people of colour in our townships.
I wonder if the hon the Minister of Finance was aware, when he sat down with this Budget, of the overcrowding and the impoverished conditions in certain of our Coloured areas. According to a television programme last night, these places have become the breeding ground of a TB epidemic in the Western Cape. What I should now like to know is whether allowance was made in our Budget this year to curb this TB epidemic which is spreading amongst people of colour in townships throughout the Western Cape. According to the programme three people die of TB in South Africa every day; and the overcrowded conditions prevailing in our townships are the breeding ground for such epidemics. Now, what are we doing about it? What is the hon the Minister, with his Budget, doing about it?
I am sure he does not even know.
Order! What did the hon member just say?
I said I am sure he does not even know.
Order! That is not right.
I am sure the hon the Minister does not even know, Mr Chairman.
Order! That sounds better. The hon member for Ottery may proceed.
Mr Chairman, I feel very strongly that something must be done to curb this TB epidemic. I am not even going to mention the situation with regard to Aids, which is slowly creeping into our society. [Interjections.]
Sir, the Whites in South Africa can no longer go it alone. They cannot continue to dominate us as they have done for so many years. Our people are tired of being exploited, and we are tired of being “extra” people. Even our largest Sunday newspaper feature us in an Extra supplement—“Coloured” news and “Coloured” politics and “Coloured” social events have to appear in the Sunday Times Extra. The news features in the Extra are restricted to the so-called Coloured areas.
As long as ethnic labels are attached to our people, and as long as certain apartheid laws remain on our Statute Books, the struggle for equality will persist in South Africa—and it will be a struggle that will be conducted not only from this Chamber but also from outside!
Mr Chairman, it is not always a pleasure to …
Order! The hon member for Border must now help me, because I have a problem. (Interjections.] Order! According to Hansard—I happen to have been in my office at the time—the following took place yesterday:
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.
Does the hon member agree with me?
Yes.
Order! Good. Now I request the hon member to read Standing Order No 156. The hon member therefore moved a dilatory motion. In other words, in actual fact the hon member had his turn to speak yesterday. I request the hon member to read Standing Order No 156 (2).
Unfortunately I do not have the Standing Orders here with me, Mr Chairman.
Order! Then I shall give the hon member a copy. I want him to read it. [Interjections.] Order! This is an important matter and I shall request the next hon member who passes a remark to withdraw from the Chamber. The hon member for Border in actual fact had his turn to speak, because Standing Order No 156 (2) reads:
This refers to the hon member.
This is after all the main question we are now dealing with.
Mr Chairman, may I address you on this?
Order! No, I am not prepared to allow that at this stage.
Mr Chairman, I am fully entitled to do so in terms of Standing Order No 156.
Order! Very well, the hon member may do so, but I refer him to Standing Order No 156 (3), which reads:
Mr Chairman, may I address you on this point: In terms of Standing Order 156 (1)—
Order! The hon member moved that the debate and/or the House be adjourned until tomorrow. The hon member was not entitled to do so and this is qualified in Standing Order No 156 (2) which provides that if that motion is negatived, which it in fact was by hon members, the hon member may not speak subsequently to the main question, unless it is an amendment. A subsequent amendment has not been moved. I was in my office when these events took place. If the hon members had not voted on the motion the hon member would have had an opportunity to speak, but they did vote on it. This means that the hon member has had his opportunity.
Sir, with all due respect I maintain that you are wrong.
Order! I want the hon member to abide by my ruling, unless he and the Whips can reach an agreement on this matter. However, I am not prepared to pursue the matter at this stage.
Sir, may I see you in your office?
Order! The hon member is most welcome to do so, but I am not prepared to give the hon member an opportunity to speak at this stage.
Mr Chairman, the economy of any country in the world is also its driving force. I am quoting from the publication Oorsig of 12 February of this year:
Sir, we must have no illusions that it is going to be easier to do this in South Africa. It is far more likely to be more difficult. From the outset we can accept that there are elements present here that will do everything they can to use any possible situation for political gain. Some of these people do not even care what will eventually become of our beautiful country, South Africa.
Through privatisation new content is being given to the system of private initiative to which South Africa has committed itself. Keener competition can only lead to greater efficiency and prosperity for a specific undertaking. The person who had to work for the State in the past, can also benefit from this. However, it still remains important that the position will be equally acceptable to everyone. Such an economic strategy has many advantages, but there are also quite a number of inherent disadvantages.
In theory privatisation is all very well, but it will have to be tested in practice. If the State’s monopolies are placed in private hands, this can lead to big business becoming even bigger. The entire exercise will therefore be in vain. Particularly considering that the kind of privatisation which has been announced can take place overnight, it is important for the ordinary citizen to feel from the outset that he can also benefit by this.
If more particulars are given, one will be better able to determine how successful the announced strategy is going to be in the long run. The degree of acceptance it enjoys will play a part in this. In order to be accepted, it must have credibility. Such credibility will grow out of the fact that everyone will have money in their pockets to prove that we are enjoying greater prosperity. If economic reform succeeds, there is the promise that reform in the social and political spheres may possibly take place far more easily than would appear possible.
For many years now there have been innumerable good reasons for drastic economic reform. The State’s salary cheque became hopelessly too big for the simple reason that too many people were working for it. Decades ago it was the State’s duty to help to create employment for the many needy people in the country. Since then that obligation has fallen away. [Interjections.] The South African Government must, like Mrs Thatcher in Britain, drastically reduce the country’s economic activities. Because State expenditure is so high, the man in the street and the business sector are being taxed too heavily. This is putting a damper on initiative.
The hon the State President’s plan must become a national strategy. The State must implement this with the co-operation of private initiative. It will be of no avail to take random decisions. In this way many fine promises have become bogged down. The timetable for the implementation of the plan is important. There must be a managerial team to monitor progress. Although the Government must take the lead, we must not simply wait for it to take steps. The private sector’s responsibility is just as great.
Privatisation is one of the cornerstones of the plan. In this regard, note must be taken of recent history. In many cases this has resulted in increased prices and increases in the cost of services. This kind of privatisation will not be welcome. Monopolies in the manufacturing industry must also be watched closely. They are the reason why prices are so high.
All South Africans would give anything for a political reform plan which enjoys general acceptance. Such a strategy will have to be worked on. The LP has such a plan. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council brought us into this new dispensation to help the Government build a new South Africa. This does not mean that we are well disposed towards this new dispensation; it is simply the first step.
I should like to ask the hon the Minister to make more funds available for the Administration: House of Representatives. These funds are needed to meet the needs in the field of housing, social pensions for the aged, and education.
I am referring to Finansies en Tegniek of January/February 1985, in which Prof Wolfgang Thomas, the then professor of economics at the University of the Western Cape, wrote that it was just as important to overcome Coloured poverty as it was to overcome the poor White problem in the twenties and thirties. The lowest level of society is the group which can never make the grade. In some parts of the Western Cape the position is worse, relatively speaking, than it was before.
One of the most important reasons for this is that owing to the abolition of the influx control measures, they have to compete with Blacks to an increasing extent. More must also be done to improve the standard of living of all South Africans, irrespective of race or colour. This situation reminds one of the poor Whites. At the turn of the century they could not actually compete with other race groups. The first thing the NP therefore did when they came into power in 1948 was to uplift the poor Whites. For that reason they cannot take it amiss if we harp on the upliftment of our people now.
I should like to quote a report which appeared under the caption “SA het ‘Marshall-plan’ nodig” from Finansies en Tegniek of 15 April:
Mnr Wolgang Thomas, bestuurder van die Wes-Kaaplandse tak van die Kleinsake-Ontwikkelingskorporasie (KSOK), skryf in ’n dokument oor die ekonomie van Wes-Kaapland dit sal minstens 8 tot 10 jaar duur om die nodige inkomste- en welvaartverdeling deur te voer.
Prof Sampie Terreblanche, hoogleraar in die ekonomie aan die Universiteit van Stellenbosch, meen veel meer verreikende sosiale en ekonomiese hervorming sal nodig wees. Dit sal heelwat meer kos en sal daarom veel langer duur om deurgevoer te word.
Hy meen dit sal sowat 20 tot 25 jaar duur voor die deel van die totale staatsbesteding wat elke jaar aan die welsyn van elke rassegroep bestee word, gelyk sal wees aan elke rassegroep se persentasie-aandeel in die totale bevolking.
In ’n referaat wat hy onlangs by ’n kongres aan die Universiteit van die Witwatersrand gelewer het, sê hy die belastingbasis van die ekonomie is só klein dat die proses van ekonomiese hervorming nie gouer as binne twintig jaar voltooi kan word nie.
In 1950 is sowat 61% van die totale welsynbesteding tot die voordeel van die Blankes bestee, 25% tot die voordeel van die Swartmense en sowat 14% tot die voordeel van die Bruinmense. In 1976 het die syfers verander tot 56%, 28% en 16% aan die Blankes, Swartmense en Bruinmense en Asiërs onderskeidelik.
Nou raam prof Terblanche die onderskeie aandele wat op die Blankes, Swartmense, Bruinmense en Asiërs bestee word op 45%, 35% en 20%.
’Tensy die lande van die Eerste Wêreld ’n hulpplan—soortgelyk aan die Marshall-plan wat na die Tweede Wêreldoorlog deur Amerika van stapel gestuur is om die ekonomieë van Wes-Europa op te bou—ontplooi wat Suid-Afrika ’n gemiddelde ekonomiese groeikoers van 5% tot 6% per jaar oor ’n aantal jare sal gee, sal die proses van ekonomiese hervorming nie binne 20 jaar voltooi kan word nie,’ sê hy.
Die terugaanvaarding van Suid-Afrika deur die internasionale finansiële gemeenskap sal onder meer daarvoor nodig wees.
As die bruto nasionale produk (BNP) met gemiddeld 5,5% per jaar vir 20 jaar groei, sal die per hoof-inkomste van die bevolking verdubbel.
Hoewel die belastingbasis van die ekonomie dan aansienlik groter sal wees, sal dit steeds nie groot genoeg wees om die Swartmense se aandeel aan die sogenaamde welsynbesteding gelyk aan hul aandeel van die totale bevolking (75%) te bring nie.
Selfs al groei die ekonomie deurlopend teen daardie hoë koers, sal die Blankes steeds ’n laer besteding aan welsyn moet aanvaar.
As Suid-Afrika die doelwit binne 25 jaar kan bereik om die aandeel van elke rassegroep in die welvaartbesteding van die staat gelyk te kry aan daardie groep se aandeel in die bevolking, sal hy goed presteer, sê prof Terreblanche.
Mr Chairman, I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the hon the Minister of Finance on the initiative he has shown by coming up with a realistic and acceptable Budget, in spite of the difficult economic times we are experiencing in the Republic of South Africa at the moment.
We appreciate this and I think the hon the Minister deserves to be congratulated when one considers the number of concessions made to the taxpayer, particularly in the lower and middle income groups, while greater demands are being made on the higher income groups. I know this means a lot, particularly to the people who are not well-off.
In addition I want to admit that the Budget also gives us hope for the future. However, what is worrying me is the inequality in the allocation of funds in respect of own affairs. My problem as a member of the so-called Coloured House in the tricameral Parliament is the fact that the allocation to the Minister of the Budget in this House is inadequate to meet the essential needs of our community. I am saying this because the upgrading of our Coloured communities with a view to improving the standard of living of our people requires far more funds than an own affairs budget with its limited funds can ever offer.
I do not like to draw comparisons, but let us take the agriculture of the White House as an example. Last year the Government made aid totalling more than R1 000 million available to the farmers in an effort to keep as many economically independent farmers as possible on their farms. The Coloured House could do nothing for the Coloured farmers, who are also battling, because there simply were no funds available. We had to battle on with a budget which could only make provision for R20 million for agriculture. This is upsetting and cries to high heaven.
When I think in particular of we Namaqualanders who are lagging so far behind, I want to ask the NP, which is the Government of the day, to investigate other options to uplift our Coloured communities in Namaqualand socio-economically. In many cases the circumstances prevailing in our Coloured communities in Namaqualand are the same as the conditions which the White Namaqualanders experienced in the twenties. In those days the White stock farmers also wandered around with their livestock in an unorganised manner and in their wanderings they stripped Namaqualand of all vegetation. The vegetation was destroyed. What was not cropped by livestock was trampled underfoot. Bushes were chopped down to use as shelters and cattle kraals, and in this way the ground was virtually destroyed.
Then came the big drought which lasted for several years. The animals were thin and died in their thousands. There was no food for man or beast. Unemployment was the order of the day and the people faced starvation. A collection campaign—I want the hon the Minister to listen to this—was launched throughout the country to collect food and clothing for the hungry people of Namaqualand. The once proud White Namaqualand farmers were dependent on the alms of sympathetic people and this was probably the worst time in the lives of those people, but then the Central Government intervened.
Roads were built in Namaqualand. The railway line was lengthened from Klawer to Bitterfontein to provide the people with work. State land, which was called Crown land in those days, was divided into farms, fenced in and given to farmers. Irrigation schemes were developed along the Olifants and Orange Rivers and made available to the farmers.
No sacrifice was too great to uplift these people economically. Everything the then Government could lay its hands on was used to uplift the poor Whites socio-economically. Even when diamonds were discovered on Coloured land in Alexander Bay, the Government did not hesitate for a moment to take it over and create a labour colony there for the poor Whites. This is how the poor Whites of Namaqualand were uplifted. It was a successful upliftment programme and it was successful because the Government of the country at the time, which controlled the country’s money matters, undertook this operation.
To get back to the point I want to make, I should like to say that today many Coloured Namaqualanders are living under the same conditions as those the White Namaqualanders were living under approximately 60 years ago. Today many of our people in the region are also dependent for their livelihood on livestock and grain farming on a small scale, but they cannot earn a decent living because they have to farm on small pieces of land owing to the shortage of land in these areas. Today many of our people are also dependent on donations from organisations like “Operation Hunger” and “World Vision” for their daily bread, even though we are living in a prosperous region of the country!
Like the White Namaqualanders then, our people in Namaqualand today are in trouble and an own affairs budget will never be able to solve the problems and the distress of these people. The central Government will have to do something about this as it did in the case of the poor Whites. That is why I am appealing to the hon the State President to intervene and quickly put a programme into operation which can intercept the problems of our people in Namaqualand. There is State land—or Crown land—available in Namaqualand, and there are White farmers who no longer want to farm.
Who are too lazy.
They would like to sell their land. There is the Orange River which flows unutilised through a large part of this area, and there is a great deal of land available for an irrigation scheme. [Interjections.] At minimum cost weirs can be built in the river at places like Vioolsdrif, and canals can also be built to make the project viable.
In the Steinkopf and Richtersveld areas there are fairly large deposits of minerals and precious stones which are very unfairly being used only to the benefit of the Whites there. I think the time has come for the riches of that region to be placed at the disposal of the Coloureds too. I think the time has come to do this while there are still options open to us.
A week or two ago there was a fine programme on television about Alexander Bay. It showed how the discovery of diamonds in this part of the world gave the community in the region economic independence. This is true, but as those persons who watched the programme would have seen, only one component of the Namaqualand community, namely the Whites, was mentioned although our people, the Coloureds, also worked there for years for meagre wages. Nowadays if one investigates which people are battling most to earn a living in Namaqualand, one sees it is those people who have worked for the Government diggings at Alexander Bay over the years. The Government is moving in the direction of deregulation and privatisation today. I want to ask the hon the Minister what he thinks of the idea of privatising the Government diggings too. [Interjections.]
To get back to agriculture I want to tell hon members today that the farmers of Namaqualand are not lazy. We do not run to the Government with all our problems either, because we know that it will be to no avail. We always try as far as possible to do everything ourselves, and I can say today that we established a co-operative on our own under difficult circumstances. This is the first and only Coloured agricultural co-operative in the Republic of South Africa. However, it is ironic that although we are a full-fledged registered agricultural co-operative, we cannot get loans from the Land and Agricultural Bank of South Africa. [Interjections.] This makes one despondent.
If one considers the amounts made available by the Land and Agricultural Bank to White farmers and co-operatives, amounts like R900 million which was made available by the Land Bank last year to co-operatives in respect of production credit and debt consolidation, one wonders why this unfair inequality exists. I can give one example after another. However, I want to conclude by repeating …
By repeating …
Order! If the hon member wants to conclude his speech, other hon members must not encourage him to carry on speaking. The hon member may proceed.
Sir, I want to conclude by repeating my request that the hon the State President must intervene to improve the dreadful conditions in which our people in Namaqualand are living. I can give the hon the Minister the assurance that there are people living in Namaqualand who respect the Government and are well disposed towards it.
Mr Chairman, will you make the announcement or shall I do so myself?
Order! The hon member for Border may proceed.
Mr Chairman, I accept your ruling in the matter which we debated earlier. I should like to express my thanks to the Whips who put the matter right so that I could have an opportunity to speak.
Order! The correct version is that the hon member conceded that I had acted correctly.
Yes, Mr Chairman.
Order! Therefore, after the matter had been discussed, and in spite of Standing Order No 156(1) and (2), we arrived at this decision. Hon members know that I am a kind-hearted person, but I can also be very strict. I therefore want to appeal again to all hon members not to behave flippantly in the House. We are involved in discussions which are prescribed by the Standing Rules and Orders. I must respect this and every hon member in this House is expected to do so too. The hon member for Border is now being given an opportunity to make his speech.
Thank you, Mr Chairman. I request the privilege of the half-hour.
It is always an honour and a pleasure to listen to the speeches of the hon member for Steinkopf. But, Sir, the hon member for Ottery, this political hypocrite (tweegatjakkals), must decide today which side he wants to support. [Interjections.]
Order! [Interjections.] Hon members must come to order. I am in the Chair. Will the hon member repeat what he said?
I said the political hypocrite …
Order! I accept that in the spirit in which the hon member said it. [Interjections.] Order! Because I am now dealing with the other matter, I shall give my ruling later as to whether or not the expression which the hon member used was parliamentary. The hon member may proceed.
When it suits the hon member for Ottery, he wants to side with the LP, and when it suits him he wants to side with the DWP. [Interjections.]
Order!
That hon member for Ottery must tell us once and for all where he stands, because every time he is given 10 minutes of the Opposition’s time, he stabs us in the back. [Interjections.] The hon member fares far better on the race course than in this House.
Today I want to tell hon member two stories. A little boy was asked by his teacher what interesting event had taken place at their house during the past week. The little boy replied: “Sir, our dog had a puppy.” Then the teacher asked: “And what is the puppy’s name?” The little boy said: “The puppy’s name is LP, which is the abbreviation for Labour Party.”
That is an old story.
A week later the inspector visited the school and the teacher said to the child: “Please tell the inspector what happened at your house and what the name of your puppy is.” The little boy turned around and said: “The puppy is now called UDP.” The teacher then said to him: “But only last week you said the puppy’s name was LP, why do you now say it is UDP?” The little boy replied: “Because his eyes have opened.” [Interjections.]
The other story I should like to tell hon members concerns the actor who challenged the clergyman to recite Psalm 23 in church. The clergyman accepted his challenge. The actor started the ball rolling and recited Psalm 23 to tumultuous applause from the audience. They all applauded him. When he had finished reciting the psalm, the congregation gave him a standing ovation. That is how well the actor recited. The clergyman then stood up and recited Psalm 23. When he had finished, only one person stepped forward. It was the actor who knelt at the clergyman’s feet and said: “Sir, I know the Psalm, but you know the Shepherd.” I shall get back to this later and ask the hon members whether they know the psalm or the Shepherd. [Interjections.]
†In Financial Mail of 25 March 1988 it was stated on page 62 under the heading “Forcing the Issue” that—
Yesterday afternoon the same thing was suggested here. It would appear that those hon members think we know what the hon the State President is thinking, simply because we went to consult with him on one occasion. Let me tell this House, Sir, that we are not ashamed to go and consult with the hon the State President, and we shall continue to consult with him until we achieve what we have set out to achieve.
*It seems to me when those hon members do not like the message, they want to kill the messenger. Yesterday it was the turn of Die Burger, because Die Burger carried a message which did not satisfy those hon members. Then the reporter of Die Burger was also kicked and trampled on. Those hon members must stop kicking the messenger; they must listen to the message he brings.
I want to quote from “’n Punt van Orde” of 16 April:
When one listened to the speech of the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare this afternoon, it appeared that he was on the warpath for an election campaign. However, I want to warn him that he is going to come to grief. Four years ago he promised the people that he would resign from Parliament if there was no parity. Now that it would seem that there is not going to be parity, he is publicly attacking the hon the Minister of Finance. Now I ask myself: Why in public? The other day the hon the Minister of the Budget explained to us so carefully how well they were negotiating behind closed doors. Now it seems to me they are no longer negotiating. That is why they are launching public attacks now. One must also remember what the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare said, namely that if the hon the Minister of Finance stands in his way, he is going to sweep him aside. [Interjections.] That is what he said.
Now I ask myself: Why this war pattern? Why this election campaign which is suddenly under way? I shall tell you why. Some of you may have noticed this, but I am going to read it out to you so that you are aware of why this pattern is being adopted.
Who are “you”?
Order! The hon member must please not refer to other hon members as “you”. The hon member may proceed.
Sir, then I shall say “hon members”. I am reading from a document which came to my attention:
I can give the names of the 17 hon members who meet the requirements, namely the hon members for Hawston, Diaz, Ravensmead, Natal Interior, Southern Cape, Springbok, Strandfontein, Heideveld, Esselen Park, Fish River, Manenberg, Eldorado Park, Kasselsvlei, Belhar, Rietvlei, Grassy Park, and the hon member Mr Solomon.
You are simply conjuring up spectres.
This is the truth. Other hon members who are going to retire and who are not going to come back after the next election are, inter alia, the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture and the hon members for Robertson, Silverton, Eastern Free State, Matroosfontein, Liesbeeck, Karee, Mamre and Greenwood Park. These hon members are all going to retire on pension and are not going to come back. However, there are also other hon members who are not going to come back for other reasons, and they are the hon members for Rawsonville, Steinkopf, Suurbraak, Bishop Lavis, Northern Cape, Hantam, Southern Free State, Genadendal, Klipspruit West, Western Free State, Daljosaphat, Upington, Newclare and Wuppertal.
At least I shall still be here.
The hon member can be glad that he will be here. I suppose that is why he talks and smiles so much.
Order! I cannot allow hon members to hold a dialogue here. The hon member may proceed.
Sir, the hon member for Retreat is so glad that his name does not appear on the list, that he is grinning from ear to ear. [Interjections.]
We now come to the reality, however, and in this regard I want the hon the State President to keep the oath he took that he would be obedient to the Constitution at all times. In terms of section 20(c) of the Constitution he must now take steps to appoint an hon member of this House to the Cabinet. In terms of this section the hon the State President is empowered to appoint any member of this House to his Cabinet. In terms of the Constitution Act he can also make that hon member a member of the Ministers’ Council.
He had better appoint Rabie.
Sir, if that were to happen we would see how hon members on that side of the House would run to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. [Interjections.] I want to know whether you are all actors.
Order! The hon member must please address other members as hon members.
You must go back to school!
Sir, I shall go back to school with oom Hansie. I want to know whether hon members on that side of the House are reciting the psalm with the actor or with the clergyman. There are many hon members here who sacrificed a great deal and who are going to get hurt if the course which the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare is adopting here is adopted. It is surprising to see how radical this hon Minister has become. Nowadays he is even more radical than Joe Slovo. One wonders whether this hon Minister does not know something which other people do not know. That hon member can smile, because his name is not on the list.
I challenge the hon member for Border to stand against me.
If I were simply to lean against that hon member he would fall over.
Order! The hon member may not say that the hon the Minister is more radical than a communist. The hon member must please withdraw that.
Sir, there are many Joe Slovos in the world, but I shall withdraw the statement if it possibly refers to the communist Joe Slovo. However, I was referring to the Joe Slovo who is not a communist.
Order! The hon member must withdraw the remark unconditionally.
Sir, I withdraw it unconditionally.
However, hon members heard for themselves what a fuss the hon the Minister made because there was no money. Earlier this year certain documents—documents which we were not allowed to see in the past—came to our attention. I am not going to talk about water which has already flowed under the bridge. I want to talk about next year’s Budget. In terms of next year’s Budget and in terms of the 1984 Budget an amount of R780 394 million must be voted for Health Services and Welfare next year. In the present financial year, in terms of the documents I referred to, R707 707 000 should have been voted for the relevant department. However, hon members heard for themselves that too little money was voted.
I now want to address the hon the Minister about next year’s Budget, because it seems to me as if this Ministers’ Council cannot do so. Four years ago a budget was drawn up. I should like the hon the Minister to confine himself to this Budget, because in terms of it the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture will receive R787 959 000 during the coming financial year. In the present financial year he should have received R711719 000. However, he only got R429 408 000. If we can, therefore, get R787 959 000 next year, we may be able to eliminate the existing backlog. I say “may”, because the backlog is so big, and is becoming bigger every year, that we need a far larger amount than I have just mentioned.
As regards education, it was worked out four or five years ago that an amount of R1 308 330 000 would have to be voted in the 1989-90 financial year for us to be able to overcome the problems in the field of education. As regards the 1987-88 financial year, however, the shortfall in respect of the amount voted was R79 605 000. In the present financial year, measured against the amount envisaged four years ago, there is a shortfall of R87 414 000. We in the Official Opposition therefore want to help the Ministers’ Council to negotiate today, so that we can get that money.
In the 1987-88 financial year the hon the Minister of Health Services received R90 935 000 too little, measured against the original amount which should have been voted. This afternoon the hon the Minister kicked up such a fuss that we almost wept and wailed with him. However, we did not do so because we wondered whether he was here as the actor or the clergyman. As an actor he will weep and wail, but it is another matter if he was speaking as a clergyman. I am going to leave it to hon members to decide whether he was speaking here as an actor or a clergyman.
†Today we are addressing the financial shepherd. These political actors, or political priests, must tell us, when they act in this manner, whether they have ever approached the financial shepherd about the money.
*We want to know how many times the hon members of the Ministers’ Council went to see the hon the Minister of Finance to negotiate for money. The hon the Minister of Finance is in a position to tell us. We in the opposition party would like to know, because we hear how well the negotiations are going, but when we look at the amounts which are voted, and compare them with what should have been voted, it is clear to us that the negotiations are not going well. If this is the case, only the hon the Minister of Finance can tell us so. Something must then be done about it. Certain people must then be fired.
In terms of section 84 of the Constitution a certain formula must apply when money is allocated. The hon the Minister will put me right if I am wrong. Yesterday the hon the Minister told us that he was prepared to announce this formula.
If this formula is announced, we can make our own calculations, and we will be able to calculate whether this Ministers’ Council is really performing its task so well, or whether they are simply being led by the nose. What is really happening? Newspaper reports are being distributed—and the hon the Minister is one of the people who is being accused in them—such as “These landlords are responsible for the sharp rental increases”, and they are not only being distributed in Durban, but also on the Cape Flats and elsewhere. On 1 July 1987 a formula should have come into operation, but this has not yet happened because that formula will result in rentals increasing. Because we have to rely on a little White clerk at a local authority, who will decide what is and is not going to apply, our people find themselves in this predicament. Because they are in this predicament, and the hon the Minister of Finance can do nothing about it, I want to ask him frankly today for all housing loans to be approved, and for the interest rate to be only 1%. The Government will get its money back, and the responsible people will pay back an interest rate of 1%. I want to refer in particular to the constituency of the hon member for Bosmont, but also to all the existing housing schemes in South Africa, where there is great poverty, and the people have to pay water accounts of up to R1 000. Pensioners live in 350 of the 437 houses there. Why must we force our people into oppression? There are already needy people, but we will never be able to lighten the burden on our aged under the present tricameral system and in the present dispensation.
The hon the Minister is now concentrating on self-help projects. Some of the parliamentary officials have come to us and told us that they earn R500 a month, but that the waiting list for housing is so long that they will never be able to get houses, because we do not see where the houses for the needy are being built. They tell us that if they have wives and children they are compelled to make use of these self-help schemes, and because they are making use of them, there is barely enough money left out of that R500 to feed their families.
Why can all the present loans for housing not be converted into loans at an interest rate of 1%? Nowadays anyone who earns less than R1 000 a month falls into the subeconomic category. Why are we still clinging to the idea that people who earn R150 or less per month fall into the sub-economic category? In my opinion anyone who earns less than R1 000 per month nowadays should fall into a subeconomic categoiy. The rentals of all the people living in those flats will immediately become less. They will immediately be lower, and then I challenge any radical element to go in there and incite those people or cause trouble. However, those elements are flourishing while this state of affairs continues. The hon the Minister can put an end to this.
In East London, where I come from, we see how houses are being built for the Blacks. The existing shacks are being demolished, and decent houses are being built there, and tarred roads are being laid. Our schools, which were burnt down by other people, have been left just as they are. Our people’s conditions are still deteriorating. However, it seems to me that all is not well, perhaps owing to poor representation, autonomy, and matters of that nature. This has been going on for so long now. It has been going on for 21 years—for as long as the system of management committees has been in existence. If we were to convert all these existing loans, so that an interest rate of only 1% could be paid, we would bring relief to more than 80% of the people represented in this House.
Our people are trapped in a vicious circle of poverty. When a child reaches Std 6 or 7 he has to leave school and find a job—he is then old enough—so that there can be an additional income. When are we going to break this vicious circle?
When that child marries one day, he is worse off than his parents, and the circle repeats itself. That is why we are experiencing the problems which are spelt out in this House day after day. How are we going to break that circle?
Firstly by means of education. More money must be voted for education, so that our parents who are prepared to make sacrifices, can make the sacrifices to ensure that the children get the necessary education. In order to do this the people must, in the second place, pay less rent. The time has come for us to give the flats in the so-called Coloured residential areas which are occupied by subeconomic lessees to those people free of charge. Parksig in East London, which was built in 1939, and where the people are still paying rent, is a disgrace, because those houses were paid for long ago.
We have a negative community because many of these places are poor. The hon member for Bonteheuwe! can talk about the number of people who belong to gangs in his constituency. These people grow up in a negative way. If one goes back in our history, the guidance which we gave—here I am including many of the people sitting here today—was negative. We were the “anti-cads”. We were anti-this, anti-that and anti-the-other. In the tricameral system we have come forward for the first time and we want to convert the negative aspects of the past into something positive, but we are battling terribly because we are up against the cult of poverty outside.
If we can give these houses to those people free of charge, they will have a share in South Africa. Those people will not simply be lessees who are going to be evicted one day when they cannot pay their rent; they will no longer be those negative people who simply want to destroy everything. They will have better control over their children and will turn them into more positive people.
We are looking at the South Africa of the future. We cannot enter the future blindly with a crowd of people who will always be weak and backward owing to certain financial problems. The new South Africa we are looking forward to must also offer the least of those people a place in the sun. We must realise the positive prospects we have for South Africa by creating a positive spirit here. It is of no avail for these hon members to do nothing but lament. I want to go so far as to make a proposal to the hon the Minister—a proposal that an entirely new department be created in the office of the State President which would concentrate only on upliftment work, so that these backlogs could be eliminated. Every hon member here knows about those backlogs.
A new department must be established—not under own affairs, but under general affairs. That department will then have an office or something to which these people can go, from the highest level down to the smallest village in South Africa.
I want to go further and recommend that money be voted so that every one of the MPs sitting here today can go directly to that department and say: I recommend that X amount be voted so that we can install a water tap here or put matters right there. We must be able to deal with it in this way, instead of battling with red tape. It is this red tape which drives the people to join the UDF, which makes them impatient, and which influences our children so that—as is the case again today in the Peninsula—they start throwing stones even if they do not know why they are throwing stones. By the way, I want to ask whether those teachers agree with the murders which were committed and for which the Sharpeville Six are to be executed. Do they agree with this? They are now encouraging our children to sympathise with those people. This is how the negative influence continues. Those negative influences must be stopped.
This department which I am appealing to the hon the Minister for today will be able to handle the recommendations of members of Parliament. When an MP has investigated a matter and made a recommendation, the necessary money must be made available immediately so that matters can be put right at local level immediately. In this way every one of these hon members can mean something outside. Many of these hon members are going to battle to come back here—I do not mean this in a nasty way—because they are going to be asked what they have achieved in these five years.
Let us be honest with one another. What do I have to show in East London where our hands were tied because we could not get the land on which to build houses?
Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon member whether those teachers and those students who objected to the execution of those murderers were not encouraged by people from his party?
Mr Speaker, that hon member has gone completely astray now. We have risen to our feet in this House time and again and said that we are on the side of law and order. Every time this is debated, we are the people who get to our feet and say that we stand for law and order.
†We do not condone necklace murders.
*Why did the hon member ask that question? Does he perhaps condone this? I say that those of us on this side of the House do not condone such murders and we do not want to see our people associate themselves with such murders either. Nor do we want our children to be thrown into the abyss by certain elements who are misusing them. These are the negative aspects I am talking about. I want our community to be uplifted so that they can become positive people. In order to achieve this we must start with that hon Minister who must convert all loans into 1% loans, and if that is not possible he must give the houses in all the old housing schemes free of charge to the people who have paid them off over the years in any case. Then those people and their families can reconsider what their future life is going to be like as regards their accommodation.
I grew up in a house with one bedroom, a kitchen and a lounge. When relatives came to visit us, we had to go and sleep at the neighbour’s house. Many of us come from such a background, but there are also many of us who escaped from that subeconomic culture thanks to education. However, there are many of our people who are trapped in this. For that reason I want to make an appeal for those people also to be afforded an opportunity to escape from their predicament. The hon the Minister holds the key in his hand. Let him make this matter a general affair and let us forget about own affairs. There is so much red tape built into own affairs that the end is nowhere in sight. If it is made a general affair, those of us sitting here, who represent the people and are acquainted with the problems, can go directly to the office and get the money to get rid of the little foxes that are spoiling the vines. This is important, otherwise this tricameral system will never succeed.
There are many hon members here who came to Parliament four years ago with fine resolutions for their constituencies. They have already spoken to the organisations concerned, but these organisations simply do not get around to doing anything. I have asked for things in my constituency until I am blue in the face. Cathcart was founded in 1875, but our people there still do not have houses. At Komga people have been waiting for houses since 1975 in spite of everything I have said and written here. Why must our people be held back by red tape? We must do away with this. A department must be established in the office of the State President so that the upliftment of our people can continue.
Mr Speaker, I sat listening attentively, and I now want to emphasise that I do not like attacking people. If people look for trouble, however, they will get it. That is for certain. I noticed hon members growing silent as the grave when you entered, Mr Speaker. Hon members of the Official Opposition ventured to say all kinds of things while our Chairman was in the Chair, but they suddenly changed their tactics when you entered the Chamber.
Before I commence my speech, I want to ask the hon member for Border whether he thinks it befits a member of Parliament to say such things in a letter with a Parliamentary letterhead.
We are members of Parliament and have a right to do so.
Order! Could the hon member just indicate what he has a copy of there?
Mr Speaker, it is a copy of his attacks on us about pensions, etc. [Interjections.]
Order! The hon member may proceed.
Mr Speaker, it is a privilege for me, as a member of the LP, to stand up here this afternoon. I was not born blind. My eyes were open when I was born. This afternoon, however, we have listened to some nasty things. Statements were made about “tweegatjakkalse”, “gate” and “gatkruipers” and that kind of thing. I do not think we have come here …
Order! I do not know what the hon member heard this afternoon, but he must withdraw the word “gatkruiper”, because it is unparliamentary.
Mr Speaker, I withdraw it unconditionally, but I request you to examine the speech of the hon member for Border and what he said just before you entered the House. That hon member used the same words and did not have to withdraw them. I merely want to point out …
Order! If that is so, I shall read the Hansard of the hon member for Border, who spoke before the hon member for Ravensmead, and give a ruling tomorrow. The hon member may proceed.
Thank you, Sir. This afternoon a great deal was said about the poverty in which our people are living. A great deal was said about tax increases and tax reductions. The hon the State President also referred to economic growth and the high inflation rate in the country. As long as there are separate facilities in our country, however, it will not be possible to reduce the inflation rate. We have to pay double for one convenience—or inconvenience! My plea this afternoon is therefore that we ensure that apartheid legislation is deleted from the Statute Book. That would deal the inflation rate a deathblow.
This afternoon I want to broach a few matters which I want the hon the Minister to react to. Year after year money is collected by Radio Good Hope. When one walks into hypermarkets, one sees the collection boxes standing around everywhere. I can guarantee that many Whites walk past the collection boxes, whilst our Coloureds always put money in. I believe in giving. I never walk past any street collector without giving money. The hon the Minister must tell me this afternoon what is done with all that money. There are street collections for the blind, for the retarded, for cancer research, etc. When it is the turn of the Coloureds, however, less is done for them. This applies, in particular, to Christmas funds. I myself have to see to it that the children and the aged in my constituency are looked after. I now ask myself what happens to the money that I myself also throw into the collection boxes. Is it not employed for our Coloureds too? I want the hon the Minister to give serious consideration to this matter.
Mr Speaker, I cannot simply leave the hon member, who spoke at such length here this afternoon, without commenting further on what he said. For years he was a member of the management committee, yet this afternoon he came here crying about houses. The hon member should have solved the problem a long time ago. I gave away all the houses in Ravensmead. Recently we offered a reduction of R2 000. It was advertised in the newspapers. The hon member for Border once told me in the House that I was stupid—I never forget what anyone says to me—but he can take a lesson from me about how to look after his voters. When I visited East London, I was ashamed …
Why were you ashamed?
I was there. [Interjections.] I want to know from the hon member for Border what he did all those years when he was a member of the management committee. When I was a member of the management committee, I made good use of my chances. There was development in Ravensmead. We worked together as a completely unified team. It was wonderful.
Mr Speaker, I just want to tell that hon member that he should come to Ravensmead and see how one should work in a management committee and become a true member of Parliament. Yes, Sir, the hon member can say what he wants to, but it is in a management committee that one learns how to become a true member of Parliament, how to serve one’s people who are living in poverty, and not how to sleep or how to run from one party to the next. That is what the hon member did! He was a member of the LP, then he left. He then joined the UDF and used the UDF’s …
Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member alleges that I was a member of the UDF. He must either support that statement or withdraw it.
I withdraw it, Sir. Then the hon member joined the UDP.
Order! That was not a point of order, but the hon member withdrew it in any event.
This afternoon I sat listening carefully to him, and he is almost a Nationalist. Do hon members know why he does that? He does it to get at the LP. Hon members must listen carefully when we get round to discussing the Votes—then they will again hear that hon member attacking the NP. I took careful note of the hon member’s tactics. This afternoon he said whatever he wanted to about the LP, and I am now standing up for the LP. I have thrown away my prepared speech, because I cannot take that sort of thing. We came along here to work for our people and not to attack one another. I say once again, Sir, that I do not like attacking people, but the hon member is provoking me. Every time, Sir, that hon member provokes me, and then when we get outside, he apologises. [Interjections.] Yes, Sir, he did. Yesterday he came to me and said: “Oom Hansie, yesterday I was not telling you that you could not spell ‘beurs’; I said it to Jenneke.” My reply was: “But he is a Labour colleague of mine”. [Interjections.] Yes, Sir, he came along to apologise, but now he does not want to know about that. I also told him: “You think you are the only one who can spell ‘beurs’ and that that fellow cannot.” After having said nasty things to the hon member for Ottery, he is sitting here this afternoon. You know, Sir, I find it offensive because, let me reiterate, I do not like it. Those are nasty things which were said and, what is more, said by an educated man like the hon member for Border. He must learn to make a better contribution in this House, because we are here for the upliftment of our people, as he said this afternoon.
He has still not learned a lesson, and they are bankrupt. We need only think of the results in Bokkeveld. Let me just have a look at the calculation I made here. It seems to me as if the hon member for Bonteheuwel has hidden it away. In any case, Sir, on many days those benches were empty while they were in Ceres. On Friday they were all present for the first time to test the LP’s mettle. I was working in my constituency. I did not lie sleeping, and I was not in Ceres either. When they were fighting for the Bokkeveld seat, there were all kinds of speculations on their part. And yet they lost by 4 410 votes. [Interjections.] No, the hon member must give me a chance; I did not interrupt him. Mr Speaker, that hon member must give me a chance now.
You know, Sir, when one is that bankrupt, one does not know whom one should praise and whom one should denigrate. [Interjections.]
Order! The hon member for Border must restrain himself. The hon member for Ravensmead may continue. [Interjections.]
Sir, that is what happens when a man is bankrupt. I want to ask those hon members this afternoon where Jonas is.
He is sick. He has influenza.
You know, Sir, when Jonas was sitting on this side—the hon the Minister will remember this—there was talk of one Jonas and the other Jonas and the boss, but today there are no Jonases here. It is because of that party’s bankruptcy …
Order! Could the hon member please help me and tell me who this hon member for Jonas is? [Interjections.]
I am referring to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, Sir, the MP for Reigerpark.
Thank you.
Yes, Sir, he said Jonas this and Jonas that, but recently I have not even seen him here at all. I should like to know from hon members of his party where he is.
He is sick.
I wonder whether he is trying to waste taxpayers’ money.
He is sick.
That hon member is not nearly my age, but I look younger than he does. Excuse me, Mr Speaker, but the hon member is provoking me. I look younger than he does.
You have had a panel beating.
I am stronger than he is too, because I have never had a heart attack. [Interjections.] You really must excuse me this afternoon, Mr Speaker, but I really cannot take it in this House when people unnecessarily attack other people about things that are none of their concern.
It is time for them to learn, because they no longer know where they are going. They are bankrupt. The hon member for Border must go back to school. It took him 15 years to become a lawyer, and now he wants to prescribe to me. I can read, however. I have succeeded in having a police station and swimming pools built in my constituency, but what does he have in his? Just a dirty town like East London where I definitely do not want to live. He has been a member of the management committee for years now, but he has nothing to show for it. What is more, I am older than he is.
Order! If the hon member for Ravensmead goes on like this, he may in fact get a heart attack. The hon member may get excited, but he must stick to the rules of this House and not address other members directly as “you”. The hon member may proceed.
Sir, I want to tell the hon the Minister that I am very unhappy about the matter to which the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare referred here this afternoon. He was, in point of fact, as excited as I am. The LP has come along here with one purpose in mind, and that is to uplift our people. If what the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare said here this afternoon was true, I want to know why the newspapers always have to distort the facts, thus causing confrontation. That is precisely what the newspapers do. They play people off against one another, and unfortunately in this specific case the hon the Minister replied to them.
I want to tell hon members an anecdote. When I was fighting the election, one of my opponents never distributed a single pamphlet. He told the people, however, that he was going to replace Oom Hansie because Oom Hansie was supposedly too old and, what is more, walked with the aid of a walking-stick. The hon member sitting there knows what I am talking about. That chap could only get 159 votes, and I challenged him to indicate to what party he belonged. He had had no experience at parliamentary or local level. He nevertheless made a fool of himself by distributing a pamphlet in which he stated that he was not ashamed to say that he belonged to the party of Messrs Peter Marais and the late Lofty Adams. People were quite surprised. We must be careful when the Press taunts people to such an extent. We should not reply to their accusations, because if we ignored them, they would go away. By tomorrow people have forgotten what they have read in the newspapers today. It is only the politicians who always rake things up so as to discredit one another. I therefore want to warn the hon the Minister that we should be careful of such Press statements, because this afternoon another picture was painted here. We would like to co-operate and we have the best of intentions, but we shall definitely not allow people to be discredited by untruths.
Had it not been for the LP and we Coloured people—I have been saying this for years now at public meetings, because I do not hide anything—there would have been a bloodbath in South Africa a long time ago. Had it not been for the LP—we cannot allow people to butcher one another—the things taking place in the country now would have taken place years ago. The LP’s constitution advocates negotiation, and we believe in peaceful negotiation. I remember, when I had only just arrived at Parliament, how shocked I was to see how hon members of the Official Opposition behaved towards the Government and how they praised and incited the teachers. This afternoon we have the stone-throwers. I do not know whether they are scared of stone-throwing at their homes, but I am not afraid. At night, after I have said my prayers, I have a peaceful night’s sleep.
Watch them, Sir; next week they will come along with another story.
I want to come back to the question of taxation. The hon the Minister says there will possibly be some relief. I want to predict that in the next year taxation is again simply going to be doubled. I hope that that will not be the case, however.
Mr Speaker, I am pleased to be able to participate in this debate. Before I proceed, I want to tell that old colleague of mine, the hon member for Border, that I do not wish to become involved in a kind of internecine strife with him or his party—hon members may use the diminutive “little party” if they wish; nevertheless it is a registered party—but that I cannot agree with what he said. [Interjections.] Firstly, I think he is seeking help in the wrong place. He spoke of housing in Coloured areas; there is a Minister who deals with that Vote. Although the hon member said it ought to be a general affair rather than an own affair, he is seeking help in the wrong place. He must approach the Minister involved and follow the correct channels.
A person drowns in those channels!
I wonder whether the hon member for Border was making an appeal for group areas, because he mentioned places like Komga, Stutterheim—I know he lives in Parkside or Buffalo Flats …
I have never mentioned Stutterheim.
He complained about housing in those areas. He requested that Coloured areas be extended.
I shall ask the hon member for Strandfontein to reply to the question! [Interjections.]
I am not concerned with the hon member for Strandfontein now; he did not make a speech here today. It is the hon member for Border who said that houses should be built.
The hon the Minister of Finance is sitting over there. Speak to him! [Interjections.]
In the tricameral system there are Ministers who deal with housing matters and the own affairs budget for instance. The hon member therefore knows where to seek help.
The problem with hon members sitting there—I shall not use the type of language I have heard today and which referred especially to the hon member for Ottery—is that they go from pillar to post. They do not know where to enter or where they are safe. [Interjections.] I do not wish to pursue the question of housing any further. We have been hearing this story for the past four years, since we came here. [Interjections.]
As I said, I do not wish to become involved in internecine strife with my hon colleague. As a young man I played rugby with his father and we served together on an executive rugby committee for Border. We come from the same place and we have the same profession.
†With regard to the economic situation in this country, I want to make mention of the less privileged people in our community. It is my hope that the economy will improve and that we will see better days. The Government has applied the brakes to wage increases and overspending. That will probably have a corrective effect.
“Where do hon members, who argue for more and more money, think it must come from? Is it simply to be printed by the Government Printer and issued, as happened in the banana republics of South America? [Interjections.]
†It might have a corrective effect, but our economy has been seesawing, going up and down. We have had optimistic reports and projections from the men at the helm of finance in South Africa, even from the Governor of the Reserve Bank, Dr Gerhard de Kock and from banking and other financial institutions.
Interest rates have gone up. Only this morning I read that another building society had also increased its interest rate on mortgage bonds to 14%. What does that mean to the ordinary man in the street? It means that whereas he was paying perhaps R120 per month on his bond, he now has to pay R140 or R150 per month. The cost of borrowing money has in my estimation—although I may be wrong—gone up approximately 14%. That is why I say the economy is seesawing. It is almost like putting one’s washing—that is the country’s money, our wealth—into a washing machine, where it spins around until the process has reached its end and the washing has been cleaned, or you and I, Mr Speaker, have been taken to the cleaners.
Investors have been impoverished. When talking about impoverishment, one should bear in mind the pensioners and the recipients of social grants, such as fatherless children. Moreover, we must also look at our so-called Black community, who are the least privileged and who will suffer most, unless the economy is pulled straight. That is the responsibility of the hon the Minister of Finance, who is sitting over there. He has a big job ahead of him, but that is his responsibility. I make an earnest appeal to the hon the Minister to see to it that these people’s plight is addressed.
If, as it was reported and as I understand it, the British government under Mrs Margaret Thatcher could reduce the inflation rate in England to 4%—it was well over double that figure—we should do something in this country about reducing the inflation rate as well. I ask the hon the Minister to consider that very seriously.
’Before my time expires, I would like to say that the LP had a congress a few years ago and the theme of that congress was reconciliation. I personally believe that that is the only solution for our country. People from all races should be reconciled with one another. In my opinion that is one of the most important problems concerning all races.
†Here I wish to mention what the hon leader of our party said yesterday when he agreed to the amendments to the Standing Rules and Orders. He said it was a compromise; it was not altogether what we wanted, but it was a compromise.
’This is the reconciliation we all desire. Actually he said earlier that we would not find solutions for the future without our contributions. Those were his words as I wrote them down yesterday. I appeal to hon members in this House, the House of Assembly and the House of Delegates each to make a contribution to the reconciliation of all racial groups in this country.
It is remarkable that in the history of our country ministers of religion have always been in conflict with the governing authorities. I shall go back briefly in history. The first minister I can recall is Dr Van der Kemp who was a minister at Bethelsdorp. He came from Holland and this is what Corey had to say about him in The Rise of South Africa, Part 1, p 142:
This is the same situation we find today in which a minister who adopts a standpoint against the governing authority is banned. May I have more time to finish?
Order! The hon member must address the House and not hold a private meeting. The hon member may proceed.
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The second person I can think of who was also a minister was that difficult man, Dr John Philip. I want to quote from Part 2 in which this is said about him:
That is on p 142. On p 421 one finds:
So much for two ministers of former times.
I could talk about our own time now and refer to our own hon leader, but I would prefer to talk about the other minister. [Interjections.] Yes, this is about Bishop Tutu.
Order! The hon member may proceed.
I do not agree with Bishop Tutu’s strategy, nor do I agree with him in his support of the ANC. I do not believe he is a member of the organisation, but he has already said that he supports them. What he represents, however, which is the abolition of apartheid, is that which we in this House stand for. We have our own strategy. [Interjections.] May I proceed, Sir?
Order! The hon member may proceed.
We have our own strategy to fight apartheid. I have a book here with the title Dismantling of Apartheid, which I could quote from in this regard, but I shall not do so now as I think hon members have all read it.
Order!
Bishop Tutu is my archbishop because he is the archbishop of my church, but I must honestly admit that I do not like his statements at all.
He discriminates against you!
Order! The hon member for Border cannot sit here and pass remarks continuously. I shall maintain order in the House myself too. The hon member may proceed.
I do not like his remarks inside or outside this country.
I received this book as a gift from my daughter; its title is Hope and Suffering. In the first letter which he addressed to the then Prime Minister, the late Mr John Vorster, in 1976, he wrote as follows:
†After I had read this letter, my feelings towards the archbishop mellowed. I would not say that I accepted him altogether and I still think that many people do not accept him.
*In conclusion, I want to refer to the leader of the LP, Rev Allan Hendrickse. Like Bishop Tutu, he is a minister, an anointed one. The leader of the LP also pleaded for his people because this is his work. As a result of this, he was also bundled into jail. It is remarkable that those who worked for the liberation of their people in South Africa all clashed with the government of the day.
I wish to associate myself with what the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council said yesterday, namely that no solutions would be found for the future without our contributions.
Mr Speaker, I thank you very sincerely for the opportunity to participate in this debate. I should like to make a few remarks about three aspects, ie sanctions, the conflict between the State and the Church, and violence.
The purpose of sanctions is to place optimum pressure on the Government in an effort to persuade the Government to relinquish its policy of apartheid. Although the methods and motives of those advocating sanctions could be noble ones, we must nevertheless acknowledge that the end does not justify the means. People, particularly Black people who are supposed to be helped by sanctions, are the ones who suffer most, the ones who are most adversely affected. The imposition of sanctions knows no boundaries or divisions. The modus operandi of those advocating sanctions, and the ultimate consequence of their implementation, are counter-productive and sanctimonious, because those inhabitants of the country who are worst off are the ones who are economically prejudiced.
Over the past two years we have gained experience of the problem of unemployment. Hundreds of thousands of people have not been able to make a living. We have had to open up soup kitchens and distribute food packages, and we have shared in the lot of the destitute. We have learned in the process, because we were able to attempt to have the laws adapted, setting reform as our top priority.
When the going was tough, we privatised and deregulated. [Interjections.]
Order! The hon member may proceed.
We thereby gave the Black man hope and created hundreds of thousands of job opportunities.
We know that tremendous medical and scientific progress is made in times of war, but then people must initiate this progress and take calculated risks. During the recent depression we had to create opportunities to stimulate the economy. Along the Crossroads “Golden Mile” the informal business sector flourished. We excelled ourselves by giving economic considerations the upper hand, taking the sting out of the political emphasis on the shop-floor. Economic impact and economic contributions were the watchword, with the result that our economy did not bleed to death as the sanctioneers had hoped. Because the small man could show his economic muscle, within months the informal sector flourished, with 600 000 new job opportunities being created in this sector.
We can just mention that Black taxi entrepreneurs are a success in the history of South Africa’s informal sector. This success story is reflected in a recent, striking TV programme which showed how the Black entrepreneur was being given self-respect and a good standard of living. Perhaps sanctions were the shot in the arm we needed to lift us out of the self-pitying fear of sanctions and improve our own position.
At the same time we allowed these people to develop managerial expertise. The motor mechanic doing repair work in his backyard can become the businessman of tomorrow as a result of his experience in the informal sector. They say they do not have licences to repair motorcars cheaply because they do not know where to get the licences, and also that by working in their backyards they do not pay tax, because they already pay tax on their homes. They would, however, welcome a place to work if they were able to get one.
With regard to the deregulation and privatisation of road transport—here I am talking about the transportation of people and goods—there have been revolutionary changes and improvements. Today one can make use of intercity transport which is fast and convenient, and this is the result of deregulation. The informal sector is not afraid of sanctions, strikes or lockouts in the labour market, because those aspects play no part in their lives. The people work for themselves and their productivity is normally very high. When we piloted legislation in connection with privatisation and deregulation through the standing committees two years ago, some of the trade unionists raised their stentorian voices and banged their fists on the tables, warning us that we were charting a disastrous course. Now that those aspects are a fait accompli, we no longer hear those stentorian voices and the heavy fists banging on the tables. Sanctions are hypocritical, but we did not crumble under the onslaught. The modus operandi of sanctions did not have the negative effect it was supposed to have. As I read the wishes of South Africans today, no sanctions will cause us to deviate from our course.
Secondly, I want to speak about the conflict between the State and the Church. We as politicians, and the State as such, have a calling to respond in such a way that the country and its people benefit from the maintenance of order and justice. In contrast the Church has a calling to issue admonishments about the maintenance of justice. We lament the present clash between the State and the Church. The Church aims primarily at bringing about reconciliation, but we cannot expect the Church to remain silent if unjust laws blot our Statute Book. For that reason we must address the critics of the Government with great compassion and listen carefully to the voice of protest, distrust, despair and confusion so that a balanced method can be found of creating a climate of trust and consequent understanding and hope. If that does not happen, the clash between the State and the Church will only assume greater ramifications, thereby jeopardising any reform plans we may cherish. The correspondence between the head of State and Church leaders must come to an end. There must be a cooling-down period, and then personal and intimate discussions can be held, away from the glare of the TV cameras and the other media. Then feelings will have cooled down and thinking become rational. They will be able to discuss matters with one another calmly.
Sir, lastly I want to talk about violence. As practising Christians we must be opposed to violence in principle. Our attitude must be an attitude of emancipating love. Consequently we must have some understanding of those who advocate violence. We must attempt to counter their convictions. That can only happen if we understand the spiral of violence in all its forms. It is vital for us to reflect seriously on this mammoth problem, which is assuming ever greater proportions, with a view to having a positive attitude towards those who advocate violence.
The violence perpetrated in Pretoria is renewed proof of how self-destructive and evil violence can be. Economic and sports sanctions, and violence too, are all by-products of apartheid. It is no secret that apartheid is counterproductive. The complete elimination of apartheid is one of the main requirements for the combating of violence and sanctions.
Mr Speaker, the Main Appropriation was greeted by the following comment: This is a very balanced Budget. It was said that the Budget could be regarded as having a slightly dampening effect, but that it would have a positive effect on the inflation rate. It was also stated that the Budget as a whole should be seen as a neutral budget. Those are the opinions expressed by people in organised commerce and industry and also by businessmen and economists.
Sir, I see no traces of this Budget being a balanced one. Let me give hon members a look at the agricultural sector. Since 1986, owing to the drought, the State has granted White farmers financial assistance to the tune of R2 billion. Last year R400 million was voted to farmers in certain regions to save them from bankruptcy. The contention was that farmers had had no income and that debts had systematically mounted up. Of that R400 million, only R30 million was used to save farmers from bankruptcy. The remaining R370 million is still in the House of Assembly coffers.
What did the Coloured component receive? A meagre R30 million was made available to administer 24 rural areas. We are all aware of the conditions in rural areas. The Coloured farmers are struggling to make ends meet. They cannot farm economically, and will never be able to do so, because in the majority of rural areas there is a great shortage of water. The agricultural land consists, for the most part, of stones, rock and sand. There is poor grazing for animals, because the Coloureds got rural areas where the climatic conditions did not meet the requirements for economic farming.
Where are the balanced aspects people talk about? Yesterday we learnt from the hon member Mr Lockey that the White farmers on the border receive a border allowance of R10 000, whilst the Coloured border farmers do not get a single cent.
That is discrimination, is it not?
Where are the balanced aspects that have been mentioned? We did not come to this House to administer Coloured poverty. The time has come for more funds to be voted to help Coloured farmers through the bridging period. At present Coloured farmers are merely subsistence farmers. If we want Coloured farmers to farm economically, they will have to be assisted in bridging this period of subsistence farming. The Government votes money for advances to the following persons and bodies: Fulltime White farmers, farming companies, close corporations, which are small family undertakings, and partnerships. White farmers were helped to bridge the subsistence farming stage by long-term, mortgage, liability, seasonal, settlement and medium-term loans. White farmers were helped to negotiate loans to pay off mortgages, to consolidate loose debts, to bring about improvements, to purchase livestock and agricultural equipment, and they receive advances for operating capital.
Even part-time farmers are assisted. At this stage the assistance to part-time farmers comprises 2% to 3% of the Land Bank’s loan aid to farmers. The time has come for the Government, in all seriousness, to look after the Coloured farmers. All the afore-mentioned facilities must also be made available to Coloured farmers. The time has come for the hon the Minister of Finance to establish a development trust for the Coloured component, as the Government has done in the Black areas. That development trust must be provided with sufficient funds.
We can begin with the R370 million lying in the House of Assembly coffers. With that we could purchase economic agricultural units on which we could start a co-operative farming enterprise. We cannot purchase economic units with the R30 million voted for rural areas. The money is hardly sufficient to administer rural areas. If a development trust were established, this would introduce a degree of balance. I know that my plea today has not fallen on deaf ears and that the hon the Minister will consider my request very favourably.
We welcome the savings plan for the aged. The one-off bonus of R60 and the advancement of the date of payment to May are more than welcome. It is a very good thing that the savings plan will be under the auspices of banks, building societies and the Post Office. This will help to obviate an outflow of money, particularly from building societies. We are glad that the State is going to pay a subsidy of 2,5% on the interest, thus ensuring the required favourable return. What has a very dampening effect, however, is the announcement that the returns on the investments will be fully taxable and that no provision is being made for an overall adjustment for social pensioners.
The aged have contributed their share to building up the economy of the country. It is no use subsidising the interest by 2,5% and then reclaiming that money in the form of taxation. The hon the Minister could have made this interest on the investments tax-free as a token of his appreciation for what the aged have done for this country. The hon the Minister will have to give favourable consideration to making the interest completely tax-free.
What has had a very dampening effect is the fact that the hon the Minister does not want to finance the adjustment which the House of Representatives wants to introduce. The hon member Mr Lockey also mentioned it in this House yesterday, and I do not want to elaborate. I merely want to tell the hon the Minister that as far back as 1985 a decision was taken in principle about parity in all pensions. A start was made by granting equal increases and bonuses for all population groups. That is where it ended, however. Absolutely nothing was done to narrow the gap. The time has come for the NP Government to tell its voters what it is going to do and what it wants to do.
It is time to tell the White voters that since the advent of Union in 1910, and particularly since 1948, they have simply been scooping off the cream. They have had all the benefits in this country. They have had only the best of everything in this country. As a result of the White pigment of their skin, only the best was reserved for them in commerce, agriculture, mining and even in education. In the social sphere they were given preferential treatment and always had more than the non-Whites. Thus the poor White question was solved and we no longer have any poor Whites today.
You are fibbing.
We now have to look after the non-White groups. The CP, the AWB, the PFP and the NP voters must be told that decisions taken on principle cannot suffice, that those decisions have to be implemented. The large gap existing between pensioners must be narrowed. They now have to be satisfied if the hon the Minister cannot give them an adjustment. That must be their contribution to reform in South Africa. If that could be done, I do not think there would be any more Randfonteins for the NP.
There are thousands of Whites who would like to see the pension gap first being narrowed and then eliminated. The Government has no reason to be afraid of losing support; on the contrary, it would win support if it implemented the idea of narrowing the gap.
Mr Speaker, I believe that the hon the Minister of Finance is able to give us everything we have asked for in this House today. I also think that this hon Minister is able to donate to us the R40 million which has caused such problems. As a member of the Standing Committee on Finance, I know what I am talking about. [Interjections.] I do not think, however, that it is necessary for me to reveal certain aspects here today, because I think we have confidence in the hon the Minister of Finance.
I want to talk briefly about the Black population of the RSA. The Blacks are accommodated in separate homelands. According to this model, the idea that is propagated is that they should help themselves, and should have confidence in their own efforts to shake off their poverty and to make their states economically viable. At present, however, homelands and self-governing states are grappling with problems which cannot be overcome. The homelands are still dependent upon the RSA for their exports and imports. They are dependent on the traffic routes of their neighbouring states.
The homelands have no say in politics here in South Africa. They do not have sufficient financial capital and are therefore compelled to make use of international loans or to negotiate contracts with large international companies to finance certain projects.
What happens if the TBVC countries cannot honour their agreements? Is it not true that the World Bank is exerting pressure on these countries? Is the Republic of South Africa responsible for the debt of the TBVC countries?
Today landownership is the major problem in the Republic. It is a question of who may live where he wants to and who has control of that land. It is our task to ensure that all people have a specific orderly living space in which they can live happily.
I briefly want to refer to other policy matters. The question that is sometimes asked is whether there are special advantages or disadvantages in respect of privatisation and deregulation. It chiefly depends, however, on whether one is viewing this from an economic or a social angle. From the economic point of view these two aspects will definitely have a beneficial influence on the urban areas. From an economic point of view privatisation and deregulation will have a detrimental influence on the rural areas in which millions of people are living. Socially the rural areas are compelled to develop in isolation. We cannot, however, permit these areas to be developed in accordance with traditional methods.
Rural areas are expected to uplift themselves with the profits obtained from the mines. This principle is not implemented. Rural areas have to manage without development areas, concentration points and border-industry development points. When the NP sold rural areas to the Coloureds, that was the best thing that could have happened. Today Coloured people are asking for rural areas, but their requests are being refused.
I want to refer briefly to an application made to the Cabinet in connection with the rural areas. The history surrounding the Khosis community is briefly the following. Khosis is situated near Sishen, and with the resettlement of Black people, 137 Coloured families remained behind. The majority of the people retained a few head of cattle and small stock, whilst a few had as many as 2 000 head of cattle. As far back as 1962 the then Coloured government made representations to have the area declared a Coloured area for the settlement of the numerous migrant Coloured families of the North-Western Cape. The representations led to the Cabinet resolving, on 30 May 1973, that it agreed in principle that in time, once all the procedures had been concluded, the area could be developed as a rural area. On 2 October 1973, however, the Cabinet rescinded the previous decision and resolved that this would have to be done through normal channels and that the relevant area had to be placed under the control of the Department of Agricultural Credit. It was also decided that the area would not become a Coloured rural area. I also want to mention that at a later stage the area was converted into the Army Combat School which was later to be known as the P W Botha Training Centre.
It is disappointing that we cannot get the things we ask for in South Africa. Our requests are repeatedly refused. I want to repeat that when the NP suggested what rural areas we should get, they were available. Now that we are asking for them, however, we cannot have them.
I want to refer once again to the territorial allowances for Coloured farmers which are being discussed so widely. This cannot be regarded as an own affair; it has to be regarded as a general affair, because when it comes to financial assistance, the hon the Minister of Finance is involved. If the areas have to be extended, the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is involved. Territorial allowances primarily relate to national security, involving as they do the hon the Minister of Defence. It is time the matter was finalised.
Sir, I am very concerned about the private sector. What steps have been taken in case the private sector ignores the proposals and leaves the State in the lurch? If we want to curb inflation finally by not granting any salary increases to public servants, or allowing any increases in the prices of services or articles, let me make a friendly request to the hon the Minister, and that is that no local authorities should impose any increases in regard to municipal services and rates. I should like the hon the Minister to ensure that municipalities comply with this request this year. We already have a high unemployment rate, but if this request were complied with, we would nevertheless be able to maintain a high growth rate.
Another trend is the high population growth rate we are maintaining at present, and we shall have to introduce economic measures leading to better family planning and a higher standard of living. It is the wish of all of us that we shall reach a point of reconciliation, a point at which there is mutual trust and everyone’s word is his bond.
Mr Speaker, it is a singular honour for me to be able to participate in the debate, because in South Africa today we must stand together in our struggle to ward off the international onslaught.
Today I want to focus my attention on Western countries. At a time when South Africa is tackling its greatest political reforms, it is disappointing that insufficient recognition is being given to these processes of change. For this reason I want to ask the Western World to have greater understanding of the political problems in South Africa. These are not problems we can solve with the stroke of a pen or the signing of a kind of Lancaster Agreement. We shall have to enter into discussions in order to solve our problems. It would also be a good thing if the Western World had to pay a greater price for successful negotiation. Prizes should not always be given for radicalism and negativism. It is a pity that Western thinking is steered mainly towards violent solutions. That is why we have the phenomenon of the AWB in South Africa today, born as it is out of those Western patterns of thought. The Western World, using economic sanctions and disinvestment in its onslaught on South Africa, is getting us bogged down even further and is not allowing this process of negotiation to be finalised.
We must realise that sanctions do not offer any solution to our problems. This has been proven in several reports that have been published. I want to quote from a report entitled “South Africa: Fact-finding Mission, 1987—The Challenge of Successful Change”. It was drawn up by the Canadian Junior Chamber of Commerce—Jaycees. I quote from it as follows:
Sir, the Canadian Government is being given a dressing down by its own people—not by South Africans, but by its own voters. Nevertheless countries such as Canada, America and Australia persist with this policy of sanctions.
It was gratifying to read in Die Burger this morning what Pres Nixon had to say in his book Victory Without War. According to him a racial war is precisely what would happen if the West were to continue to attack the South African economy with counterproductive economic sanctions, and if the ANC were to continue making progress with its campaign to gain influence in South Africa and legality in the eyes of the outside world. Sir, that is the message of an ex-president of America.
If one sees what has happened as a result of sanctions and disinvestment, one really hopes that the West will come to its senses. American companies abandon their responsibilities. Who gets the assets? Those in White South Africa who have monetary sources at their disposal—not the Blacks, who have been trying for years to increase their standard of living. Provision is not made for medical aid schemes and pension benefits for them, nor is provision made for them to buy shares in those companies. They are sold to friends at give-away prices. Sir, if the time is ripe and the price is right, those Americans move out of South Africa. What do they want to accomplish? Change.
Pres Kennedy once spoke about “the rising tide which will float all ships”. The economy in South Africa will sweep in like a tidal wave, and the small boats will be the first to be swept up onto the crest of the wave. As progress is made, the larger boats will follow. That is why I am telling the Western World today that this onslaught against us is not the solution to our problems.
Another important point I want to make is that several overseas countries do this for personal gain. I shall tell hon members why. They are seeking their own interests, their own foreign markets, because they want to take our markets from us. What did Australia do in regard to its coal? They are seeking their own interests and want the support of the UN. They want to sell our rights and our survival for Black African votes. They do not have the courage to address the facts or the true state of affairs at international conferences. They are not prepared to acknowledge that Africa has been an economic failure. Africa’s suffering and distress is swept under the carpet. Nor are they prepared to address Africa’s political problems, because what do we find? We find that the rest of Africa is permitted to implement a different standard of democracy. South Africa is the only country in Africa striving to achieve true democracy, but the other countries are accepted by the world.
Our security is important to us. Our security and progress must bind us together; our security and progress must help us to accept challenges, and to expose these double standards in the statements made by Western countries. It is also a pity that we are saddled today with Western envoys in South Africa who write off anyone who participates in peaceful negotiation as being a mere Aunt Sally. There are envoys who are sitting in the galleries of this House and the House of Assembly, listening to us putting our case, but who then report that any participant in this system is a mere Aunt Sally. Sir, I want to see the Aunt Sally who can negotiate with the NP, who would be prepared to go on administering affairs.
Through its participation, the LP has contributed to a transformation in South Africa. [Interjections.] The LP was the key to joint sittings. Is that the work done by an Aunt Sally? The LP will lead this country along the road to the new South Africa. [Interjections.] There are also people like Chief Buthelezi, who cannot be called an Aunt Sally. [Interjections.] There is no place for an Aunt Sally in this House. I want to ask each and every one of us participating in these proceedings not to conduct himself like an Aunt Sally either, but to go on accepting the challenges we have come here to face. We must not be afraid when elections are called.
We cannot allow Western countries to gamble with our future. Western countries have no sense of responsibility towards our people. They have no responsibility for our security, safety or survival; they only have a responsibility towards their own voters and their own economies. We cannot risk sanctions. Sanctions do not help us; they only help those who are rich and privileged or those in the Public Service who can qualify for pensions and are assured of their increases, their housing subsidies and their job opportunities. The major percentage of those people are Whites. How can sanctions help the Black and Coloured communities?
I am asking the Western world to re-evaluate its policy. Examine our role in Africa. Look at what we are doing to help Africa. The whole of Southern Africa, all our neighbouring states, is dependent on South Africa. More than 2,5 million workers are in South Africa at present. Can we afford to send those people back? Can we afford to close our borders? Of the 50 countries in Africa, 49 countries—or 40-odd countries—trade with South Africa. We can put the facts on the table. Why do we not do so? The reason is to protect those countries’ dependence on South Africa.
Today we have critics in our country who go around jeopardising our future for the sake of popularity. We have critics who are not responsible for their actions, and no country or Parliament can negotiate a constitution with an archbishop. He has not been elected by the voters. The hon member for Border sitting there has a greater right to participate when it comes to the negotiation of a constitution. The archbishop of a church, which does not even represent a major denomination in this country, does not have that right. He has an opinion to express, and we listen to his ideas, but the political representatives of this country will have to address that crisis. We therefore have to be realistic. We must go further with our role in this process of reconciliation. We must stick to what is important for our people. Today I am proud to say that in the past four years the LP has worked wonders in negotiating and getting something in return.
Hon members in the opposition benches also benefited from our negotiations. We also brought them to this Parliament. They did not come here unaided. Every one of them, except the hon member for Ottery, who is not present, came here as members of the LP. Today I am telling them to watch out. We are going to pull out the rug from under them. They must beware of the day when the rug is pulled out from under them. We do not come here playing games with lists that still have to receive attention. When we pull out the rug from under them, they are going to fall, and there will be no rug there to cushion their fall.
In this time of peace it is important for all participants to seek solutions. It is easier to find solutions in a time of peace than in a time of violence or war. It is an easy matter to speak up in public if one is not accountable to one’s voters. It is easy to appear on television and make emotional appeals if one does not have to rely on voters. It is easy to speak out in the outside world in the sure knowledge that one can make one’s home there. After all, if things go wrong I can be a bishop or a doctor in another country. Then we run, Sir. We fly SAL, because that is the best airline, is it not. I want to ask the Western World not to go on with its destructive campaign against South Africa. Those countries must listen to hon members in the House who advocate economic change. That is necessary for the education and welfare of our people. It is necessary for agriculture and for the country’s economy. It is also necessary so that the small businessman can get on his feet. This would result in a new dispensation and a good future for everyone.
Economic change is also necessary so that we can build up the country into a new symbol of unity. Every person must feel that he is a true South African. I therefore want to turn my attention to the NP Government and ask the hon the Minister to give serious attention to tackling our economic problems in such a way that all our people can benefit from the solutions to those problems.
The hon the Minister knows that I also blame him for the pension issue. I have said that he is doing South Africa a great disservice. I now want to tell the hon the Minister why I say this. We also have a minister of finance in this House, ie the hon the Minister of the Budget. The hon the Minister of Finance must guard against destroying or denigrating, by his actions, structures that we have built up. What it comes down to is that that hon Minister is at odds with the authority of a House. We are part of the tricameral system. The hon the Minister of Finance—and other hon Ministers too—must guard against causing cracks to develop in a system that we are building up, and then accusing us of being the reason why the system does not work.
Today we see what is happening to all the efforts at reform. Today we see, for example, what has been achieved in the world of sport as a result of our policy of reform. That has not satisfied the West. We must nevertheless strive to satisfy ourselves. In the long run it is South Africans who have to find one another, and it is therefore important to expedite the process of political reform.
I am proud to be a member of the LP which decided that we should have joint debates, because this will give hon members in the House an opportunity to speak where it really counts. Joint debates will give hon members in the House an opportunity to put their people’s case in joint meetings. It is also a step closer to the realisation of the ideal of having all of us—including those who are still excluded—sitting together in one Parliament one day.
Mr Speaker, we cannot defend sanctions. They are to our detriment, because we live in the poverty that results. My people seek job opportunities. They are asking for an opportunity to be technically trained. They want better housing and a better place to live. We in South Africa are striving for better relations with our neighbours. That is why Southern Africa has the most extensive railway network. Approximately 70% of Zambia’s imports and 40% of its exports go through our harbours. In the case of Zaire, 40% of its copper and 60% of its lead go through our harbours, as do 57% of its exports.
I cannot understand why South Africa’s leaders, when travelling overseas, continually have to speak about our shortcomings. They are recognised as international leaders, but no one ever speaks about the poverty and ostracism of the Canadian Indians. Why does Archbishop Tutu not notice what is happening in Canada, and why is he blind to what is happening to the Aborigines in Australia? Why does he have blinkers on when he is in America and why does he not see that in that country the Blacks and Whites are not yet equal?
We in this House and in this Parliament must set an example in seeking peaceful solutions. We must listen to what is said. We must listen to what President Nixon said in the publication Victory Without War. He said that blood should not flow in the streets of South Africa merely to give students at American universities and newspaper editors a feeling of moral self-justification. We need not sacrifice our lives and future here to satisfy those people. That is apparently what many people want. We must do things here, ask for things and advocate certain courses of action so that we can satisfy our own consciences. It is our responsibility to build up a better and a new South Africa.
Mr Speaker, I move:
Agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).
Mr Speaker, I move without notice:
Agreed to.
Mr Speaker, I move:
Agreed to.
The House adjourned at
Mr E ABRAMJEE, as Chairman, presented the Fourth Report of the Standing Select Committee on Finance, dated 19 April 1988, as follows:
Bill to be read a second time.
Mr Chairman, I move without notice:
14h15 to 18h45.
Agreed to.
Mr Chairman, I move without notice:
Agreed to.
Vote No 2—“Local Government, Housing and Agriculture” (contd):
Mr Chairman, yesterday I emphasised a very significant deficiency in regard to the powers of the Ministers’ Council in respect of promoting agriculture in our community in the manner in which agriculture is promoted in the House of Representatives and the House of Assembly.
My colleague, the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture, is very seriously examining the introduction of legislation which will give the Ministers’ Council the necessary authority to acquire land for agricultural purposes in the same manner as the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture in the House of Representatives is able to do.
I also indicated that we are examining legal aspects in respect of the use of funds from the Housing Reserve Fund on a loan basis to acquire land for agricultural purposes, just in case the hon member for Stanger may have another opportunity of running to the newspaper to deal with a certain aspect relating to unauthorised expenditure, when they may in fact not be unauthorised.
Are we debating that issue now?
I sincerely hope—in response to the hon member for Stanger—that he rectifies the mischief-making he indulged in last Friday and informs the press—the Times Extra and the Tribune Herald—that not a single rand of the House of Delegates’ money was wasted.
Appoint a commission of enquiry.
Mr Chairman, I will not take any questions.
The hon the Minister should stop talking nonsense.
Order! I think it is absolutely unnecessary for the hon member for Stanger to have made such a statement. It is an insinuation and I would be pleased if he would rise and withdraw it.
Mr Chairman, I bow to your request, but I would like to ask the Chair to request the hon the Minister to stop making derogatory statements, implying mischief etc. If the hon the Minister wants to debate the issue, he should put a notice of motion on the agenda.
Order! Unfortunately I must inform the hon member for Stanger that the hon the Minister of Housing has not made any insinuations.
He did. He clearly did.
Order! I clearly remember that he asked the hon member not to make certain statements in the newspapers. There is no call for the hon member to react in the way he did. The hon the Minister may proceed.
Nevertheless, Mr Chairman, I think it was important for me to have said what I did. I am sure that if anybody wants to deal with any aspect of what is contained in the Auditor-General’s report, he will have a right to do so.
Order! Does the hon member for Cavendish have a question?
No, Mr Chairman. I was merely about to sit down. [Interjections.]
As far as local government is concerned, we are faced with a dilemma in certain of our local authorities which in the past have accepted local autonomy. I refer to Marburg and local authorities like Isipingo and Umzinto North.
Verulam?
No, Verulam is not in the same category in that the entire municipal area was declared Indian. However, it is very clear that Marburg, Umzinto North and Isipingo are not viable areas and are not able to manage their affairs or balance the books. In addition we should very seriously examine White local authorities that are tailoring expenditure in Indian areas according to income. According to a provision in provincial ordinances—rules relating to management committee and local affairs committee areas—they are not allocating more money for the development of Indian areas than the income generated from these areas. However, as far as the White areas are concerned, they are not tailoring expenditure within the means of the income of these White areas. Therefore our areas under the jurisdiction of management committees and local affairs committees are placed at a disadvantage. It means that the profits from the giant commercial areas and the profit surpluses from the giant industrial areas are being used to provide facilities in the White areas. They are not being used to provide services in the Black, Coloured and Indian areas.
We should also seriously examine the local government structures in areas that are under the jurisdiction of the peri-urban board in the Transvaal and the Development and Services board.
The hon member for Cavendish raised the issue of Shallcross with me, where we have the problem of the moving hill. We do not know the cause of this moving hill. It may be negligence on the part of the developer or an act of God. It may be negligence on the part of the Development and Services Board which possibly did not apply the regulations properly. However, people are asking one question because of the deficiency and the manner in which the local authority is structured there.
Did the local authority take the necessary precautions in applying the rules when they were dealing with the conditions for establishment? Some of the residents want to know from us—from the House of Delegates—why the developers were not forced to provide proper drainage, which other developers in other municipal areas are forced to provide in order to satisfy the terms of the conditions for establishment before such clearances are given.
What is more, the hon member for Cavendish will agree with me that the prices asked for the vacant sites in Harinagar were unrealistic. [Interjections.] I do not want to mention who acted as an attorney for the developers … [Interjections.] … but one would expect at least some statement from the developers. We are being asked to intervene. We cannot pass judgment until we are satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that the local authority there—that is, the Development and Services Board—has taken all the necessary precautions to protect the end user. Nevertheless, we have not had a statement from the developers and I think those who are employed by the developers, who wear different caps at different times, should, in the best public interests, protect not only the interests of their client but also those of the end user.
We have this problem in our Indian areas and I think the time is now ripe, due to the fact that our Indian areas have been carved up as a result of the Government’s policy of separate development, for the central Government to accept the responsibility of guaranteeing viability in certain areas that are not even able to provide basic amenities and facilities. I think we must address this problem very, very seriously and I feel sure that my colleague the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture is examining this matter in an extremely serious light.
One question that was asked was: What are we doing about this situation? We do not agree with the direction which the Government has mapped out in so far as local autonomy is concerned. Pietermaritzburg in Natal has set a very good example because they have created a forum for multi-racialism. Unfortunately, however, as a result of a lack of faith and confidence on the part of the local affairs committee of Pietermaritzburg as well as certain members of the local authority, this interim arrangement does not appear to be succeeding. In this regard I want to make a very strong recommendation.
In 1983 the hon the State President made certain suggestions in respect of the committees of municipalities and the management committees and LAC’s sitting together and deciding matters of common concern jointly on an informal basis. Unfortunately, however, no local authority, with the exception of Pietermaritzburg, has accepted the suggestion of the hon the State President. However, I want to place on record that the creation of autonomous Indian areas does not enjoy the support of our administration. [Interjections.]
What is more, we would like to see the day when we have direct representation. We are not opposed to the creation of new local authority areas, provided that they are created on a geographical basis and provided that viability in these areas is guaranteed. We are going to hold a discussion with the Ministry and the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning, at which we shall be able to discuss this in greater detail.
I can assure hon members of this House that my colleague, the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture in the Ministers’s Council, and I are conscious of our deficiencies in the area of local government and we are doing our best to be of assistance to these people.
I want to come to the issue of the devolution and delegation of powers. Unfortunately, members of the management committees and the various local affairs committees, possibly as a result of some promises of better allowances and additional positions made to them, appear to be negotiating with the provincial authorities to accept additional powers. I want to make it very clear that the acceptance of these powers, without having a say in respect of the allocation of funds from the central coffers of the municipality, on the basis of fairness, is meaningless. Acceptance of these powers will mean autonomy. I therefore ask the question, especially of the hon member for Stanger, whether he is encouraging his party members at the level of local government to reject the offers being made by the authorities in respect of the acceptance of delegated powers. I believe …
We had a congress resolution on that.
Congress resolutions may be for the archives. I am given to understand that senior members of Solidarity in Natal are in the frontline and guiding others to accept these delegations.
It is debatable whether senior members …
These are not debates; these are realities and the hon member for Stanger knows to which members of Solidarity I am referring.
Mr Chairman, there are two issues on which I want to touch before I begin my speech. The one is the question of the shifting sand in Harinagar. We accept that when there are heavy storms and rain, one does have problems. However, the main issue is that when the best land is being utilised for the Whites, and the leftovers, which in shining terms are called “monkey-country”, are being utilised for the Indian community, this kind of problem will occur and must be looked at. The necessary precautions must be taken to provide for these shortcomings.
The other issue at which I must express my concern is the statement of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council that he is going to examine using housing funds to acquire agricultural land. This is not a good statement, coming from a Minister of his calibre and the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. He must understand that in the previous year’s Budget the hon the Minister of Finance allocated R1 billion to White farmers. He must look at the Land Bank books. Over R8 billion is owed by White farmers to the Land Bank, and in turn, of course, to the taxpayers, because that is where the money comes from. Why, when we require something like 59 000 or 60 000 units for our community’s development and we have limited funds, must we take this and go and buy agricultural land? I think I would be failing in my duty if I did not point this out. I want to disagree with that point.
Did you hear me?
Yes, I heard the hon the Minister of Housing very clearly.
I said “loans”.
Yes, loans.
That is not using it outright.
Not outright, correct. However, we need the money to develop housing. That is where it comes first and that is what it is allocated for. Go to the Treasury and tell them that if they can give a R1 billion to the White farmers, we should be given a pro rata share for our farmers.
The only money we can get is for flood relief.
Yes, that is all water under the bridge. It is more talk than anything else. [Interjections.]
The history of Indians in this country is synonymous with agricultural development. When one examines the situation, one finds that the first Indians who came here were indentured labourers who were brought here for agriculture. After they finished the period of indenture, they took up farming and market gardening.
That was one chapter of the Indian community’s history in this country. Then came the industrial revolution, coupled with group areas. This created this catastrophe which we are facing today. The Indian farmer has virtually become an extinct species. Let us look at this for a moment.
The industrial revolution brought about the need for housing and job creation. Land was needed for housing. The first land that is identified, like all expert planning under the freeway, is going to be Indian land. If it is going to be an internal road, it is going to be the Indian market, and so it goes on.
In Chatsworth there was viable banana farming. It was in Cavendish where the name of the Cavendish banana originated. Today it has all gone. In Springfield farmers produced cash crops in small vegetable gardens. Today that is a concrete jungle. Everything has gone.
It is now creating problems in this House.
Yes. What has this brought about? The price of vegetables has shot right up. The prejudice of the Whites is now showing up. They are now paying the price for it. A bunch of carrots which once cost 10c, costs R1,00 today.
It was so cheap last year.
Mr Chairman, one can go on. Today we are talking about restructuring farming. Farming was destroyed. We have to reconstruct it. Most of these people that were market gardeners, were proud of their produce.
We have a situation in Port Shepstone regarding industrial development. The cement company has come there and 1 200 hectares of farm land were taken over. The Lime Company has taken over the balance of it. Langa baLele was a very vibrant farming community, producing the best coastal pineapples, pawpaws and bananas. Today most of those people are sitting in housing schemes, languishing and reminiscing about the past. That is not going to be easy to reverse.
I know the hon the Minister is faced with a daunting task to return the people to the farms. We heard also that many Whites are going back to the farms. Why not, if they can get R1 billion this year and R400 million the next year? Of course they will go back to the farms. Where else would they go?
Coupled with all this, those who have survived all these inhibitions, still have to deal with the Durban City Council, which harasses the market gardeners about where to sell, how to sell, what time to sell. Then there is also the control board.
Carry on!
No, this is important. I will wait, because I want the hon the Minister to take note of this and reply to it.
As I have said, we have the control boards. Who does not remember the days when school children used to buy a packet of peanuts for a tickey? Who does not remember the days when the peanut dealers in Warwick Avenue and Etnalane were producing fried nuts? All the school children enjoyed those very reasonably priced nuts. People who had no employment would sell nuts at the school gates. What happened to all this? This is a challenge the hon the Minister has to take up. The control board has not allowed that. If one has a few orange trees in your garden and one does not use it all, one could make a few rands out of it. The pensioners are not allowed to sell these produce.
We have to place this at the hon the Minister’s door and tell him to take it up with the necessary authorities and see that these things are removed. These little cash crops cannot become a threat to the Control Board. They cannot become a threat to the economy of the country.
What is the use of having report after report and commissions of enquiry concerning the informal sector? This is an informal sector and it can be created at very limited cost. There is no capital involved. If one starts gardening, for example, one will definitely employ a few persons. One will produce for oneself and for others and one will create jobs as well.
You will need carrot-farming!
Carrots have become too expensive. [Interjections.]
There is another area that requires immediate attention. It falls under the hon member for Umzinto. I was born and brought up there so I know the place very well. A vibrant farming community exists there but they have their problems. It is possible that the land will be sold, that some big enterprise will take over and that all the farmers will be displaced. Up to this day this area has continued production and marketing and it still continues to do so. The area needs urgent attention. Its destruction must be prevented so that the farmers can continue their tasks. Those farmers must be saved from destruction.
I heard about the Jacobs Committee and their investigation of market gardening. It has become a joke because there is no need to continue the investigations and the writing of reports. We already know that the Indian farmers and market gardeners are destroyed. All that we have to do now is to try to reconstruct that department. We do not need surveys to tell us that. What is the use of the surveys? If information is needed there is no better source than Mr Ramphal who served on the Natal Agricultural Union. The members of SAIC appointed him as the man for agriculture in those days. What has become of him? Can we not get some information from him? He has a wealth of information that will help this hon Minister. I will give the hon the Minister this source. He should contact Mr Ramphal who will give him some very good ideas.
He has many sources!
Perhaps, but not resources. [Interjections.]
Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member a question? He said that we must get involved in the programme of reconstructing the farming community which the hon the Minister mentioned yesterday. The learned hon member for Camperdown, however, said yesterday that the reconstruction of agriculture is nonsense. [Interjections.]
Mr Chairman, I forgive the hon member his inefficiencies. There is obviously no question.
There is something that I have to bring to the notice of this House. Arising from the Standing Committee on Finance …
Order! I regret that the hon member’s time has expired.
Mr Chairman, I merely rise to afford the hon member the opportunity to continue his speech.
Thank you. In the Standing Committee on Finance we discovered that an amount of R400 million was allocated to White farmers to help them to recover from the destruction caused by the drought and the floods. The criteria that were applied were quite strict. The aid was only for farmers who faced bankruptcy and farmers who needed help to become rehabilitated. Of the amount of R400 million, only R30 million was used—an amount of R370 million is still available to assist the farmers. Arising from questions put by hon members in the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates the hon the Minister of Finance came, along with his team, to the Standing Committee on Finance and gave us the assurance that the R400 million of which R30 million had been spent, would be made available to hon members in the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates. We as members of the committee had to inform our hon members to get in touch with the hon the Minister of Agriculture, Mr Greyling Wentzel, and have discussions with him.
As Minister of Finance, he undertook to go and inform the hon the Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply about this. What I have to say here is that we must not take it for granted when we hear from someone. We must pursue that matter at the correct level. I am not one who wants to come here and make a statement about it, but with due respect I went and sat next to the hon the Minister and gave him this information.
I am prepared to accept the inefficiency and inabilities of people; I am not here to criticise. However, I want to make it very clear that no matter what position one holds, one must always be willing to accept assistance. After all, that is what we are here for—to help the community that we are supposed to serve, and the country with regard to the larger issues.
I think something has gone wrong here and I am offering to help the hon the Minister. I say this in all sincerity because I believe that the hon the Minister of Finance has told us the truth and I shall hold him to that. He has reiterated that in the presence of another hon member of this House, and therefore I think we still have a chance and we must pursue that matter.
How should this be done? It should not be a matter of just saying that we should transfer so much to this or that department. We have to carry out an investigation and state that investigation as an authentic motivation to get that kind of money because it is still there. We know what the criteria are and we must comply with them.
We have R15 million spread over three years with which to assist farmers. Four million one hundred and ninety-five thousand rand has been allocated for this year and R9 965 000 for next year, but perhaps by the time we reach the third year the farmers will all be working in the factories. We do not know, but it is stated here that it will take up to the end of the year before this money is made available or these applications are finalised. Maybe I misunderstood the hon the Minister, but if that is true then I think a lot of time is being spent and by the time we come to the end of the year it will be about 14 to 15 months after the floods. The farmers need assistance immediately.
I am saying this because we heard on the radio, and it also appeared on TV, that at the end of this month they are going to start paying the farmers in Upington and along the Orange River. If that can be done within a month or six weeks why must we take 15 months before we can render assistance to these farmers who have been deprived?
This all boils down to one thing: When one has own affairs one is going to drag along. General affairs has the infrastructure and the manpower as well as all the technical and professional wherewithal because it has been in operation for 100 years. When we come along and want farming as an own affair we are going to be destroyed. Farming must be a general affair and it must remain a general affair because when a river comes down in flood everybody along the river is affected. How is one going to define own affairs in that flood? It is not easy! A swarm of locusts can destroy Indian, White and Coloured farms regardless of whether they fall under own affairs. It is therefore important that we always regard farming as the country’s affairs and not own affairs.
I now want to come to the question of local government. Local government is a very sore point in South African politics because first of all, today we have people from the ruling party and the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council as well. I think the best thing to do is to cut down on all this debate by saying we have made a mistake, because the RSC’s are the foundation on which ethnic local authorities have been created. If that was not identified at the time then we must be given the credit for identifying it now.
The hon member for Reservoir Hills went on a crusade against it and the hon member for Stanger, other hon members and I stated that this was the beginning of the creation of ethnic local authorities. Subsequent amendments proved this.
If today certain people are going for autonomy they are not doing so because they approve of it. They are going for autonomy because maybe certain carrots are being dangled before them.
However, had we not allowed those laws to be passed here, those carrots could not have been dangled. To say at this juncture that they should not accept, is to try to shut the door after horses bolted. Since they have their authority now, we just have to ask them not to accept it for political reasons.
The ideal situation would have been to reject the RSCs, and to say that while one could use them for servicing areas, one should rather opt for, and relentlessly fight for, direct representation on the councils.
Mr Chairman, the hon member for Southern Natal spoke about the diminution in the number of Indian farmers, and indicated to this House that the Indian people came to this country primarily as indentured labourers and thereafter branched out into farming once the indentured period had been served.
I want to tell this House that according to the latest statistical figures the number of Indian farmers at the present time is just 1 263. When one considers that this is the number of farmers that we have, I merely wish to state that it becomes laughable that we have a full Minister who has to administer to the needs of just 1 263 Indian farmers in this country. I think the point has also been made by the hon member for Southern Natal that the general affairs Minister of Agriculture in fact has the infrastructure to go into the problem areas and sort out those problem areas. I believe—and I think the hon member for Southern Natal does too—that agriculture should really be a general affair and the sooner we do that, the better.
Yesterday the hon the Minister began his speech by saying to us that he wanted to give agriculture a new vision. Since he is an own affairs Minister, I accept that he wants a new vision for Indian agriculture. I want to say to him that there is absolutely no need for a new vision. I want to say to him that the only vision the hon the Minister needs to concentrate on is the vision of the farmers themselves. I believe that that vision is to carry on with their lawful activities in this land of their birth without any let or hindrance on the part of the authorities, including that hon Minister.
I want to say that this vision involves producing food in the most efficient way and at the lowest possible cost, and this vision therefore involves the removal of all restrictions that hinder progress in that regard; first and foremost—as this hon House has heard—the restriction placed on Indian farmers by the Group Areas Act, which inhibits their full potential and their full growth.
I want to say, as I have said consistently in this debate over the years, that the Government of which the hon the Minister is a member has failed not only the Indian community and the Black community, but also the agricultural community in this regard. In this sense I want to refer to the point made by the hon the Minister on page 3 of his speech yesterday, when he called for additional land for Indian agriculture. This is a theme that we have been hearing in this House from the time we came here. I believe that the answer does not lie only in asking for more land; I believe the answer lies in asking for the removal of the Act that restricts Indian people and Black people from acquiring freely all the land that is there to acquire. I believe that what we need is the operation of the free market principle, and if that principle were to apply, the need for adequate land for Indian communities and for the Black community would obviously fall away.
Again I would like to tell the hon the Minister that his vision of a new agriculture could start with his persuasion of his colleagues in the Cabinet to implement as quickly as possible the recommendation of last year’s President’s Council’s report, that in so far as agriculture is concerned the restrictions of the Group Areas Act should not apply. In fact, the free market enterprise principle should apply in that regard. The sooner the hon the Minister is able to do this, persuading his colleagues in the Cabinet, the sooner he will be able to justify his salary in this House. As long as the restrictive measures apply to agriculture, I believe that the Indian and Black farmers will not be able to compete effectively in the market place. Until then this hon the Minister will be answerable to the community for his lack of effort in that regard.
Let us examine briefly what the Vote before us amounts to and the purpose for which it has been budgeted. According to the Estimates for the year 1988-89 a total of some R831 million has been set aside for the Administration of this House. Of this amount the sum of R187 842 million has been budgeted for local government, for housing and for agriculture. According to the Estimates and the hon the Minister in his speech yesterday, the subvote is an amount of R12,223 million for agriculture and local government.
Therefore, the hon the Deputy Minister has obviously not budgeted any amount for the purposes of his department in this Budget Vote. I am trying to say that the Vote before us represents just 1,4% of the Budget of this House and it represents but 6% of the Budget of the Department of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture. Of this R12,223 million, some R10 million has been budgeted as a result of the recent floods in Natal. According to a reply received by me from the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development in the Assembly, this amount was set aside from the Natal Relief Fund for use by Indian farmers.
Had we not had that disaster, this amount of money would obviously not have been budgeted for. I am trying to say that the Department of Local Government and Agriculture, in effect, operates a budget of R2 million if the provision for the floods is not taken into account. In order to do this, it requires the efforts of two hon Ministers plus a full complement of staff—I am not sure how many they number. If one has to take the cost of this into account, then it is safe to say that the entire Budget is used to pay the salaries of the Ministers and their staff and very little else. This goes to prove what a sham own affairs is and this merely goes to prove the point that the hon member for Southern Natal tried to make—particularly when one considers local government and agriculture.
I would like to ask the hon the Ministers, because I believe that they are gentlemen, to tell us honestly whether their departments’ existence can be justified in terms of the amount of work that is being done—particularly for the Indian people. I would like both of these hon the Ministers to tell us whether there is any further justification for retaining their particular portfolio’s. I do not believe that there is any reason for the retention of both of these portfolio’s. I think that both the hon Ministers concerned, in a sense, underlined those points. Considering that the work that is being done by both those hon Ministers might well be done administratively by some senior grade clerk, I believe that we should now at least dismantle the portfolios for own affairs agriculture and own affairs local government. I believe it behoves both those hon Ministers to persuade their colleagues in the Cabinet to do just that.
I would say to the hon the Minister that once he has done that, his vision of agriculture should be from a position as far away as possible from the portfolio of the Ministry concerned. Only then will he be able to see … [Time expired.)
Mr Chairman, we are debating the important Votes of my hon colleagues who are concerned with local government and agriculture. I am in accord with all those hon members who have expressed concern at the lack of agricultural activity in the Indian community. This has resulted from inactivity on the part of the Indian community, but is due very largely to a loss of agricultural land by Indian farmers which was triggered off firstly by the Group Areas Act, followed by the consolidation of Indian land into homelands. This, in turn, was followed once again by squatters on farmlands as well as the industrialisation of some of our farmlands. This has certainly added to the unhappy situation of the Indian community in relation to the requirement of farmlands.
As a result of this the Indian community expressed tremendous concern to the authorities as far back as the 1960s that this was being done to the detriment of the farmers and the South African economy as a whole.
I can recall that I, together with some of the members of the South African Indian Council during the years 1968 onwards, had special committees appointed to look into the difficulties and to present reports to the Government with a view to obtaining some relief for the Indian farmers. The first such committee to present a report, if I remember correctly, was the Davis and Burrow Committee. This was followed by a committee under the chairmanship of Prof Greyling. Then followed a further report, that of the Van Wyk Committee. We, as members of the South African Indian Council, served on the Van Wyk Committee and we travelled the length and breadth of this country to identify land for the Indian community. We also felt that due to the small quantity of land available and under the ownership of the Indian community, we should examine whether it was not possible to experiment with a canton system of farming in the Indian community.
All this serves as a clear indication of the desire of the Indian community to obtain as much agricultural land as possible for our people. In this regard I take the point made by the hon member for Springfield, namely that the group areas have been the bugbear in relation to the acquisition of land by willing farmers from willing sellers of farms. These exchanges of farms have not been able to take place simply because of the Group Areas Act.
The situation today is that we are now …
Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister whether he can tell us why the Ministers’ Council has failed to pursue the Freedom of Farming Bill in order to ensure that land is freely available to all farmers?
Mr Chairman, I think the answer is very simple. If, in the Standing Committee on Private Bills, that is approved and presented to Parliament, naturally action will follow. If it gets through the standing committee, one really has no problems.
I do believe that at this stage, after repeated discussions with the Cabinet, under the chairmanship of the hon the State President, a high-powered committee has been set up. As my colleague, the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture, informed this House, reports have already partly come forward and there are others to follow. As soon as this is to hand, one will see action in this direction regarding Indian agriculture.
I would like to appeal to hon members of this House that whilst they are making demands on the Ministers’ Council for extra land for farming and agricultural purposes, they should please assist the Ministers’ Council in their areas and elsewhere where they can identify land for such purposes.
I also want to say, particularly to the hon member for Springfield, that the House of Delegates or the State does not own much of the agricultural land, or land in general, in this country. It is in the hands of private enterprise. I think the hon member for Springfield made the point that there is land and that the Group Areas Act is the impediment. I agree, but then one has to have a willing seller of land. Unhappily for us, where there are now willing sellers, we have to use the procedures of the State.
Mr Chairman, I would like to ask the hon the Minister whether he will agree that every day the newspapers contain advertisements for the sale of substantial tracts of land from very willing sellers.
Mr Chairman, I agree that there are many advertisements offering land for sale. However, earlier the hon member’s benchmate made the point that it is the Group Areas Act, despite the existence of a willing seller and a willing buyer, which prevents this. This is where we are making …
Mr Chairman, I would like to ask the hon the Minister whether he will concede that it is because of the artificial scarcity of land caused by the Group Areas Act that we have the kind of situation where his colleague, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, stated that somebody offered a bribe of R2 million if Villa Lisa could be proclaimed an Indian group area.
Mr Chairman, that statement was made in this House by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council.
Order! So the hon the Minister is not able to answer the question?
I am answering the question, Mr Chairman. That statement was made.
I want to say that we in the Ministers’ Council have, relentlessly, made representations to the Cabinet and we have this commission. Let us await a further report, and we will see progress in this direction regarding agriculture.
Hopefully.
Yes, hopefully.
I very briefly want to deal with the local government bodies. Here again, I want to say that we, and particularly I who have served on many committees, are ad idem with hon members of this House that there should not be any local authority based on ethnicity or racial areas. We have repeatedly said this. If hon members will look at the report of 1963 of the committee on which I served, the Natal Administrator’s committee on non-White local government, they will see that we, stated in that report in no uncertain terms, that there should be no local authority based on racial groups and that such a local authority would not be viable.
The Essery Committee was specially set up by the Durban City Council to see if Phoenix could not become a local authority at that time. However, because of the character of the area, and because it was intended mainly for the Indian population, the Essery Committee, persuaded by the evidence before it, did not recommend a local authority for the Phoenix area.
Very recently, up to 1979, the State also set up the Slater Committee to investigate Indian areas—particularly areas under the jurisdiction of local affairs committees and management committees—with regard to autonomy. The report once again said, and in no uncertain terms, that there shall be no local authorities for these areas, simply because of the geographical size of the areas, and because of their non-viability. I am happy to say that I was a signatory to that report. The report very clearly says that where there was one small pocket of Indians in an area which is contiguous to a local authority, it should become part of the local authority. These people could be placed on a common voters’ roll for a local authority.
Having said that, I think I need to express myself even further, because it was I who provided an amount of R250 000 in my Budget for the restructuring of farmers’ requirements. We have to understand the context in which the word “restructure” is used. It is construction, reconstruction. It is structure, restructure. There are farmers who are already structured and who have a certain method or design in which they are operating. They have to restructure their whole method. This is what restruction means. The money is available. I have repeatedly said that it is the context and contents in which one wants to interpret the word restructure that is important.
I would like to restructure certain water works. Surely those water works are part of agriculture. We want to restructure the provision of water. We should therefore not belabour or overemphasise the word “restructure”. An amount of R250 000 was appropriated. Of that—as my hon colleague pointed out—R69 000 still remains in that kitty. Why are the Indian farmers not making an application to take up this total amount of R250 000? The Indian community and farmers, in particular, have repeatedly been advised that these funds are available, but they are not coming forward. Really, there should be no blame attached to my department for the non-usage of the amount of R250 000. I can assure hon members of this House that if there is a demand for bigger amounts, we will budget even more.
Mr Chairman, I would like to ask the hon the Minister whether this matter with regard to the availability of money had been widely advertised in newspapers accessible to the Indian community.
Yes. This was reported as a criticism against me in reports in news items last year. That is for general public consumption. However, the SA Agricultural Union and the Cane-growers Association called a meeting for farmers. Large numbers were present and this information was given to them. They were to disseminate this information amongst their farming communities.
With these words I wish to congratulate my hon colleagues for the good work that has been done. I hope they will enjoy more success in the future.
Mr Chairman, may I start off by complementing the Ministry, the hon the Minister and the hon the Deputy Minister for the fine work that they are doing and also for the report they gave us yesterday. At the same time I would also like to express our appreciation to the Ministers’ Council for what they did in assisting the farmers who suffered in the recent floods. We must give the Ministries credit that since they took over they have only done their best to see how they could help our farmers.
We in the Transvaal also have problems. Natal was severely hit by the flood disaster according to the report presented yesterday by the hon the Minister. We look forward to the attention that may be given to the Transvaal in future.
The farmers’ union in Lenasia invited both the hon the Minister and the hon the Deputy Minister to visit Lenasia and Palmridge in November last year. After the meeting we had the opportunity of taking the hon the Minister and the hon the Deputy Minister around to the areas of Unaville and Palmridge where we showed them where there was land available for agriculture. In Unaville there are 116 agricultural holdings which fall within the group area. These plots should now be subdivided and released to bona fide farmers who will be capable of promoting agriculture.
The same applies to Palmridge, where both the hon the Minister and the hon the Deputy Minister inspected the farming areas. I suggest that this land be made available because it has been lying fallow there for quite a number of years. We should ask for more land to be made available in that vicinity.
As regards training for students who wish to study for a degree in agriculture, I agree with the hon member for Cavendish that the hon the Minister in the Department of Education should investigate the establishment of an agricultural school. Perhaps just a wing of an existing school could be used for this as a start. Bursaries should be made available to students who want to study agriculture.
Order! I wish to apologise to the hon member for Central Rand for having referred to him as the hon member for Lenasia East. The misunderstanding arose from the fact that the Whips furnished me with a list on which the hon member is referred to as the hon member for Lenasia East. I would be pleased if the Whips would furnish me with the correct designation of hon members. [Interjections.]
Mr Chairman, the theme of my speech on this Budget Vote is the prevailing lack of co-operation and inefficiency. I want to refer to page 4 of the Budget Speech of the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture with particular reference to the allocation of agricultural land in the precincts of the Louis Botha Airport in Durban. I quote as follows:
It took me some time to analyse what was meant by the “growers from Mondi”. I know that the Mondi paper mill in Merebank manufactures paper but the phrase “growers from Mondi” is beyond me. What is more surprising is the following information in the next paragraph of his speech. I quote:
This information was news to me. In the first instance I as the MP for the area was not informed of the latest developments.
The affected market gardeners have not been reasonably consulted. Sufficient progress is not being made in expediting the allocation of this land in spite of the urgency.
The hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture expressed his disappointment and regretted that I had taken it upon myself to write to the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs and the Departments of Manpower and of Public Works for information and progress reports. I wrote to them because these were the responsible departments.
The hon the Minister of Environment Affairs said yesterday that his department acts, and I quote:
I take it that that implies that the hon the Minister merely administers whatever is given to him.
I had the courtesy to correspond with the hon the Minister on this occasion and did so on 5 October 1987. I received an acknowledgement of my letter the next day, but only received a reply on 8 December 1987 which was 64 days later. I quote:
Please be informed that this matter has been referred to me and is presently receiving attention.
That was the last I heard of it and the end to everything. This is the sort of treatment I, as a member of Parliament for that area, receive. I find that certain NPP members in my constituency appear to receive more exclusive information which is denied to me.
I am not surprised about the tactics used by the hon the Minister. I was told of the scant respect afforded to the hon member for Stanger, who could not be accommodated in a helicopter to inspect the flood damaged areas of Stanger. Yesterday the hon member for Camperdown accused the hon the Minister of being highly irresponsible. I do not blame him for doing so, because what is the idea behind him turning up for a meeting at 11 o’clock when it was scheduled for one o’clock? Is the idea to discredit our Solidarity members or any other party’s members by giving priority to the NPP members? Is it a tactical move to present an image of the party as one which is doing wonderful work for the people, and to steal the thunder from others? [Interjections.] It is suspect, and the hon the Minister cannot blame me for making this assumption, because there is no co-operation at all.
I now want to quote from a second letter addressed to me from the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council dated 8 April 1987:
I admire the hon the Chairman for sending out a letter like that and I accept it in good faith that we are respected. However, I wonder if the hon Minister interpreted his reference to a watchdog literally. [Interjections.] Did he mean a dog waiting on his doorstep? Did the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council change his mind and instruct the hon the Minister not to consult non-NPP members? Do not blame me for assuming that; I am asking a question.
I want to relate an incident that took place this weekend, Saturday, 16 April 1988. A meeting took place at the Raj Mahal Hotel—no reference to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council—in Merebank at 12 noon. At 12h30 a Mr Frank, who is also an NPP supporter, phoned me to find out whether I was coming to the meeting. I asked him what he meant and he said that they were having a meeting but if I could not make it to the meeting I could come on an inspection tour. He mentioned that the hon the Deputy Minister of Environment Affairs was present. I was shocked. It was an insult to my office to have a third person informing me of this.
However, I was told earlier, when I was in Cape Town on my way to Durban, that a telephone call was made to my house informing my wife that there was to be a meeting and that the caller would phone early on Saturday morning to notify me and confirm. I waited the whole of Saturday, but nobody phoned.
I want to know from the Minister concerned, firstly, who requested and who called the meeting. What was the purpose of the meeting? What was the urgency? Who attended the meeting and how many were invited? Why was I not advised timeously about the necessity for such a meeting? Furthermore, is it true that the chairman of the NPP Party in Merebank, Mr Kisten Rajoo, knew about the meeting on Friday, 15 April 1988? Were the market gardeners notified on Friday night and virtually woken up from their beds to come to this meeting? What I also cannot understand is why the market gardeners were taken on an inspection tour of subeconomic housing schemes in Merebank Umlaas Canal and the beach. [Interjections.] It is strange; I was wondering whether they were trying to harness the seawater and desalinate it so that it could be used for irrigation!
My time is short and I cannot elaborate too much on this point; however, I must express my disappointment at the co-operation of the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture. I hope sanity will prevail in serving our people irrespective of party affiliation. We are here to serve our people and I would appeal to the hon the Minister, no matter what differences we may have, to appreciate that we owe it to the taxpayer. He pays money; he does not see whether it is the NPP or the Solidarity Party and pay his money according to that, and we do not earn our salary from particular groups. Therefore we must serve our people and give this House a good name. Let us be honourable in seeking to satisfy the needs of the areas that we represent as MPs. Let us not have people going behind our backs and undermining others.
Mr Chairman, if one looks at Chatsworth and Phoenix there are huge tracks of vacant land suitable neither for housing development nor for civic amenities. Initially this land was used for farming by the farming community in the early days. Today most of this land has been taken away from the Indian community and used for housing development.
Here we have tracks of land in Chatsworth and Phoenix which cannot be used for any other purpose. I therefore believe that the hon the Minister should make some endeavour to get in touch with the Durban City Council and make representations where these lands could be used for the small market gardener.
At this point in time we have a number of people who are unemployed and if this land is available to these people I am sure that we could try to alleviate some of the unemployment in our community. At the same time this is a form of encouragement for small businesses. They could bring their produce and either sell it to the market or else sell it anywhere they wanted. I appeal to the hon the Minister to look into this.
Apart from additional land being available to small market gardeners, I also believe that small loans should be made available to these people by the hon the Minister’s department to enable them to set themselves up as small businesses.
[Inaudible.]
Yes, they have plenty of money.
In addition to that, as regards the training of Indian agriculturists, I believe that the hon the Minister should consider the issue of training agriculturists in the provinces such as in Transvaal, Natal. I am sure that a number of our young students will take advantage of this, as suggested by the hon member for Lenasia when he said that bursaries, too, should be provided for students. I am fully in favour of that.
It was established in 1985 that nine Indians qualified as veterinarians outside South Africa. We have a great problem here in that most of these veterinarians qualified outside South Africa, but their qualifications are not recognised by the Veterinary Board. I believe that the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture, in consultation with the hon the Minister of Education, should start encouraging our younger generation to look at the profession of veterinary surgeon. They should take it up because we need them to qualify in South Africa and not abroad. The problem is that when they qualify abroad they waste their money and their parents’ money. At least when they qualify in South Africa then they could start practising immediately. I shall be pleased if the hon the Minister could consider this issue.
Mr Chairman, I hope the day will dawn when the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council will take a seat where he has taken one right now on this side of the House. The opposition side will give him a back seat. However, I feel that there are not all that many people who are competent on the other side. One such glaring example is the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture.
This document was presented to us yesterday and another one was presented by his deputy. This is not worth the paper it is written on because we want people with voices for us. I am quite serious about this. What does this document have in store for us? All that is stated here, is that nothing has been achieved, and that things are either pending or they may be tackled at some stage in the future. Are we so gullible that we will accept such a report? I can only sympathise with the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture. Yesterday his emotions ran away with him, purely because he was not in a position to answer any questions raised on this side of the House. I wish to remind the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture that the validity of an argument is not proven by verbosity, as substantiated by his speech yesterday, nor by emotional feeling. Deeds are more important.
I have spoken to my colleagues about lending the type of support that the hon the Minister requires. Just a short while ago the hon the Minister of the Budget appealed to us in this House to lend support. Are we here to lend support if the hon the Minister and his department want to stay far away from the Opposition? These facts are very obvious. The hon members for Camperdown, Stanger and now the hon member for Merebank have ably amplified the attitude adopted by that Ministry. When they visit certain areas they are either afraid of meeting the Opposition members, or perhaps they are scared of being overshadowed. The only other answer is that they are promoting their own party policies at State expense. That is not the right thing to do.
I am of the view that the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture should take a very active interest. If he claims to come from a farming background, he ought to know what is required. We have grown up in this country by means of backyard-farming. Today we have very able farmers; take Mr Pat Bodasingh and others.
Dog farming.
Yes, that is another type of farming; a very lucrative business where people breed bulldogs. [Interjections.] I think the hon the Minister has failed as an ambassador of this House and of the Indian agricultural community at large, because he has failed to register progress in regard to the opening up of agricultural land for farming by all race groups.
In his speech yesterday the hon the Deputy Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture mentioned certain workshops, two of which were held in the Transvaal. One was as recently as November in the Standerton area in the Eastern Transvaal. I am quite taken aback because this workshop was very conveniently held there. He furthermore claims that, time permitting, he could arrange other workshops. However, it was very expedient to find time, during the time of the by-election in the Standerton area, to hold this workshop in Standerton. I am of the view that this was nothing more than a promotion of his party and a process of canvassing for votes. I would like to be honest. Is the hon the Deputy Minister true to his convictions? Why was this done in November and not six months before?
Last year in this House we had a difficult time. Parliament had sat right through September and it was rather late in the year when we finished up here. How it was then possible for the hon the Deputy Minister to convene a meeting in the Eastern Transvaal area, I cannot imagine. [Interjections.] We on this side of the House deplore this type of attitude. I think we are here to lend the type of support that was called for by the hon the Minister of the Budget, but only if the hon the Minister requires this type of support in the right perspective and does not adopt a blinkered approach to the matter, because we are here to serve the people. [Interjections.] I should like to humbly appeal to those hon Ministers to approach us and to treat us with respect. When visiting an area, protocol demands that they inform the hon member in that area. [Interjections.] What is wrong with that? Why should there be a fear on the part of the Ministry? [Interjections.] I can come to only one conclusion, and that is that it is due to the fear that the hon members of the Opposition are capable people and that they will be overshadowed by their abilities. [Interjections.]
Mr Chairman, firstly I want to thank all hon members who have taken part in this debate as well as all those who took part in the debate on the Vote of my colleague, the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture and all those who commented on the speech I made on local government.
To my mind, two things have emerged clearly from this debate. The first of these is that food production cannot be an own affair. We agree; it can never be an own affair. Secondly, all group areas restrictions on the ownership and occupation of agricultural land, or any land in our country for that matter, should not bear any group connotation. It should be open to all race groups. We also agree with that. What is more, the willing buyer-willing seller concept should be the only criterion applicable in so far as land, and especially agricultural land, is concerned.
Members of local government are at one with regard to the question of opening up participation in the running of a town or city to everyone. I made this abundantly clear in my speech and I should like to reiterate what I said:
Everything we are doing here is in pursuance of these goals. What we are doing within the structures that are available to us, is using the available machinery to the best advantage of our people. However, we are not opting for autonomy. We are shying short of autonomy.
However, we cannot disagree with those hon members of this House who say that autonomy is not the answer. I have said this before and I want to reiterate that there will be no peace at local government level unless and until all the people of this country share in all the structures of government—not only local government, but provincial government and the central Government as well.
Mr Chairman, whilst I accept what the hon the Minister has said, could he please clarify for me precisely what he means by his statements in paragraph 6 on page 4 of his speech, where he says the following:
Mr Chairman, the transfer of functions, as I see it, is a transfer of our responsibilities to our people to look after and maintain some measure of responsibility for running their affairs.
I want to thank my colleague, the hon the Minister of the Budget. He said that we are ad idem with hon members as far as our ultimate goal is concerned and I agree with him. As he quite ably said, it has been a long drawn-out struggle and it is continuing. Many of us served on the Essery and Slater committees. I served on some of these committees, together with the hon member for Stanger. I do not think that our views on this matter have changed, notwithstanding the fact that we are sitting on opposite sides of the House.
Coming to the hon member for Stanger, I think he misunderstood me when I said that the election in October should be the last election on this basis. I said that the five years must be used effectively. This does not mean to say that the entire five years must be used effectively to obtain all the goals we want. However, I said that this election should be the last one of this type, on a racial basis.
Regarding the United Municipal Executive, the hon member must understand that this is not a statutory body, but has been formed by the four provincial municipal associations, as the three provincial associations of the LACs or the management committees formed the ad hoc committee. Until such time as the structures of our local government are changed, these bodies will remain. The ideal, however, is of course to have a national organisation of all local authorities, not based on ethnicity.
The hon member for Reservoir Hills …
Mr Chairman, will the hon the Deputy Minister take a question?
Mr Chairman, I will not take any questions.
Just a simple one?
All right, Mr Chairman.
Mr Chairman, I would like to ask the hon the Deputy Minister whether he agrees that whilst we have these ethnic structures at local government level, these non-statutory bodies in the four provinces, the association of local government bodies, can in fact, and ought to, open its membership to all local government bodies, including Indian, Coloured and Black bodies, and that this will constitute a perfect situation where we will have one united municipal executive.
Yes, there is no need for that not to be done. I support the hon member on that. However, there are prejudices as well, and these prejudices will now be highlighted even more with the advent of some right-wing take-over in the Transvaal. The United Municipal Association does not comprise only those local authorities that are partial to sharing with people of colour. The United Municipal Association is made up of those local authorities which have, in effect, resisted this getting together, which is the ideal of which the hon member for Stanger speaks and which we all support.
The hon member for Reservoir Hills said that we started serving our apprenticeship some 22 years ago at the local government level. I remember that Mr Percy Fowle, when he started the local affairs committees, said to us that this was a starting-point. However, I also want to record my regret that that starting-point still remains with us. We have not made much progress in local government and this is regrettable. I am at one with the hon member when he says that we do need to progress in this regard.
Whilst it is agreed that any progress to autonomy by the LACs is not supported, the hon member must have regard for the fact that some of these committees have in the past asked for more powers, and in fact the Transvaal and some management committees already have such powers.
They will never become autonomous, but at least until the present system can be changed, some of the aspirations are being satisfied.
There are various aspirations and different viewpoints by members who serve at local government level. There are the Black local authorities and the community councils. They have opted for autonomy. Many of them have opted for autonomy, and it is not for us to dictate to them what they should do. As far as we are concerned, we do not see autonomy as the answer to our problems.
I take note of the sentiments expressed by the hon member for Cavendish with regard to local authorities on a non-racial basis. I also subscribe to his views in this regard, but I have to remind him that we must be careful. We must not day-dream so much that we let important issues of the day pass by unattended. Whilst we are fighting for change, we must use the structures at our disposal to our best advantage.
The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said that the ethnicity implicit in the regional services councils should not be perpetuated. He is also concerned about the devolution of power. The question of the devolution of power is a matter of concern. In my view, there is a devolution of power to White local authorities. My personal viewpoint is that when powers are devolved to local authorities, I believe that these powers must also be shared by members representative of the Indian and Black communities. The powers must not be devolved in such a manner that White local authorities have these powers, while our people are deprived of them.
The hon member for Newholme said the sooner we have direct representation, the better. I agree with him. The hon member for Cavendish said the election in October is on an ethnic basis. He said the local authorities have requested non-racial councils and the Government must now allow this. I agree with him. We must support non-racial local governments.
The hon member for Southern Natal said that the local government is a very sore point. I think we all agree that the local government, as presently structured, is a sore point for all of us. We are doing our best under the circumstances to see what we can do to get to where we want to be. We are, in fact, using Parliament to get to where we want to be. He said we must fight for direct representation. We are doing that with the help of all the structures that we are involved in.
We are just as committed as the hon member for Southern Natal to see changes. However, until this happens, we have a given situation in which we must work. The important thing is that we must use the system to our best advantage.
The hon member for Springfield said that two Ministers are running a department that could be handled administratively. A while ago I invited hon members to come and see for themselves what we are doing and I do not want to go into the matter again. He should, however, realise that I also wear another hat, namely that of the Deputy Minister of Environment Affairs in the Cabinet, and my work does not only revolve around being the Deputy Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture. Where my services as the Deputy Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture are required, I am always available to lend a hand. I cannot agree with the hon member when he says that we do not earn our keep. I extend a standing invitation to him if he is interested to see whether or not weare being productive—I refer to myself specifically—
The hon member for Central Rand paid my hon colleague and myself a rare compliment. It is welcome indeed and I thank him for that.
I now come to the hon member for Merebank. It is regrettable that he had to raise the issue of the meeting on Saturday, but seeing that he did so I now want to put the record straight. I went on a mission associated with my portfolio as the Deputy Minister of Environment Affairs. A person complained about pollution in that area which is a result of the effluents from the Mondi paper mills and one of the petrol companies situated there. When my secretary phoned the complainant to tell him that I was coming to that area to inspect the matter that he complained about, he unfortunately did not say that it was I that was going to come but that it was going to be the hon the Minister. Through this misunderstanding the people concerned thought it was the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture who was coming. They came to the venue and met me there—I had not arranged to meet with the market gardeners concerned.
Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Deputy Minister whether it is not ethical that when he visits a particular constituency he should first inform the hon member of Parliament for that constituency? It does not matter whether it is in his capacity as the Deputy Minister of Environment Affairs or otherwise.
That is a very good question. I did exactly that. When I decided on Thursday to go to Merebank I asked my secretary to phone the hon member of Parliament. I have the habit of doing this—the hon member for Camperdown knows this. It is a rule that I apply and I did exactly that in this instance. When my secretary phoned the MP was not available. I only decided on Thursday to go because I had the day free. [Interjections.] I honestly made an effort to let the hon member for Merebank know that I was going to be there. I made an honest attempt. My secretary phoned his home and was told that the hon member was on his way to Durban. The secretary then left a message with the hon member’s wife to tell him that I was going to be there.
When I got there I made the effort to notify the hon member that I was there and waiting for him. It was of no consequence whether he was a member of the NPP, Solidarity or whatever. I regret that the hon member is not here at the moment, but he did not have the courtesy to come and greet me when I was in his constituency.
At the same time I want to say that if any hon member in this House should come to Ladysmith and call me I will go out of my way to go and meet him, regardless in which part of Ladysmith he is. [Interjections.] Will the hon member agree with that? I regret this, Mr Chairman.
When I was in Merebank I was busy with people and I asked somebody—again I repeat—not knowing whether he was a supporter of Solidarity or the NPP to phone the hon member.
I believe that this kind of criticism is unwarranted and totally unnecessary. Hon members should be constructive in their criticism and not destructive as was the case with some of the criticism levelled at my hon colleague.
In order to substantiate his interest and concern, can the hon the Deputy Minister tell us whether he subsequently communicated his findings and observations to the hon member of Parliament?
Yes, Mr Chairman, I even did that. I spoke to him yesterday after the last debate. That was the earliest opportunity I had. I explained the circumstances to him yesterday afternoon and in spite of having done that he still stands up here and criticises me.
I want to appeal to hon members in this House to take note that we have a job of work to do and the only way we will succeed in doing it is to work together for the benefit of the people. I am at all times available for the benefit of the members.
In conclusion I also want to reply to the statement by the hon member for Havenside that we had workshops. When efforts are made to arrange such workshops and it coincides with elections let us not always be suspicious. If any good comes of it, what is wrong with having a workshop during an election?
Another election ploy!
It might be a ploy. [Interjections.]
You have just given a good explanation, don’t spoil it with this one!
Mr Chairman, I want to tell hon members that any political party has a democratic right to hold workshops and meetings. It is their democratic right so no one can prevent a party from doing so. If one party held a workshop the other party could also have done so.
Mr Chairman, the hon the Deputy Minister said that if another party wants to have a workshop they must have it. However, was that a party workshop or was it a workshop of the Ministry for Agriculture?
It was a ministerial workshop of the Ministry of Agriculture. What I meant was that whether it was a housing workshop or a local government workshop it was an effort to meet with the people. I believe that going to the people and meeting with them is what politics is all about. What I am trying to say is that if the hon members need to meet with the people as this workshop allowed us to do, they are welcome to do so.
I want to thank the hon members. It was an interesting debate. This is the first time that I have been involved in a debate of this nature and I can promise hon members that next time there will be much more to offer insofar as the department of my hon colleague is concerned.
The hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture endured much more criticism than I did and I cannot see the reason for that. However, there is one thing I can say for my hon colleague and that is that he does his best at all times and there is no gainsaying that.
I believe that he needs support. I say again that constructive criticism will be welcome at all times, but destructive criticism demoralises a person and what we need to do here is to give each other a measure of support so that we can carry on working on behalf of the people.
Mr Chairman, I shall be very brief.
Order! When the hon member says brief, how long does he mean? [Interjections.]
Just a few minutes.
Order! The hon member may proceed.
Mr Chairman, I want to say something just for the benefit of the hon the Minister before he rises here to speak, because yesterday he said we had been very critical of him.
However, on a more positive note I just want to read to him an extract from the Farmers Weekly of 8 November 1985. I shall quote the introduction, and he may read the rest of it:
[Interjections.] The title of the article is “Small Farm Survival Without Subsidies”. Further in this article it is stated that:
Those constraints he spoke about in 1985, still exist. I shall pass this on to the hon the Minister for him to read in his own time. Probably this will assist him in formulating a more positive strategy the next time he presents his Budget.
Mr Chairman, we can place on record in this House that for the first time there has been an interesting debate. I refer in particular to the agricultural debate, which started yesterday. [Interjections.]
Order! Let the hon the Minister reply without any interruptions.
Mr Chairman, on a point of order: With great respect, I should like to address you on that. Are you in any way trying to curtail the normal rights of members to make interjections? [Interjections.]
Order! In terms of the Standing Rules, no member may interrupt another hon member. This is particularly relevant now that we have the hon the Minister replying to the debate. I think we must give him every opportunity to reply. I therefore call upon the hon member for Springfield to resume his seat.
Mr Chairman, when I mentioned that this had been an interesting debate, I meant that it was interesting in regard to the reaction that this debate had elicited in this House. Notwithstanding the positive presentation by the hon member for Stanger, the effort and the initiative on the part of my department and my colleagues is evidenced in the report if one takes into account previous reports. Therefore the reaction we had has been interesting, irrespective of what transpired in regard to what one says. I am prepared to take all the criticism, whatever it may be, whether good or bad, but what counts is what we are able to do for the people outside.
What are you doing?
In reply to the hon member for Stanger in regard to the A and B pools, with the introduction of the A and B pools and the introduction of a safety net for the small grower, he is now in a more favourable position than before. He now enjoys A-quota status but still has not suffered the controls or limitations imposed on large growers.
The safety net is the production figure allocated to each grower which, differs from grower to grower. It is actually the average of the best two years of his last five years of production. The smaller grower is guaranteed A-quota prices regardless of the fact that he does not produce his normal crop.
I said that.
Assuming a grower has been given a safety net of 100 tons, if a drought hits him and he only produces 80 tons, or if he has a good year and produces 130 tons, he will get a full A-quota price on the 100 tons and for the 30 tons over and above the safety net figure, he will get the average for the A and B quota for the industry as a whole. Therefore this has been formulated in the best interests of the sugar cane grower.
The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition had a question about the millimetres yesterday. I think there has been an error in the report. It should in fact have said that with regard to the question raised, the 100 ml is equivalent according to the rainfall. That is what was in actual fact meant.
But how many cubic meters of water will they supply?
That depends on the area.
It depends on the area.
The hon member for Camperdown unfortunately is not here. He mentioned the applications for boreholes. I do hope that he will check his records, because my department has none. If the applications do arrive, we will give them due consideration.
The hon member for Umzinto has been extensively involved in the farming community of his area as well as Sawoti, which was also mentioned by the hon member for Southern Natal. The hon member for Umzinto has been doing his utmost to secure some additional land for the farming community in that area. Negotiations are afoot and suitable land is available, if it meets our demands in terms of the feasibility study. I do hope that in a short period of time we will be able to secure that land. That hon member is extremely concerned about the area.
I would like to thank the hon member for North Coast for the comments he made and for his excellent contribution in this sphere. He has made a name for himself in this field and has been extremely useful. He spoke about the R400 million and I would like to comment on that when the hon member for Southern Natal has returned.
I would like to thank my colleague, the hon the Minister of Housing, for his comments in this field. He made it very clear to this House that we have certain limitations. Hopefully there will be more legislation to enable us, naturally to acquire land and to be more active. I am quite sure this will be feasible during this year and that there should be more results.
I would also like to thank my colleague, the hon the Minister of the Budget, for his comments and his outline with regard to land affairs.
It is needless for us continuously to speak about the Group Areas Act. It is there and we know the limitations. We know what the Group Areas Act has meant to us; besides the loss of land there are various other factors. However, today there is an acknowledgement, at the highest level of Government, from the hon the State President. A committee has been established to identify additional land. I would like co-operation from all parties concerned to achieve the realisation of additional land in accordance with the needs of our people.
The hon member for Newholme is equally concerned about the Pietermaritzburg area as are many hon members. We are negotiating and doing our very best.
I enjoyed the hon the member for Southern Natal’s contribution this afternoon. It was absolutely positive in all respects. Agriculture and the Indian community are inseparable in the history of our country—this is to be understood. He spoke about the industrial revolution, the pride of the market gardeners and the pride of the Indian people. He mentioned the control boards and the Jacobs Committee, and I am also fully aware of this Mr Ramphal’s extensive knowledge in this field. I want to assure the hon member that I am in touch with this gentlemen from time to time.
One particular aspect mentioned by the hon members for Southern Natal and Laudium, was also mentioned by other members of the standing committee. This concerns the R400 million that was discussed with the hon the Minister of Finance. In consultation with my colleague the hon the Minister of the Budget, and the Director-General of the Administration: House of Delegates, we thereafter put this in writing. I discussed this issue with the hon member for Southern Natal.
In pursuance thereof, taking into consideration the sense of urgency that exists among our hon members here, a meeting was held at 6.30 yesterday evening with the hon the Minister of Finance. I must say, the hon the Minister has not turned it down. He looked at the various aspects and he has now directed his Director-General to look into them. There is one important statement that he made, and that was that he would not be party to discrimination in any exercise. [Interjections.] Therefore, in all sincerity, we are making every possible effort to assist in any way we can. We know there is a difference between acquisition and sequestration in that exercise. Therefore, if any of our farmers meet those criteria then surely they will be given consideration.
The hon member for Springfield appeared to be preparing to give my colleague the hon the Deputy Minister and myself a farewell here this afternoon. He did say that there was no need for two Ministers. He quoted a figure of 1263 farmers and said they did not require a Minister. I should just like to correct him. We have approximately 1769 sugar cane farmers and 900 cash crop farmers in this country. I respect his views in the first instance, but if we consider the reaction that has prevailed here since yesterday, we should be able to evaluate the concern that exists with regard to the upliftment of agriculture. Therefore, whilst the hon member for Springfield maintains that there is no need for a Minister to look after agriculture, in view of the serious situation into which the Indian community has been plunged as a result of the various pieces of discriminatory legislation, etc, there is a need for two Ministers, let alone one. [Interjections.] There is a need to uplift agriculture. That is the urgent need. He spoke about a new vision. I agree with him that the new vision must be directed towards production.
I have already mentioned the subject of additional land. We cannot continuously emphasize what we are doing. We have made it very, very clear that we are leaving no stone unturned in that direction.
As to freedom of acquisition, we have mentioned in this House that this should be based on the willing buyer—willing seller principle.
I want to thank the hon member for Central Rand for his comments and I want to assure him …
You must support him; he belongs to your party!
I want to assure him—regardless of the fact that he belongs to our party—that we have naturally been concentrating on particular areas as a result of certain circumstances. I want to assure him, however, that the Transvaal is not being overlooked. The Transvaal is to be given immediate attention and negotiations will take place with regard to whatever their requirements are going to be.
The hon member for Merebank is not here. He spoke about the airport land. During December—I mentioned this yesterday as well—we had a get together for the farmers. The MP’s were also invited. Unfortunately he was not here. At the beginning of the Parliamentary session I met him here and I said: “Please come forward. Let us discuss your problems”. He has not come forward.
Who is that?
The hon member for Merebank. He has not come forward. [Interjections.]
I cannot go beyond what I stated, in that I said that we should not politicise agriculture. We should have an open mind in this field and do our utmost. However, there has to be a two-way traffic in that we should not wait until there is a debate here before we bring up issues. There should be communication whenever it is necessary. In the absence of that, we cannot be aware of all the problems that exist everywhere.
The hon member for Chatsworth Central made a very valid point here with regard to training in agriculture. We need this. Let us look at one aspect. We wanted somebody for the Shakaskraal Agricultural Institution, but we were not able to get anybody in this country, for the simple reason that in this country our community realises that we have no prospects in this field. As a result we had to get somebody from Swaziland. The hon the Minister of Education and Culture and his department went out of their way to get somebody from Swaziland to take over the responsibility of agricultural education at the Shakaskraal school. All this points in one direction, namely that we are involved in restructuring agriculture from grassroots level. Therefore, as far as education for the younger generation is concerned, we must accept the fact that there are prospects in the field of agricultural land.
I fully agree with the hon member that the matter regarding veterinary surgeons has been discussed fully at various Government levels, and I fully agree that if perhaps our younger people who have aspirations in this regard can qualify in this country, it will be better.
With these words, I think I have replied to most hon members. If I have left anyone out, I offer my apologies. I want to thank every hon member in this House very sincerely for participating in this debate and I want to reiterate what I mentioned, namely that I will take all the criticism, as long as it is beneficial to our community. At the same time, we are in a period of transition. Being in a period of transition, understandably, we do not have all the expertise and well-oiled machinery, but we are working towards that goal of establishing all the required machinery. If we have established the machinery to identify land officially, at the highest level, it is a great achievement, whereas that meeting was chaired by the hon the State President himself.
You have told us that four times.
That is right; I will still quote him. [Interjections.]
If we were able to negotiate R15 million for flood victims, it is not something to be sneezed at, together with all the other assistance we are able to give our community in this regard. I want to say …
Mr Chairman, I would like to ask the hon the Minister a question. The hon Minister assures us that the Transvaal has not been forgotten. Along the Nirvana Strip Drive, five farmers have been given notice to vacate the farming area by June this year. I want to know whether it is farming area and what alternative arrangements have been made.
Mr Chairman, the land is not farming area.
But that is its present usage.
Yes.
Will the hon the Minister concede that land in the Transvaal is being identified for farming, and that certain land referred to in Nirvana Drive is allocated or earmarked for housing which will take place in due course?
Mr Chairman, the hon member is most welcome. We will discuss these issues. I know we have gone through a difficult period. I know the blood pressure of the hon member for Stanger was rather high. I hope we have all neutralised ourselves. I am convinced that we will be able to present a far more acceptable and productive Budget for 1989.
Sir, will the hon the Minister take a question?
Order! No, the hon the Minister has completed his address.
Sir, on a point of order: I do not suffer from high blood pressure.
Vote agreed to.
Chairman directed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.
House Resumed:
Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.
Mr Chairman, I move:
Mr Chairman, it is typical of the ruling party which controls the Government of this country not to do anything properly or sensibly or intelligently. If it takes one step forward, it feels obliged to take one step backwards and another step sidewards and perform a very bizarre kind of zig-zag goosestep. We know who used to perform the goosestep.
I now come to joint debates. It is hilarious that one even has to argue that it is necessary for hon members of Parliament to debate together. It is ludicrous that such an argument should ever have had to be presented in this Parliament. What is a parliament? A parliament is a legislature in which the elected members of that parliament talk to one another and try to convince each other of the rightness of their point of view, so that in the end the legislation that is enacted by Parliament would be the result of the joint endeavours and intelligence—however limited that might be, and I am not necessarily referring to this Parliament—of the members of that particular legislature.
However, because we have this bizarre system of a tricameral Parliament, we have had to argue ever since we came here that debates should be held jointly. We have argued that quite often, and almost invariably one had a feeling of futility and uselessness in presenting reasoned arguments aimed at those who control the destiny of this country.
These are the hon members of the Cabinet and the hon members of the ruling party. Unless one endeavours to persuade the government in power, free speech becomes almost meaningless. The exercise of democratic rights becomes curtailed and one could become so frustrated that one could—and I believe one does from time to time—think that one may have to take recourse in taking to the streets if one cannot present arguments in an orderly and a reasonable manner.
At last, after three years of deliberation and argument, we have a situation where joint debates will be permitted in what is called “general affairs.” We on this side of the House have said on several occasions that there is nothing in South Africa which does not fall under general affairs. If a supermarket site in Chatsworth is purchased from the Durban City Council for a certain price and is held for a certain period before it is sold to a particular buyer, that property was purchased from the taxpayers’ money. There is no apartheid in the fiscus when it comes to collecting money, whether it is transfer and duties, sales tax, stamp duty and mortgage bonds, or company scrip. It all goes into one kitty. It is the taxpayers’ money and that money has no racial classification. That money is then used to buy the property and the excision of that property from the State’s assets is a general affair.
The building of a hospital in Phoenix because it has to be funded from the resources of the fiscus, is a general affair. The staffing of that hospital will be a general affair. No one can stand up and say that the entire staff of that hospital when it is built will consist entirely of South Africans who are called Indian in terms of the Population Registration Act. The building of that hospital will be a general affair because nobody can say that that hospital will be built entirely by the members of one racial group. There will be Black labourers, White architects and Coloured artisans. The running of that hospital will also be a general affair. We do not have many distinguished neurologists in this country who are not White. We do have a few orthopaedists but inevitably the services of members of the South African community who are not “Indian” will be used. Such an institution will therefore become a general affair.
We have had it already on the authority of the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare that hospitals which come under his control will not be apartheid institutions but will admit any person in need of medical care. Such a hospital obviously cannot be an own affair.
We have the proud allegation by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council—it does have a semblance of justification in it—that the M L Sultan Technikon admits pupils regardless of race or colour. The same applies to the University of Durban-Westville. We therefore have this stupid fiction or falsehood that claims that certain matters are own affairs while other matters are general affairs.
However, that fiction exists. As we pointed out when a similar report was discussed by this House in September last year, we played no role in the formulation of that fictional, artificial situation.
When we came to this Parliament we were told in almost reverent tones by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning that this tricameral parliament would follow the hallowed traditions of Westminster. What did we find when we arrived here in January? I shall not comment on the physical attributes of the new Chamber, but let us consider the seating.
It has always been traditional in the Westminster system—the mother of Parliaments—that the ruling party sits to the right of Mr Speaker and the opposition parties to his left. However, what do we find here? We find one ruling party—White—sitting to the right of Mr Speaker and another ruling party—Brown—sitting to the left of Mr Speaker. Any person coming here from the United Kingdom or any other democratic country will automatically think that the Rev Alan Hendrickse is the Leader of the Official Opposition, which he is not. He is part of a governing party in Parliament.
Then we find the NPP next to the Labour Party, and anyone could be forgiven for thinking that the hon Mr Amichand Rajbansi is a member of an opposition party, whereas in fact he is a member of the Government. He is a member, not only of a governing party, but of the Government. Yet he is obliged by these stupid regulations we have here to sit on the opposite side, apart from the Government. We therefore have the strange situation where he is split from his colleagues in the Cabinet, and when a member of the governing party makes a slip of the tongue in a debate and refers to the hon members on the other side there will of course be great hilarity. We shall all burst out laughing.
Mr Chairman, that was not a mistake. It was not incompetence on the part of those who arranged the seating. It is part and parcel of the outmoded, outdated and idiotic system of apartheid that we still have in this country, notwithstanding the fact that the hon the State President promised three years ago that it would be done away with. What do we have? We have one opposition party sitting partly on the governing side and partly on the crossbenches and that is the Official Opposition, whereas the Official Opposition ought to be sitting to the left of Mr Speaker.
Then the hon member for Montfort wanted to know why I left him, personally, out. He asked “what about the cabal”? Of course, we know that he is waiting to see which way the wind will blow. [Interjections.] I do not think that I should dwell on that particular connection!
That is the background to these joint rules. We said last year that we also want to have joint debates but we cannot make ourselves party—and I trust the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is listening closely to this—to the continuation, or the extension, of apartheid or the formulation of the new apartheid rules. Anyone who makes himself a party to that is a supporter of apartheid.
I trust the hon member for Stanger is listening carefully to this as well. Anyone who does not reject the apartheid provisions in these joint rules shall be deemed to be a supporter of the principles of apartheid. He must not simply pay mealie-mouthed lipservice, and then put all the blame on the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council! [Interjections.]
Is that the way the wind is blowing?
That shows that the wind is blowing fiercely.
Do you know, Sir, I am a compassionate man, although other people might not believe it, and when a man has problems with his throat such as laryngitis, one has got to be careful that one does give him harassment at that time; one leaves it for the subsequent week!
The reason why the joint rules are not good, is the following—I explained this the other day. If one gives a thirsty man a pail of milk he will go hungrily and slurp that milk. However, if one puts some rat droppings into it, he will turn away from that pail of milk and go and seek some plain, simple water elsewhere. That is the effect of the apartheid provisions relating to differentiation and own affairs and general affairs, and providing for separate voting after joint debate. It is the rules of apartheid which constitute the rat droppings in this pail of milk. Regrettably, the entire pail of milk is thereby fouled.
We find the rules as a whole unacceptable because of these very serious problems contained in the rules. There are other difficulties with the rules; there are certain powers given to a particular official which might be questioned, but we could have stomached all that. We could have put up with other, minor differences of opinion if only in a single parliament there was a joint debate by all hon members of Parliament and if the voting—the decision-making—took the course which it ought to take in terms of the traditions of a proper parliament. Those reasons oblige us to say that unfortunately, this report is unacceptable and we cannot subscribe to it.
Mr Chairman, I think that what is important is for us to recognise that there are certain realities with which we have to deal in discussing the rules before us. I agree wholeheartedly with what the hon member for Reservoir Hills says; I think that all of us here are in total agreement with him. However, the fact remains that we are working here in an imperfect system with many limitations. Nevertheless one must agree that for the first time members will have the opportunity of debating in a chamber in which all components of the tricameral parliament will be present. To me, that is a significant step forward, since it was not anticipated before.
In fact, I remember the hon member for Stanger reporting to me that when they were adjusting certain rules of procedure, he insisted that the provisions that could provide for joint debates, should not be altered. I think he sowed the seeds for this development, and I want to give him credit for that.
I know what the ultimate ideals, what the ideal itself, ought to be, but we are working in an imperfect system; all of us acknowledge that, and the hon member for Reservoir Hills must agree wholeheartedly. I agree with the reservations that he has expressed in regard to certain matters contained in this rule, but I believe the fact that people of colour are going to come together under a single roof and will be able to debate across the floor and speak openly and freely is, having regard to the circumstances under which we operate, a definite advance.
It is a small step, but it is certainly a worthwhile step. It is not the ideal and not perfect, but it is going to demonstrate to the White people of South Africa—who have to shed fears and expedite the pace of reform—that the coming together of Indian, Coloured and White people, talking about matters of common concern to this entire South African society, does not bring the roof of the building down. There will be occasion for agreement on many issues. We will find consensus on many matters and we will disagree on others.
With respect to what the hon member for Reservoir Hills has said, and nobody questioned him, I believe that this step forward is as important as our participation here, with all its limitations. I could quite easily stand up here and say that we oppose it or abstain from voting. However, I believe in the idea that we will come together and will be able to debate directly, confronting those people whose policies and philosophies, translated into laws, are the subject of debate here today and every other day. Let them hear us straight and direct. I look forward to that opportunity, as well as the reaction from the lawmakers and their supporters in regard to the pleas and cries of the Indian and of the Coloured community about the many inhibitions and limitations placed on their progress and advancement. For that reason alone, despite the limitations imposed by the rules, I have to go along with this and I sincerely trust that my friend, the hon member for Reservoir Hills, will show understanding for my stand in this matter. I could have chosen the road of standing aside and saying that we abstain or take the option of voting against it, but I believe that in this instance it is a significant step forward. Therefore we must show understanding for one another and appreciate the viewpoints that may be expressed by different persons.
The hon member for Reservoir Hills will support me when I say that we do have a language difficulty. That matter has not been addressed. As far as I am concerned the majority of the members of the House of Delegates—especially those personalities who will be to a large extent involved in these debates—are not qualified or experienced in speaking in Afrikaans. We have not had the opportunity of studying this language at school.
“Khuluma isiZulu”.
“Ngiyabonga, induna”. [Interjections.] I address the Chair as well as the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council when I say that we should have a joint approach to the authorities, placing on record our difficulties. If anything is expected of us by way of a contribution in that debate, then I believe that communication is an important matter. Some arrangement must be made for translation from Afrikaans into English. For those who want English into Afrikaans, it should also be available. Today’s modern equipment provides the opportunity to make these facilities available to the House. In supporting the Bill, with the reservations that we have expressed, I sincerely trust that all of us will be united in asking for the facilities of a translator in order to make our task easier and our contribution possible.
Mr Chairman, at the very outset I would like to say to the hon member for Reservoir Hills that I agree with the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition that the Rules and Orders before us do not really meet with our desires. However, we need to recognise—as the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said—that it is a step in the right direction. From the very beginning our participation in the tricameral system has been one which we have used to the country’s and our own best advantage.
Look at the situation where, at Parliamentary standing committee level, we all sit together and participate and vote together. When we came into our own chambers we found that due to the necessity of Second Reading speeches and in order to save Ministers’ time, we were asked into one chamber, namely the House of Assembly, to listen to the Second Reading Speech or the Presidential Address. We then retired to our own chambers to debate and discuss the issues.
We asked ourselves then whether it would not be in the interests of all of us and whether it would not be a time-saving factor if the opportunity were to arise for us to sit jointly when debating the Bills or issues in Parliament. Here is that opportunity.
As the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has illustrated, we shall have the opportunity to speak in the presence of the other components and that certainly does not represent a principle of entrenching or going along with apartheid. Rather, it promotes a principle to which we have all sworn ourselves, namely the dismantling of apartheid. At least let this be seen …
Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister whether he would care to comment on the attitude of a certain person who says: “I have very strong principles. If you do not like them, I have some others”? [Interjections.]
The answer to the hon member for Reservoir Hills’ question is that this is the art of what one can manage.
I believe that this will give us the opportunity to express ourselves and to speak our minds, as it were, in the presence of all hon members of Parliament.
At those sittings, we shall not necessarily vote and be labelled as members of the Opposition or members of the Majority Party, but rather we shall be referred to by our designations, that is to say, “the hon member for so and so”. This is how I would anticipate the debate to take place at joint sittings. I say that this is something which, by trial and through our participation, will serve to convince us of the need to be there to jointly dispose of the issues. Therefore, let us view it as an innovation leading towards the ultimate objective which we all wish to attain, namely that of participating in joint debates and taking decisions there.
Let us also look at the other side of the coin, namely that because of all the reservations the hon member for Reservoir Hills has raised, we should shoot all the Rules and Orders down in flames. The provisions of this report also provide for extended committees, and extended committees are something even I would not have dreamt of in the not too recent past. I would not have dreamt that extended committees would permit one also to hold joint debates on certain issues and to vote jointly there and then. Am I correct in saying that? I say it subject to correction. The hon members have participated there.
On a segmental basis, though.
Even so, one would vote, just as one does in the Parliamentary committees at the moment. Even if it is on a segmental basis the fact is that we would be voting with one another on the spot, as it were, within the same chamber.
It is my very firm belief that all this is a sign of more to come, and I want to say that this will serve as a lever to be used by those of us who participate in those debates to show that given the opportunity, we can rise to the occasion.
Unhappily, certain local affairs committees cannot come up, as we did in Verulam when the opportunity was given to us. When the local affairs committee was first established, many people said that we were just wasting our time, because we would just be saving in an advisory capacity. However, within two years Verulam became the first local authority in the Republic of South Africa where the entire municipality came into the hands of the Indian community. I say therefore: Do not adopt an attitude of passivity here. Let us be optimistic, and let us, by trial, prove that there will be a need in the future, not for just debating and then returning to our own Chambers to vote, but for voting on the spot. Let us also realise that there are problems, and those problems we have to address as we go along. I am sure we shall succeed.
With these words, we on this side of the House support it and, I am sure, so do the majority on the other side, unless a political stance dictates their attitude so that they will be negative on the report before us. We should apply our minds to the best interest of Parliament.
Mr Chairman, I rise on this particular issue with—I must be quite frank—certain mixed feelings. I would like to start by stating that when the Constitution, Act No 110 of 1983, was promulgated, the whole question of Standing Rules was enacted in relation to that Act. Section 7 of that Act stated that there shall be no debate at a joint sitting. When these particular rules were adopted by the then Parliament, these rules were only to have a life-span of a few years.
When these rules were brought to this Chamber previously for acceptance and renewal, so to speak, we forwarded the argument that we would support the revision of these rules provided that Standing Order No 7 was removed. I had the opportunity of making representations, I would like to believe, not on my own behalf, but on behalf of hon members of this House. I think when this was debated in this House, we were unanimous that, with that provision, we would allow the rules to be accepted for the time being until such time as we had joint rules.
The day has now come again, for the second time, where this House is presented with the opportunity of making joint debates possible. I would like to deal with some of the aspects in this regard. I want to say—and I say this with mixed feelings—that I am not altogether happy with the rules that are before this House, and I do not think that any single hon member of this House can be totally happy with these rules, even if he is a sympathiser of the NP. When we look at some of the practical problems which these rules create, we cannot be happy with them.
However, I am in a dilemma, and I think every single hon member of this House is in a dilemma, namely that either we will have joint debates, or reject these rules and have no joint debates. We therefore have to evaluate what would be in the interest of South Africa, especially when the White community is moving more towards the right. What will be our role, if we do not have the opportunity of being engaged with the White community in a debate? Will we remain segmented if we do not accept this, and if we remain segmented, are we going to contain the White onslaught on people of colour from the rightwing?
The status quo will remain.
If the status quo remains, the right-wing will grow. This is my dilemma. I therefore believe that I do not choose between the two situations.
With that at the back of my mind, I agree with everything that the hon member for Reservoir Hills has to say. My heart is with him. However, I have a problem in that I would like to see progress for the future. I was engaged in the Whips’ meetings. I am not one who says one thing in one meeting and another thing in another meeting. I thank the Almighty that I was able to make a contribution to improve on some of the things that were presented to the committee.
Having participated and having seen certain compromises that we had reached, I will not be so hypocritical as to come here and vote against it. I mean, that is not the way that I would like to function, unless something drastic and radical occurs.
Let us take some of the issues that do create problems. I agree with the question that the hon member for Reservoir Hills raised, namely the question of seating. I want to assure the House that I will still take this up in the committee, because seating is not written into these particular rules. I would like to suggest to the Whip on the opposite side that we should, in fact, take up and argue the point that if hon members belong to the PFP, they should sit together. [Interjections.] Those hon members should not be junior members of the NP. If they want to sit with the NP, let them sit with the NP! I also believe that the majority groups must be on the same road. I once argued with the Whip of this House at a meeting.
Mr Chairman, as the Official Opposition in this House, would the hon member be happy to be accommodated with the CP?
I do not understand the question.
The hon member for Stanger said we should not be junior parties of the NP, but that we should sit together. I likewise want to know whether the hon member for Stanger—as a member of the Official Opposition in this House—would be happy to sit with hon members of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly, the CP.
Mr Chairman, I do not think the hon the Minister has understood what I have said. I said his party should not be junior members—they should become fully-fledged members, because the Political Interference Act has been removed. Nothing precludes them from becoming full partners, so they should sit together as full partners. That is what I meant.
The idea of seating on a segmental basis is unacceptable. I do not agree with that. I do not like the idea. I am honest. I think the hon the Chief Whip of the Majority Party in this House and I should work together and address that particular issue at the Whips’ meeting with the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament. I think the point that was raised by the hon member for Reservoir Hills must be heeded.
I am not happy with the provisions of these particular Standing Rules and Orders on the question of quorum. The question has not been decided upon that the members present constitute a quorum. With this House having less numbers in this tricameral system, we are going to be placed at a disadvantage. What is going to happen when meetings are going to take place? Some hon members serve on three or four committees. One might then have even less representatives than the minority one currently has. If just one hon member of a House is present at a meeting, that meeting can proceed.
These are not things that I particularly fancy. We have to argue the question of quorum again. I believe that this point must be taken up at a subsequent stage to ensure that we do get effective representation.
I hope that there will be a constitutional change in this country in due course because if that does not happen we will be moving towards a disastrous future. I see this as a short-term arrangement if one believes that there will be constitutional progress in this country in so far as reform is concerned.
There was another matter that annoyed me. I want to quote Rule 49 which deals with disciplinary action. If I may tell hon members again …
You should not plead a special cause right now! [Interjections.]
As I said, I want to quote Rule 49 on a disciplinary committee. I quote as follows:
We had lengthy discussions in this particular regard and I was alarmed to hear that hon members can abuse their parliamentary privileges in so far as air tickets, etc, are concerned. I believe the amounts involved are substantial. It is disgraceful that elected representatives, who are supposed to be referred to as “hon members” when addressed, can be so dishonourable.
It is fraud!
The hon Mr Speaker then advised us that he does not want to be judge and jury himself and if it affects an hon member of this House he will ask the Chairman of the House with the senior Whips to investigate and report to him.
I would like to take this opportunity to appeal to hon members of this House please not to bring this kind of disgrace to this Chamber because it does not augur well for themselves and every other hon member in the House.
I now want to refer to the other matter that was raised, namely the question of voting.
Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member to clarify, lest he be misunderstood, whether an hon member of this House was involved in the abuse of air tickets etc?
I do not know. Hon members were referred to in general. I would say it could be any hon member in any of the Houses. My appeal is that hon members here should not bring this House into such disrepute. I do not know which hon member in which House it was. I want to come back to the issue of voting. The Standing Rules originally suggested that voting should take place in the separate Chambers. These rules now provide that voting will not only take place in the extended committees but also when the three Houses are sitting jointly. The voting will take place as it is done in the standing committees.
I now come to the question of the powers of the Chief Whip of Parliament. I refer to Standing Rule 103 dealing with the “arrangement of business”. Standing Rule 103 contains an amendment and reads as follows:
The insertion is the phrase “after consultation with interested parties”.
We argued that he could not do it on his own. There was much debate on this issue and I from my side of the House—I should like to believe—also argued very strongly with all interested parties that even the minority parties and even the Ministers who are involved will have to be consulted before arrangements are made.
This was something that was done in order to move away from the absolute power and discretion that a Chief Whip had previously and which was heavily criticised by the public. It is therefore a measure of compromise.
I also see another advantage, perhaps, and that is that as a spin-off, there will be greater rationalisation. This will put a stop to Ministers having to hop from House to House and our hon members becoming so confused that they deliver the wrong speeches when a Minister comes to address this House on a Bill. It will eliminate this type of comedy and we will have a more stable situation.
It will also give hon members here an opportunity to become involved in debates with people in the other Houses, which is not the case at present where we are talking to each other all the time.
In spite of these reservations I have had, I have stated what could be beneficial in this particular regard. I believe that this Bill might be the turning point insofar as the future politics of South Africa is concerned and the advent of the Blacks into Parliament is concerned. I think that this Bill might help to break the logjam that we have had.
Mr Chairman, I think the report before us is an interesting one and I think we are going through interesting times.
I want to approach this report with the adage that “Rome was not built in a day”. I know the frustrations experienced by many hon members in this House and a large section of the population of this country outside. In spite of that I think the hon members of this House must be seen to be contributing to the dismantling of legislation and practices that have gone on in this land for over 330 years.
Viewed against this background I think one must concede that holding joint debates in a single chamber is no doubt a sign of growth in this Government. It must be seen as a step forward and as a move forward in this race-ridden country of ours. Viewed in this light I think it would be fair of me to say that this report before us is a signal sign of progress.
I know that we should like all discrimination and all apartheid practices to be tom down in a day, but unfortunately realism does not dictate that civilised people take that risk, lest the errors are such that the gains expected prove to be illusory.
I am not without reservations with regard to the discriminatory aspects of joint sittings. I am averse to it and am annoyed by them and my inner self rebels. However, notwithstanding that, I want to urge hon members in this House to compromise on this issue and decide that, we participate in the joint debate despite views to the contrary.
If we choose to stay out, in what way can we be healthy? Then I think we should have joined the radicals and communists outside this House. We can certainly, in selfrighteous dignity, say that we should keep out of it. If we do that then I say to hon members that we shall not succeed in our ultimate goal. We all know what our ultimate goal is.
Our justifications are not different from all just and reasonable people in this country. For that matter, they are no different from the wishes of all just and reasonable people outside this country. We must not wish away the trepidations of the present Government, nor those of certain sectors of the Black community. The hon the Minister of the Budget posed a question to my colleague, asking whether he would sit with the Conservative Party. Let this not be dismissed as a matter of small concern. I think that the aims and aspirations of the right-wing White people must be given serious consideration. I am happy that despite this kind of threat the present Government—which many thinking people in this country regard as the only solution, provided the necessary reforms come, and I think they must come quite urgently and that the Government must not slow down through any fear of the right wing—is permitting joint debates. So, looked at from that point alone, I feel comforted, with some reservations. I can assure hon members that this will prove to be an opportunity.
I was thinking yesterday—and it occurred to me again today—that had the White members of Parliament been sitting with us and listening to this debate on agriculture and the many limitation imposed on agriculture, as well as this nonsensical concept of having own affairs agriculture, our difficulties would have been overcome because we would really have convinced members who want this fragmentation and this differentiation, to rethink their points of view to the extent that all these nonsensical barriers are torn down, as my hon colleague for Reservoir Hills very eloquently highlighted in his speech this afternoon. We agree with him, but then again we must be pragmatists—and this is important. I think the present need is to be pragmatic and to make those moves in the right direction, rather than to shy away in the hope that Utopia might come in a day. That is not how it happens.
I wish to conclude my contribution to this debate by saying that the day will dawn in this country when those Whites and those Blacks who fear one another and want to move in different directions, will find that they have things in common. I want to go further. On that day they will extend the hand of friendship. They will love one another as common citizens of this country, and we shall have a non-racial parliament in this country.
Mr Chairman, the hon member for Cavendish quite correctly indicated to this House that, as opposed to the pragmatic approach of his party, the hon member for Reservoir Hills put forward a principled reservation and a principled objection to the report before us. Therein lies our difficulty. When he spoke earlier on, the hon member for Stanger also referred to the fact that those of us who belong to a particular party ought to sit with other members of that party in that great big debating Chamber.
This brings me to address myself, as a member of the PFP, to precisely why we have taken this principled stand against the Report. Those of us ex-Solidarity members who have joined the PFP, have done so precisely because we are of the opinion that in this day and age and at this time of the political development of our country there is no need and no place for any future in ethnic politics. We have taken the view that non-racialism is what is going to be the order of the future. We have taken the view that if that is what the future South Africa is going to be, those of us who wish to look upon ourselves as representatives of the Indian community and leaders in our own particular spheres of influence, should now be setting the example for others to follow, to ensure that we have a peaceful and future non-racial South Africa. This is why we believe that ethnicity is a feature that must now be relegated to the back room. I make these remarks merely to support the principled stand that has been taken by the hon member for Reservoir Hills.
I have been reminded that the rules which form the basis of this Report, have been drafted within the constraints of the Constitution. Rules themselves cannot change constitutions, and those rules are therefore not at fault—in fact it is the Constitution that is at fault. There is no question about it that that is true. However, our reaction to this is simply that here we have had an opportunity of, in fact, changing the Constitution as a consequence, through the adoption of the Report. If any clause of the Constitution would be consequentially changed thereby, we believe that other clauses of the Constitution could also have been changed thereby as well. Therefore we are not unmindful of the fact that the change in the rules in fact represents a certain step forward—as has been alluded to by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. Of course we recognise that, but we have taken a principled stand.
Therefore I would like to say that we are opposed to the adoption of the Report of the Rules and Orders before us because, firstly, they fail to recommend that the Constitution be amended to provide for taking joint decisions at joint meetings or joint sittings on a non-racial basis.
Secondly, I would like to say that we are opposed to these regulations because they make serious inroads on the rights of opposition parties and of individual members of Parliament. The hon member for Stanger also referred to this when he talked about the right that an opposition party had in terms of the previous Rules and Orders, whereby it could move a vote of no confidence in the majority party in each of the Houses and particularly in the Cabinet. Furthermore I would like to stress that these rules now also limit the rights of individual members because private members’ motions are now to be signed by the Chief Whip of Parliament or by his senior Whip.
I was not a member of the standing committee that debated this and the rules certainly do not qualify what a senior Whip is, but as I understand the position, that precludes opposition parties, and certainly small opposition parties.
Your Whip is a senior Whip.
I am indebted to the hon the Chief Whip of the Majority Party for informing me that our Whip will be a senior Whip. Therefore, I am indebted to the hon the Chief Whip inasmuch as the right of smaller parties to move private members’ motions will not be done away with.
However, Mr Chairman, I have been informed—and, of course, the rules do not state this—that the allocation of time will also be affected by these new rules. As all hon members will recall, in terms of the previous rules the hours and duration times of debates were, in fact, mentioned. If I remember correctly, I think they were also regulated according to the 4:2:1 ratio, but in any event debates for this particular House could certainly take place for something in the region of four hours before they were put to the vote. In terms of the new regulations no such stipulation is entrenched and therefore, in terms of the rules, it is the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament who will now determine all of these things. Therefore, if the hon the Chief Whip sees fit to do so, for whatever reason, then the particular time that has been allocated for a joint sitting could well be circumscribed.
We are also opposed to these regulations because we believe they create procedural uncertainty, as I have said, by placing vast regulatory powers in the hands, firstly, of Mr Speaker, and secondly, of the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament. I have just indicated that it is the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament who now has to determine everything.
Quite obviously, some individual has to accept the responsibility for regulating the affairs of Parliament, and I accept that. I accept that in terms of the stupid regulations that we have governing each of these three Houses, some individual has to co-ordinate all of this. What is more, I must say that it is not an easy task for the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament to perform. What we object to, however, is the fact that in a sense, we are now giving the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament carte blanche to do as he pleases. Nothing is written in these rules to regulate those powers of the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament.
Finally, we object to it because it provides for procedures which we believe are so cumbersome and involved that they will ultimately detract from the status of Parliament.
My benchmate, the hon member for Reservoir Hills, spoke about the hallowed traditions of the Westminster system and it is interesting to note that in terms of the Constitution these traditions of Parliament have been entrenched and, in fact, enshrined. Here is an instance of these traditions being flouted. I am referring to the traditional no-confidence debate and the traditions that obtain in Westminster, for instance, and that is why we say that we are opposed to the report and we object to it.
Mr Chairman, firstly, I want to thank all those hon members who have taken part in this debate. I am particularly grateful to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition because although he indicated that there were certain negative factors in these Joint Rules, unlike his colleague the hon member for Stanger, he made no apologies for standing up and supporting the Report of the Joint Meeting of the Committees on Standing Rules and Orders. [Interjections.]
There are definitely elements of separateness in this new exercise. When we arrived here in 1984, we commented very strongly on the fact that although we were in one Parliament, we were sitting in three separate Chambers. We were unhappy about the fact that we would meet jointly, in terms of the Constitution, only for ceremonial purposes, but not to debate and discuss matters of national importance together. If there is one good reason why we have to support the report of this joint committee, it is that we will be moving away from apartheid. We will be moving away from apartheid very strongly. In fact, this is a giant step forward, in my considered opinion, towards the creation of a single Parliament for the Republic of South Africa.
When we arrived here, we came to a rigid three-Chamber system. We came here with hon Ministers delivering the Second Reading speeches in the three Houses. Then we saw a change, where we met together on the occasion of an hon Minister delivering his Second Reading speech. We saw another change in that an hon Minister delivered his Second Reading speech in one Chamber, not necessarily in the House of Assembly. There were occasions where hon Ministers delivered Second Reading speeches for the first time in the House of Delegates of the House of Representatives, and the House of Assembly at times took the backseat. However, these rules, in my considered opinion, and the very fact that we are now going to debate and deliberate together, constitute a giant step forward.
What about language?
There are two official languages in this country. We will have discussions with Mr Speaker about simultaneous translations. There are problems, especially for those of us who come from Natal, where one official language was not encouraged when we were at school, but we must negotiate this. This was expressed, and the hon member for Stanger is a member of the committee. I do not think we should lay this as a condition.
There are significant changes, and when these rules are implemented, it will change our entire programme in Parliament. In 1984, when we arrived here, we were not used to the procedures of Parliament. We can look at the contribution of this House in 1985, in 1986, when there was a change, and in 1987. General affairs Ministers have really complimented the high standard of contribution of hon members of this House from both sides, from all parties. In fact, the hon the Minister of Finance even spoke to the hon the State President, in my presence, about the high standard of debate he has witnessed in this House. I want to say that our style and our programme will definitely change.
One of the things we must take into consideration is that we will be very busy with the extended committees. The joint Parliament will actually be split into three committees. Considering the statistics of our House, Solidarity Party will, for example, be represented simultaneously in three different Chambers by three hon members each.
Sometimes one might have specialists who want to speak in all three debates. This is going to make the tasks of our Whips more difficult. One might have to run from one House to another, so that one will be able to take part in debates taking place simultaneously. We will have to make the necessary arrangements to ensure that special monitors are installed, so that somebody will be able to monitor speakers in other Houses.
What will also be of tremendous importance, is that we will not have to monitor the debates in other extended committees. We have to monitor the arrival and departure times of hon members. Most probably we will have to introduce more rules, so that the SAA will not take bookings from Cape Town to Durban without the authority of the Chief Whip of any House! However, let us be serious.
As the hon member for Stanger has indicated, an hon member of Parliament is regarded as honourable, because he is required to perform an honourable task. If one hon member is continually absent, it will disturb the success of this new arrangement. The House of Delegates is a small House and has only 45 members. It will therefore be regarded as a hung house. Even the majority party in this House will find it difficult to shuttle its hon members from one House to another when the extended debates take place.
Let us examine Rule 11.1. We now have a regulated time. Before the Easter recess Parliament adjourned at 18h30. After the Easter recess, it usually adjourns at 18h00. In terms of the new rule, there is no regulated time of adjournment. It says, for example: “Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursday: 14h15 to adjournment”. It might adjourn at 16h00, or it might adjourn at 20h00, until such time as the work of Parliament is complete.
I do not think it is fair to say that the Chief Whip of Parliament is now given extraordinary powers. This was debated at the Rules Committee. It was perfectly understood that the Chief Whip will perform his function after consultation with all parties concerned. All parties mean all the Whips of the various parties, all the hon Leaders of the House of the various parties. Hon members will notice that a Leader of the House performs a particular function. Before the establishment of this tricameral Parliament, the Leader of the House had a particular function. Recently the rules were changed, so that some of the powers that were held by the Leader of the House of the old Parliament, were transferred to the Chief Whip of a House, or to the Chief Whip of Parliament.
We do not have a Leader of Parliament to perform the function of the Leader of the House. That task which should be performed by a Leader of Parliament, is now being performed by Mr Speaker who is an impartial person. Of course, Mr Speaker will not perform his functions without consulting with the Chairmen of the various Houses. It will also now afford an opportunity to the Chairman of a House—who is actually the own affairs Speaker—to preside at a joint sitting.
I am sure that although Mr Speaker is going to decide who is to be the Chairman in his absence, he will afford an opportunity to the Chairmen of all Houses to preside at joint sittings.
The hon member for Springfield made reference to the no-confidence debate. Traditionally each House starts off with a no-confidence debate, either in the Cabinet or the Ministers’ Council. The purpose of that debate is not to try and topple the Government. The purpose of that motion was to enable Parliament to have a debate on general affairs, to point out deficiencies and to discuss the state of the nation. The substitute for that traditional and lengthy no-confidence debate will be a debate on the hon the State President’s Opening Address. Rule 10 of the Standing Rules and Orders states:
The question arose as to whether we will be restricted to discussing what the hon the State President has said in his speech. It was clarified that the scope of discussion would be very wide and that one could actually discuss the state of the nation, the Cabinet, the Government or anything else. One’s right to have a debate of no-confidence in the Government will still be enshrined.
However, that does not preclude—even in terms of the Constitution—the right of any hon member to move a motion of no-confidence in the Cabinet, in the Ministers’ Council or in any individual hon Minister in a House. In such cases the normal private members’ motions will apply.
With due respect to the hon member for Reservoir Hills, I want to state that there is a difference between the joint rules which we adopted in September last year and the joint rules that we are considering today. I am well aware of the fact that the hon member for Springfield may jump up and say that there is a difference between September last year and now in that they are being tagged along by the PFP. However, we all knew, of course, that although the hon member for Springfield and the hon member for Reservoir Hills were not members of the PFP at that time, the PFP led them by the nose.
Are you not being led along by the Nats?
I want to quote from Hansard: Delegates, 28 September 1987, col 3739, as follows:
Resolutions reported.
On the motion of the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, Resolutions adopted.
I do not see the names of the hon member for Springfield and the hon member for Reservoir Hills being recorded as having voted against the resolutions or objecting to them. I know the argument may be put forward that they were at that time members of the PRP, but we all know that they did in this House exactly what the PFP did in the other House. The only reservation that the hon member for Reservoir Hills expressed in his speech was that in spite of the fact that we vote …
Refer to his amendment.
I am referring to his amendment in Hansard, col 3725 of the same day. The hon member for Reservoir Hills proposed the following amendment and I quote from col 3725:
The amendment that the hon member for Reservoir Hills proposed in September last year was not that all hon members should have a free vote. At that stage he said that one could vote separately with one’s segmented section but that one should do so immediately after the debate. If one follows this very carefully one sees in the clarification given by the hon member for Stanger that the criticism of the hon member for Reservoir Hills referred to in September last year is being accommodated in the Standing Rules that we are discussing today.
Therefore the hon member for Reservoir Hills should really thank the Committees on Standing Rules and Orders for having accommodated his only reservation.
Although he expressed that reservation in the debate, when it came to the voting in September he did not vote against the adoption of the rule. Therefore, in effect, in September the rules which were not as advanced as the rules we are debating today, were accepted unanimously by this House. The hon member for Reservoir Hills should, in fact, compliment the Committees for taking into very serious consideration the reservations expressed by him in September last year.
I want to repeat that we stated that we were coming to Parliament to loosen the nuts and bolts of apartheid. Some of these nuts and bolts are very rusty. Consensus does not mean that each one should adopt rigid attitudes. There are logjams and if we want to make progress towards the total elimination of apartheid in this country, we must be prepared to understand the problems of the various constituencies and to understand the difficulties that each party and each side has.
Of course, in a parliamentary system if we want to place too much emphasis on the Westminster System, we must give recognition to the fact that our whole structure and system is dependent on constituency politics. The survival of significant groups in each House—significant in bringing about further changes in this country—is important to ensure that they are strengthened and therefore when we want to clear the logjam we must engage in an exercise of accommodating each other and understanding each other’s difficulties. We must not be purists or behave like pundits. I really compliment the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition who stood up here this afternoon …
He is a good leader.
Unlike the hon member for Stanger, who made apologies! The hon Leader of the Official Opposition did not make apologies because—and I know this—he does not adopt a purist attitude.
In spite of the fact that he mentioned that there are certain things in these Rules which he also does not like he was strong enough to stand up and be counted for progress—progress in an evolutionary manner—in this country.
The adoption of these Standing Rules and Orders by this House this afternoon means that we are taking a very important step forward together.
We have been hard and we have adopted strong attitudes and the same goes for the House of Representatives, but they adopted it unanimously.
They had a division yesterday.
They did not have a division, but the Opposition objected.
The Opposition objected.
We are now going to be confronted with certain situations. Where one sits is not embodied in the Rules. What is an opposition? An opposition party is an opposition with regard to own affairs. We cannot sit in a joint chamber and say we are the official opposition parties. One cannot classify Solidarity with the CP because it is an official opposition party in a different House. If an opposition party opposes the Government it does so for various reasons eg the PFP opposed the reform programme of the Government in the referendum.
The conservative element opposed the Government and their supporters recorded the noes. If there were 10 000 noes, they could be for different reasons. One group opposed the Government because they are changing the country and another group is opposing the Government because they are not changing fast enough.
Therefore we now have to address another problem in joint debates and this will probably be the issue with which the Rules Committee will be dealing with from time to time. When we arrived here in 1984 we did not foresee that we were going to debate jointly. As I have stated, the tradition of Parhament in its first week is not to try to topple the Government, but to afford the oppositions in each House the opportunity to express a view. The country will be looking forward to an important factor in the first week after the official opening of Parliament, namely the discussion of the state of the nation.
Therefore I think that the former PRP element has really exposed itself seriously today in that these people appear to have forgotten what they did in September last year. The argument that they are now PFP members cannot hold, because at that time they were actually carted around by the PFP. We know what the PFP did in that Chamber, they did here.
What does it matter? You joined the party!
We are not associated with the NP.
Of course you are.
I suggest that the hon member for Springfield, because of the humiliation to which he was subjected today, has forgotten that there is such a thing as a September 1987 Hansard.
We know about your caucus. The Ministers were brought in there and you sell your party down the river.
Mr Chairman, the hon member has referred to Ministers coming in. Can the hon member for Springfield deny the fact that, when he was with Solidarity, a general affairs Minister attended and addressed the caucus of Solidarity?
Of course that is true.
Right, but if that is true, how can it be bad for others?
We are not selling the community down the river like you are.
No, we never had a Minister in our caucus.
The hon member for Springfield admitted that.
I beg your pardon? [Interjections.]
Yes, we had meetings elsewhere but not a meeting with our caucus. [Interjections.]
Whatever it is, I do not want to cross swords with the hon member for Stanger, but there is absolutely no harm in that. Therefore if it is not wrong with Solidarity and with the former PRP members conceding that, let us not split hairs about this.
If we want to talk about reforms in this country, the Nationalist Party is leaving the PFP lengths behind as far as honesty in changes is concerned.
Mr Chairman, will the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council take a question?
At the end of my speech, Mr Chairman. Now I would like to ask the hon member for Springfield a question. In talking about promoting apartheid, there are certain levels of Government within which his party members are in the majority. They should not go and hide behind the Government. They should stand up at the level of local government and reject the apartheid which they are practising.
That is nonsense and you know it!
Let them reject it. There are many instances; for instance apartheid in municipal budgets. Show me any Central Government legislation which states that you must discriminate in respect of the allocation of funds.
Since when is that PFP policy? Nonsense!
That is PFP policy because the PFP members practise apartheid. Most of the humiliation which Indian people have been subjected to in urban areas was at the hands of PFP members.
Fiddlesticks! Rubbish! Hogwash!
When it suits them, they hide behind Government policy.
Hogwash!
Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council whether he can deny that the Nationalist Government of this country is now advocating and implementing what members of the PFP were advocating 20 years ago? In other words, can he deny that the National Peoples Party and the Nationalist Government of this country are 20 years behind the PFP? [Interjections.]
I am aware of a famous Prog saying 20 years ago: “Don’t give the Indians the vote; give them the boat.”
That is nonsense! Which member of the PFP was that? Who was he? Name him!
However, it was the NP that said: “No longer give the Indians the boat; give them the vote.” That is the answer.
Who said that?
You know who it was.
Rubbish!
Question agreed to (Progressive Federal Party dissenting).
Mr Chairman, I move:
Agreed to.
The House adjourned at