Mr Speaker, I move without notice:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, there is of course a wide variety of subjects that can be raised in the discussion of the hon the State President’s Vote. I am not planning to address too many of these, but merely to highlight a few specific subjects and to comment on them. The three matters to which I shall refer are the relations of the State or the Government to certain church politics, the involvement of certain organisations in decisionmaking, also in White South Africa, and certain planning—a particular facet of our constitutional planning.

I am aware that I made a few remarks last week in connection with the relations of the church to constitutional and political matters, and vice versa. On that occasion I made a few observations, but I should like to elaborate a little this afternoon.

At the outset I want to say that this side of the House supports the hon the State President in certain views that he has expressed over the years and especially in the recent past. We support the hon the State President in his view that the Government and the church are two separate spheres of life, two separate spheres of authority, in which the peculiar authority of the one is not subject to or ought not to be subordinated to that of the other. I believe it is a principle that was established 4½ centuries ago in Geneva in the struggle of the great reformer against the attempts to subordinate the church to the civil authorities.

In the second place I want to say that the State may not act coercively in religious matters. I am enumerating matters on which, I believe, we all agree. In the third instance, the State has a responsibility of its own to obey Biblical principles in its legislation and in the maintenance of law and order.

Furthermore, the State should not place obstacles in the way of churches with regard to the service rendered solely by churches. I am mentioning all the things on which I believe we are all in agreement.

Furthermore, the Government or the State can be addressed, and from a certain point of view one will say must be addressed by the church on the moral unacceptability of legislation and Government actions. I do not think anyone will deny that. Of course I would add to that: Provided the church’s admonition emanates from a clear Biblical principle and provided it does so in a churchly style. I think there is also a difference between a churchly style and another kind of style that does not befit the church.

I do not believe that street demonstrations are a churchly manner of protesting. I do not believe that sermons under the ANC and the communist flags give the correct impression. I do not believe that it befits a minister of the gospel to advocate sanctions against his own or any other country. The latest example of this was the conduct of Archbishop Tutu in Portugal only last week-end, and that on a Sunday, where he pleaded for sanctions against South Africa.

I believe—I think both sides of the Committee will agree—it is wrong of a church to speak against national defence or against national military service as some do here in South Africa. We believe that it is wrong for a church to plead for disinvestment with regard to its own country. We also believe that it is wrong for a church to prescribe particular political models for a country, because as a church it is simply not empowered to do so.

Against this background it is significant that it is being admitted in many ranks that the form of government of a State should be rooted in the historical existence of the people (volksbestaan). If that statement is more or less acceptable to both sides of the Committee, specific political implications could emanate from it for South Africa as well.

We believe it is wrong for a church to unilaterally criticise one particular political model and thereby takes sides politically.

I read the interview that the hon the State President conducted with the editor of Die Kerkbode, and I can associate myself with it to a large extent. I think he directed a very apt reprimand—in my opinion he could perhaps have stated it in slightly more forceful terms—at certain institutions that condemn only certain political models and do not hold critical discussions across the whole spectrum.

We agree with the hon the State President that there is a confusion of ecclesiastical opinions on certain points. If someone presents himself as a spokesman for the church, the hon the State President certainly has the right to ask whether he is speaking on behalf of all churches or whether he is addressing him on behalf of a particular church. The hon the State President can justifiably ask which church he should heed.

There are profound differences in the exposition and application of the Bible with regard to social, political and economic questions. I think the hon the State President can justifiably ask whether there cannot be greater consensus in ecclesiastical circles on the moral or Biblical prescriptions according to which a government should act.

If politicians should not be arrogant towards the church, then the arrogance or pedantry of clergymen on political issues is also unacceptable.

The fact is that church leaders are also taken in tow by specific ideologies and some are pulling their own political wagon loaded with controversial political views.

We can now rightly ask what political dispensation Archbishop Tutu and Dr Boesak want to have established in South Africa. I allege that it would be a false representation of Christendom to imply that people should be forced into and accommodated in the same social and political or even ecclesiastical institutes or contexts. I say there is no Biblical demand for that.

Secondly, I say that the threat to or destruction of ethnicity or of ethnic pluriformity is not a Biblical demand or part of a Christian view of life and personal philosophy; on the contrary, I want to contend that it is in conflict with it.

Apparently justice means “liberation” according to Dr Boesak and Archbishop Tutu and that the yoke of White supremacy must be discarded and that Black peoples, the Brown communities and everyone must be liberated.

If that is what it means, we challenge those ministers of the gospel to tell us whether it would be just to subject the Afrikaner nation and the wider White community to Black domination. They must then tell us whether they believe that that is justice.

Furthermore, if they were to admit in any way that there may be a place in the sun for my people separate from other peoples, with its own “volkskap” and with its own claim to identity, living space and even political expression, they could not possibly associate themselves with the idiom and the aspirations of the ANC, or endorse its political objectives.

However, I want to say further that if in their vision for South Africa there is no place for an independent White community, to say nothing of a distinct Afrikaner nation, and there is only place for multiracialism, as if that would be the hallmark of Christianity, and if it is their viewpoint that there should be only one so-called general humanity and one world citizenship, I say with great resolution—I hope I am being humble enough if I state it this way—that it is an unbiblical view of humanity and an unbiblical view of life. It is another form of racism, an anti-White racism. It is absolutely foreign to democracy. It is totally unacceptable for any selfconscious ethnic group or people, for the Afrikaner in particular. When it comes to conflict, struggle and confrontation, such an approach would be the right recipe for that.

I should like to come to the second part of my subject, and that concerns the involvement and participation of the ANC in particular in political decision-making for the whole of South Africa. Again I want to say that we support the hon the State President in the statements that he has made in this regard. He stated categorically, as the hon the Minister of Finance also indicated here, that he was opposed to a discussion with the ANC as long as they advocated violence. He definitely dissociated himself from negotiation with Marxists. It is not necessary for me to quote him now, because I think it is generally known. He castigated the Dakar Safari last year, and there are other statements.

However, we have problems with certain statements from that side of the Committee, and I now want to refer in particular to statements made by the hon member for Innesdal. The hon member wrote an article last year that appeared in Inside South Africa. There was a slight flurry on that side when that article appeared. I think there was also much embarrassment in that regard, but last week the hon member stood up in the House and referred to the same article:

He was referring to the hon member for Roodepoort—

I think we must ask a few questions against that background, and also state a few standpoints.

I shall begin by quoting from the article. He said that most Nationalists considered it a myth:

He continued to talk about myths. Another myth was:

He said that he would not withdraw a single word. He wrote further:

The words “total liberation struggle” were in quotation marks. A fourth observation in this regard was:

Allow me to make a few comments in this regard. Firstly, it is a long time since one could think of the ANC in terms other than of violence and terrorism and threats of a blood-bath. At present, to talk of the ANC as an ANC without violence, as it has taken shape and as it is acting and as we have come to know its deeds, is to talk of a myth. An ANC without violence is a myth. It is an abstraction. To talk of the ANC’s so-called “liberation” without violence as a method, is an abstraction. No one can conceive that organisation’s terrorism as being extricated from its politics. The ANC is not a parliamentary type in a democratic system. Its so-called “democracy” is a Black dominated Southern Africa.

It is general knowledge that there is an alliance between the ANC and the SACP; that the ANC is teeming with communists. There is no doubt about that. I now read in a publication, The New Nation and Liberation Theology, that Alfred Nzo, Secretary-General of the ANC describes the relationship between the ANC and the Russian Communist Party as “one of unbreakable solidarity” and the Soviet Union as “a beacon of hope for the whole of mankind”.

The same Secretary-General of the ANC said in an interview with the London Sunday Times:

Those are the words of the Secretary-General of the ANC. The following was then said in the newspaper:

I want to go further and say that it is wishful thinking to ever envisage an innocent, peace-loving ANC at a conference table unless it is preceded by the capitulation of Pretoria, that is to say, the seat of Government, in as far as that Government still stands for White interests in South Africa.

There was a time when 10 000 ANC members were being trained as terrorists in Northern Angola. In September 1985 Oliver Tambo said:

The slogan is “Make the country ungovernable!”.

With all due respect, I do not know whether the hon member for Innesdal had all that in mind. Perhaps he did not have it in mind, but he said that it was a myth that a lasting solution for Black political participation could be achieved without involving the ANC in the process.

Furthermore, the Central Committee of the SACP said in 1985:

However, the hon member for Innesdal said that the ANC must be a part of Black political participation. I believe that if he had thought about this properly, he would not have said such a thing.

Nelson Mandela is a communist. During the visits of the Eminent Persons Group from the Commonwealth to Nelson Mandela, he repeatedly confirmed his commitment to violence—it is stated in the report that that body published. Of course they always rationalise it by saying that as long as apartheid as structured or lawful violence is being applied in South Africa, the ANC will be justified in using violence.

However, the hon member for Innesdal says that it is a myth that a lasting solution for Black political participation is possible without the release of Nelson Mandela. Which Mandela is he talking about? A Mandela who rejects communism and violence is a myth. That Mandela is a fiction, just as a certain Mbeki is a fiction if one alleges that he is a man who no longer advocates violence. If one were to release Mandela, one would not be releasing a fiction but a person committed to violence in the struggle against apartheid.

I ask the hon member if he knows what he is saying when he alleges that:

Does the hon member want to destroy apartheid? If so, he must first remove the entire NP to which he belongs, from the scene, because the party as it is sitting there and that has thrown apartheid overboard in certain political structures, has surely not yet admitted that it is going to remove all residential segregation, or that it is going to integrate all voters’ rolls, or that it is going to abandon the tricameral system and have only one chamber in its place. That is all apartheid. Let us not sit and joke about these basic things.

I am now putting it to the hon member: In this so-called “total liberation struggle of the Blacks” there is no place for White own affairs or White political self-determination. Nevertheless, the hon member says that he identifies himself with it entirely!

What does he actually identify with? Even the NP has no place in the “total liberation struggle”. There is not even place for the PFP. Even Chief Buthelezi who is portrayed as being moderate, is not moderate, because he says he is radical. He cannot afford to have the reputation of being a moderate. He is radical. I have here quotations of what he said in the past, but I shall leave it at that.

We say that violence is inherent in this “total liberation struggle” if the Whites do not capitulate politically, socially or territorially. Violence is part of that plan. I am saying that the hon member for Innesdal cannot identify with something like that, and I do not believe that he identifies with it. [Interjections.] I hope that my belief is not misplaced.

Why does the hon member use the word “liberation” at all, not to mention “total liberation struggle of the Blacks”? I do not think anyone will argue with me if I say that the ANC, the SACP, Cosatu and the UDF are all part of this “total liberation struggle”.

Furthermore, I believe that the hon member was not aware of what he was saying when he wrote—

The hon the Minister of Defence, the hon the Minister of Law and Order, hon the Minister of National Education and the hon the State President will not agree with him and identify themselves with this.

The word “liberation” is being used by everyone who is leftist, whether he is part of the, ANC, Cosatu, New Unity or the Communist Party. The word “liberation” is used by all of them in a particular context. Against that background a professor of the University of the Witwatersrand, Prof Dirk Kunert said—

Prof Kunert says, according to Lenin’s code it is being done in the following manner:

He also says—

And so he goes on.

Now we are saying to each other that it is simply not possible to accommodate the freedom of my particular people, the wider White community and other peoples in the so-called “total liberation struggle of the Blacks”. In that context it is just not possible.

At this stage I shall let that suffice, Mr Chairman.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is known in political circles for being able to quote very selectively. I want to lay it at his door today that he quoted that specific article from Inside South Africa very selectively. That article starts with the words—

Let me start by referring to the speech I made in the House last Wednesday. Let us not mince matters.

After that article had appeared in Inside South Africa last year, I issued a statement after consultation with the Transvaal leader of the NP. That weekend I said in the Press that in the heat and turmoil of that speech I had omitted to say that the article should be read together with a statement which was issued afterwards, and I stand by that. That article must not be read as a unit; it must be read in conjunction with what I said afterwards. [Interjections.]

I want to tell the hon members of the CP that, during this past week, the week we are in now, they tried to use that same article in a High Court case in the same reprehensible political way the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has just done, to indicate that I stand for violence. I want the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and every hon member sitting there to read what the Deputy Judge President of the Transvaal said in his judgment about the reprehensible type of politics they engage in. [Interjections.] I say to him the politics he engaged in here today by quoting selectively from that article are just as reprehensible as the methods they adopted to besmirch me in the election and make out that I was a fellow traveller of perpetrators of violence and terrorists—for which they paid the price. [Interjections.] It will be inscribed in the court records that that party is prepared to lie and slander when it suits them to try to plough their political opponents under.

We shall appeal!

Let them appeal. I should like them to appeal because the judge said they had to pay me that money at 15,5% interest per annum and that is quite good interest. [Interjections.]

I want to say frankly that the governing party has definite standpoints on the ANC. One standpoint is that it will not negotiate with the ANC before they renounce violence.

And the other one is yours!

I have no difficulty with that standpoint.

The next standpoint is that the Government does not release political prisoners before they renounce violence. I have no difficulty with that standpoint. [Interjections.] I am loyal to the leaders of the NP party and, if the hon the State President and the Cabinet should state tomorrow whatever standpoint they uphold in regard to these matters, I shall stand by them loyally because I know they will do it in the best interests of South Africa. [Interjections.]

Now the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition talks about the so-called “total liberation struggle”. I want to tell him frankly the words “total liberation struggle”, as he used them there, refer to the political concept of a total struggle for freedom as Black people are experiencing it and this has nothing to do with violence. [Interjections.] I want to say to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition that it has nothing to do with communism either. My party and I despise and repudiate communism. We repudiate the type of terrorism which was carried out right at Parliament yesterday. We say it is despicable.

I say to the hon members of the CP that they should watch my recent BBC television interview which I gave after the by-elections. They should watch my television interview after the hon the State President’s so-called “Rubicon” speech. They should take a look at the evidence I gave before the British government’s Parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs. Nevertheless the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition talks this kind of nonsense here.

The entire essence of NP policy on the political rights of all people in South Africa and their rights in the economic as well as the social sphere is to move toward a situation in which we can do justice to groups and communities but also to the individual. [Interjections.] The word “freedom” is written in capitals above the NP’s entire policy. Consequently, when there is talk of a “total liberation struggle”, we are using it, in the sense of NP policy, to mean that every person should feel free to take part in politics, that every person should feel free to take part in economic structures and that every person should feel that the discrimination which he perceives as suppression in legislation is not part of our plan and policy.

I want to tell the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition that it will not help him at all to try to associate any of us with violence and terrorism. We despise this with our entire being and I shall state this anywhere in the world. I will also say everything that I have said behind closed doors in public here too.

The other day the hon member for Lichtenburg made a speech here and I want to quote from it. I am sorry I have only five minutes. They tell us that we lie to the voters—I am quoting from his Hansard—

The hon member continued and said:

I want to tell the hon member for Lichtenburg that I have never used those words. As those words stand there without qualification and he says that I have never withdrawn them, I can say I have never used them. I am restricted by the Rules of the House, but I merely want to tell any person in South Africa who would say outside this House: “The hon member for Innesdal writes in an article that it is a myth that Black people’s political aspirations and a political solution regarding Black people can be attained without the inclusion of the ANC” to his face that he is a liar.

I will do that!

You are stupid enough to do it.

I shall not take this point any further.

Regarding our party’s policy, we have to tell each other frankly that to us the whole in South Africa is more important in many respects that each separate part. I stand here today as an Afrikaner Nationalist. [Interjections.] I shall not attempt to say how I feel about it. [Interjections.] We are tired of those kinds of old sectarian politics in which they think they have the monopoly on Afrikaner character, on Christianity and on everything which we consider sacred. We laugh at such politics. As an Afrikaner Nationalist I say today that, as much as I love the Afrikaner people, as much as I love my own community, as much as I love the hon member Mrs Chait’s and the hon member for Houghton’s community and all the English-speaking members of the community, as much as I love my own, I can say that the Afrikaner’s political aspirations, his social aspirations and everything that the Afrikaner claims for himself is not more important in the New South Africa of tomorrow than the whole with which all people’s aspirations and rights have to be satisfied. That is why I say the CP conducts politics of conflict in the worst degree to say in the first place that the Afrikaner has the sole say.

You say he has no say.

There is no way in which any Black person, any Coloured person or any other person in South Africa can perceive their policy other than to reject it and say he has no other method but to enter into conflict with that party. Let us repeat it to them: Politically they are telling the Black people, the Coloured people and the Indians in South Africa that they are not equal citizens in South Africa. With that statement they are telling those people that if they want rights they will have to fight for them. In addition, they are telling Black people that the rights which we, the Government, have restored to them will be taken away again by them.

The other day the hon member for Overvaal made an ill-advised political statement here in the House that a Black man who lived in Soweto was not a citizen of South Africa. I say to them now that our party’s policy on constitutional accommodation means that all people in South Africa have rights within a group context—however they may view it, be it geographic, ethnic or whatever—to be participants within that group context in the political structures on which we are working.

We say frankly that we do not have all the structures ready yet and surely this is no secret. We say to all people in South Africa, however, because we say the whole is greater than each separate part, that the NP, under the leadership of its leaders of today, can hold out this hope to all in South Africa, the hope to be able to participate in political structures with freedom as the attitude to life, the hope to be able to participate in economic opportunities in freedom and the hope to be able to participate in all the opportunities we create for ourselves in freedom. [Time expired].

Mr Chairman, the natural assets of South Africa are frequently singled out as the country’s greatest assets. It is often argued that in times of crisis and economic recession these natural assets will save South Africa in the face of sanctions and disinvestment.

No matter how important the natural assets of South Africa may be, there is another asset which is gaining momentum and will irrevocable determine the future of South Africa and all its people. This asset is inherent in the potential of moderate South Africans across the colour and culture bars, who accept that if we want to survive and live together here as different groups and peoples and as First and Third World components, we will all have to work together on a peaceful solution for South Africa and all its people. It is this group of moderate South Africans that rejects revolution and violence, but also unilateral solutions enforced by legislation, as a solution to the constitutional problems of South Africa.

Ranged against this moderate group of South Africans across the colour and culture bars, there are other political and interest groups to the left and to the right of the political spectrum, who advocate specific solutions for South Africa. No matter how complicated South African society may be, the actual question in modern-day South African politics remains whether we are going to negotiate our solutions and whether we are going to enforce them unilaterally.

No matter how the solutions of the CP, the HNP and the ANC may differ from one another, there is absolute unanimity on one central aspect, namely that solutions are to be forced on South Africa unilaterally. Because this element of force is a factor in the politics of the people to the left and to the right of the political fence, they are political bedfellows. The Official Opposition and the left-wing and right-wing radical forces are bedfellows, because although the method differs, the central point of departure of all of them is a solution which will be forced on the majority of South African society. The eventual result of this political model is a dictatorship, whether it be Black or White.

I want to come back to this natural asset which is gaining momentum in South African society. This unexploited source of human potential gives everyone the key to hope for the future of South Africa. One can now ask who these people are. One can also ask where they are. This group of people across the colour and culture bars are in the independent states and the self-governing national states, they are inside and outside Parliament and they are inside and outside the power structures of the cities.

Who are these people? They are the Whites who have decided with the NP that the political solutions of the past lead nowhere. They are also the Black, Coloured and Indian South Africans who realise that White rights, ethnic groupings, White aspirations and White achievements form part of the solution for South Africa.

This group formation across the colour bar, which is gaining momentum, consists of the Whites and moderate Blacks who reject violence, who recognise the right of participation of all South Africa in the public decision-making process, who recognise the free-market mechanism as the economic system and who realise that changes can only be made if they are economically affordable. All these South Africans know that the social system must make room for both individual and group interests.

The education system must afford equal opportunities. The legal system must afford and indeed give protection to common law legal values. The religious system must guarantee freedom of worship.

This is the mirror of the moderate South African who is the key to peace for the future of South Africa. Everyone who recognises his face in this mirror, must stand up and be counted. I say the fundamental question in South African politics is whether we are going to negotiate our solutions, or whether we are going to enforce our solutions unilaterally. The answer to this question will determine whether the social structures are going to be built unilaterally on what differentiates groups from one another, or whether social structures are going to be built on what everyone has in common.

The NP has made its choice, because the South Africa of tomorrow is not going to ask who differs from whom on the basis of colour or ethnicity. The question is going to be who wants to negotiate and who is opposed to negotiation; who wants to enforce solutions and who wants to negotiate solutions. The answer to this question is either violence or peace for South Africa.

The political balance sheet which can be drawn up regarding these two groups in South Africa at the moment, can be summarised as follows. On the one side there is the NP and all other moderate South Africans of colour who recognise that solutions must be negotiated. On the other side we have the CP and other radical groups who want to enforce solutions, whether by force, or by statute. On the one side we have the NP and all other South Africans who realise that every party does not have the entire solution to South African’s problems, but that everyone can contribute towards finding a total political solution. On the other side we have the right-wing radical parties and the left-wing radical groups who want to enforce solutions on South Africa unilaterally, according to their specific model. On the one side we have the NP and other groups who recognise South African citizenship for everyone. On the other side we have certain political groups who want to deny South African citizenship rights to certain groups, particularly Black people. [Time expired.]

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

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Bellville was justified in drawing our attention to the enormous asset of the moderate South African who recognises negotiation. We intend analysing that statement in the course of this debate to see whether the action of the Government reinforces that moderate middle-of-the-road statement of South Africa or whether it perhaps gives rise to greater polarisation in this country.

†Mr Chairman, I am going to refer to the speech made the other day by the hon member for Innesdal. I have no intention of denigrating either him or what he said. I certainly have no intention of libelling him, and I have no intention of linking him in any way with violence. Those of us who understand party politics will understand the nature of the speech he delivered here today. I must say, however, that what he said the other day, I believe, stimulated and excited the political debate in South Africa in a way in which no other speech has stimulated and excited the political debate in this House during this parliamentary session. I believe that is an important factor. It has injected an element of realism, of tough principle thinking into a debate which, I think, has become somewhat sterile. I think it is well that we will deal with it during the course of this debate.

Our Albert!

Mr Chairman, we arrive at this debate once again with the whole of South Africa, with the Press, with the journals reflecting public opinion reflecting a chorus of demands for clarity on Government policy. It is almost an annual event. Annually people are saying: “For heaven’s sake, will the hon the State President not please tell us where he is leading this country?” I believe a pattern has developed in which we stumble along in a policy vacuum waiting for periodic announcements by the hon the State President. Whatever the reason for this may be, I must tell him that the lack of continuity, the lack of a sustained thrust of policy, the constant feeling of uncertainty and of “where are we going?”, is I believe not only bad for the country but also makes meaningful political debate in this House extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible. Yet, here we are again with everybody, including hon members opposite, failing to have made any real contribution to the debate so far or to the political discussion because they do not quite know what the hon the State President is going to say. This, Sir, is a hopeless way to run or direct or stimulate or lead a country in the difficult circumstances in which we find ourselves.

Next month we will have had 40 years of NP rule in this country. It will be the beginning of the tenth year in which the hon the State President has held office, either as Prime Minister or as State President.

Time for a change!

I must say that much has happened in South Africa over that period. During that time there have certainly been some positive developments in the wider South African society. That has been a feature of the dynamics of the South African situation. There have, however, been three important areas in which the Government—and the hon the State President, as the leader of the NP in particular—I has I believed failed and in recent years, has caused the situation to become worse.

The first issue to which I should like to address myself is the issue of Black political rights. We should not begin to talk in generalities. We mean direct Black political participation in the central Parliament of South Africa. That is what we are talking about. We are talking about direct Black political participation in the central Parliament of South Africa. This is a fundamental issue, not only because it has to do with the issue of political power but also because it actually encompasses a basic human right—to be part of a decisionmaking process involving oneself. It is a kind of litmus test for full citizenship. To say people can have citizenship but may not have direct representation is not a reality in any country that claims to be democratic. It is concrete evidence as to whether there is discrimination or not. If we get rid of discrimination in every other field of society but continue to have discrimination in the field of political participation then we still have discrimination in its most aggravating form.

Eighty years since the Union of South Africa was formed, 40 years since the NP came to power, nearly 10 years since the hon the State President took over, there is not a single representative of the majority of South Africans, the Black people of South Africa, in the sovereign, central Parliament of South Africa. That is an ugly reality. Not a single Black can today vote for Parliament. Seventy three per cent of the people have no direct representation in the Parliament of South Africa.

I put it to the hon the State President that against this background of 80 years since Union, 40 years since the NP came to power and nearly 10 years since the hon the State President took over, does he wonder why the rest of the world does not believe that apartheid is dead?

One can say this until one is blue in the face. This Parliament represents the reality that apartheid is not dead. [Interjections.]

Secondly, is the hon the State President surprised that Blacks says they are oppressed? People who live under laws where they have had no say in the making of such laws have the right to feel that they are oppressed.

Thirdly, I put it to the hon the State President: Is he surprised that after 40 years of NP rule there is a revolutionary climate in these circumstances? Is he surprised? Good grief! If the Afrikaner South African had been deprived of his political rights or vote for 80, 40 or even 10 years, would there not have been a revolutionary climate? This is the crux of the issue. Is the hon the State President surprised that there is a militant ANC or PAC or Azapo or Azano? Is he surprised in these circumstances?

The situation has actually worsened since 1948. At least in 1948 Black people were represented in the central Parliament of South Africa. What is more they were not represented in separate Houses but in this House albeit inadequately because there were only four representatives and they had White faces. Nevertheless, the principle of Black representation in this Parliament was an accepted one up to 1961 when Dr Verwoerd abolished that representation.

So far it has only been the hon member for Innesdal—I have read his speech—who has made it clear that he stands for the principle of direct Black representation in the central, sovereign Parliament of South Africa. But it has only been that hon member who has said so. I want to tell the hon the State President that before the discussion of this Vote is over he should declare in a way beyond dispute that he accepts the fact that in this central, sovereign Parliament of South Africa Blacks shall also have direct and elected representation.

The second area in regard to which I believe there has been a dramatic erosion and decline during the ten years of office of the hon the State President is the field of civil liberties and the rule of law. What has happened in just the past two years alone? There has been a constant flow of regulations and executive actions restricting the Press, freedom of speech, of pubheation, of association, of political activity and individual freedom—those Draconian regulations of 23 or 24 February of this year. We have made our point of view very clear in this regard but I want to put it to the hon the State President: When at a stroke of the pen a Cabinet Minister can illegalise what is otherwise a legal activity and restrict organisations and individuals, does he believe that there can be respect for a law that allows that to happen? Does he believe that there can be respect for the moral authority of a government which allows this sort of thing to happen? Does he believe there can be respect for the process of constitutional government when he allows this to happen? I say to the hon the State President that given what has taken place under his administration does he really care deeply about the civilised concepts of civil liberties, individual freedom and the rule of law? Do these things mean anything to him? Does he find them important? Does he believe that these things form one of the guiding principles as far as his administration is concerned?

The third area in which there has been a dramatic deterioration in South Africa’s position has been in the field of international affairs. While other hon colleagues of mine will deal in more detail with this matter, I want to say that never before has South Africa been as shunned, as spurned and as isolated as it is today. When I go abroad, quite frankly I become angry with those people who indulge in selective morality. I get angry with those people who indulge in superficial showmanship at the expense of South Africa. Yes, I share that anger as a South African. But it pales into insignificance when compared with the anger that I feel at the National Government and its policy and actions that have destroyed the good name and credibility of my country overseas. That is what makes me very angry. I want to ask the hon the State President whether this does not trouble him. Is he not concerned about our status, our stature and our credibility? Is he not concerned about our increasing isolation, or is his motto also: “Let the rest of the world do its damnedest”? Is that the attitude of the hon the State President?

The hon the State President deserves some credit for repealing a number of discriminatory laws. Most of them were put on the Statute Book by his own party, but at least he had the good grace to undo the damage which his party had done. He deserves some credit for making the NP break away from some of the worst features of Verwoerdian ideology, and I should like to say across the floor of this Chamber that I give him credit for this, although my hon colleagues on the right might not do the same.

The problem, however, is that having destroyed an ideology, he has put no new ideology or new philosophy in its place. He has provided no alternative vision for the future of South Africa. We see the hon the State President recognising the oneness of South Africa, the integration of South Africa’s economy and the independence of the South African people, but we do not hear him presenting a credible or practical political package based on these realities. We are waiting and waiting, and meanwhile polarisation and violence are increasing in South Africa.

I have watched the hon the State President and his party very carefully in recent years. I find that the Government is stranded in an ideological no-man’s land somewhere between two Rubicons. It has abandoned certain practices of apartheid, but it clings nevertheless to certain philosophies of apartheid. It talks of power sharing, and yet it practices domination. It oscillates uneasily between an apartheid society on one hand and an open society on the other.

As a consequence, certain things are happening to this Government and to this country. The more confused the Government becomes about its policies—in the course of these debates one can see confusion written all over the faces of hon members opposite … [Interjections.] … the more intolerant, arrogant and secretive it becomes, and the more aggressively it behaves towards anybody who stands in its way. This is the mood, style and attitude of the Government.

The former member of Parliament for Pinetown, Dr Jan Marais, was no great political philosopher, but he is a pretty good marketeer. Hon members should read what he has said, simply in marketing terms, about the image and presentation of the NP. [Interjections.]

One has seen more recently the petulant attitude that has developed between the hon the State President and the leaders of certain churches. I do not intend to get involved in deep ecclesiastical and theological debate or take sides in this issue. The first thing that I would like to say to the hon the State President and the church leaders is: “Cool it!” There are other ways in which they can influence one another and reach conciliation than the way upon which the two sides seem to be embarking at the present time. [Interjections.]

Having banned many major Black political organisations and silenced a whole range of those opposed to apartheid—17 in fact—did the hon the State President really expect churchmen, in particular Black churchmen, to say nothing? [Interjections.] He was naive if he did, because that would mean he had not read the lessons of history.

As the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition pointed out, churches and governments have different areas of authority. But Mr Chairman, they do have overlapping areas of concern, and there is a difference between an area of authority and an area of concern. Churches and governments are both concerned with values. In the preamble to the Constitution, in fact, there is a reference to the upholding of Christian values, and this is both a theological and a political statement. Both are concerned about how these values are applied or denied in the lives of individuals and in the life of a society, and so they ought to be.

So it is that almost every religious denomination in South Africa has taken a formal stand against apartheid and discrimination. I do not want to tabulate all of these. Some of them have declared apartheid to be a heresy, and all of them have declared that apartheid is unjust. In those circumstances, I simply want to ask the hon the State President whether he does not expect the churches, whichever they may be, to be true to themselves and to speak out against injustice, if that is how they see apartheid. And to speak out against oppression, if that is the consequence of apartheid. That is what I believe would be the mission of a church.

When one moves into other fields, however, the question of various political strategies, constitutional models or economic systems, one is moving into the field of the political authority rather than that of the theological authority.

I hope the hon the State President and the churches can find one another and perhaps influence one another in this matter, so that South Africa can indeed in the end live out to the full what is said in the preamble, namely, uphold Christian values and norms in our South African society.

The other issue is the number of areas of what I call petulance reflected in, for example, the whole Eksteen affair—the hon the State President phoning through and saying that he does not like the presentation of the news some evening and that it must be changed. [Interjections.]

Order!

I think that is a sign of petulance and I believe it is against this background that the Eksteen affair is developing even further. I want to put it to the hon the State President that a trend is developing in this Government which I can only describe as …[Interjections.]

Order! We cannot proceed in this fashion. When the Chair calls for order, there must be order in the Committee. That also applies to the hon members who keep conversing while I am giving my ruling. The hon member may continue.

I believe that I am expressing a view which is widespread inside that party, our party and others that a style of government is emerging in South Africa which I can only describe as imperial. It is an imperial style of government. It is reflected here. There is no longer a frank, warm, friendly and open communication between the Government and the people. It has changed.

Even the fact that the Government is paying copywriters to place paid advertisements about Government in newspapers while their policy is being debated in Parliament, or when that policy is an issue at a general election, is a sign of arrogance. I believe it is a sign of imperialism: “We are going to tell you how we are going to deal with these particular things.” This is the whole concept. I want to tell the hon the State President that we have had enough of closed meeting situations, enough of the what I call the selective sycophantic coverage of the hon the State President by the SABC/SATV. What is desired is a much more open debate. Why can the hon the State President be open and friendly, open and direct with the people in South Africa? Why cannot there be no-holds-barred interviews? When last was there a direct interview—a no-holds-barred interview—with the hon the State President where he was subjected to questioning across a wide front? [Interjections.] When last was there a regular Press conference? Other heads of government face the cameras and the newsmen regularly in the form of open-ended Press conferences. [Interjections.]

Order!

I believe the time has come to stop the secretiveness and, one can almost say, the arrogance of style, and to say:“ I want to come down to the people, I want to answer to the people, I want to talk to the people and I want to deal with them on a man to man basis. ” This is an important part of democratic government in any part of the world.

Secondly, this Government, in failing to present a clear, conceptual alternative for the future, is doing exactly the opposite of what the hon member for Bellville is suggesting. They are not presenting a clear cut alternative and thereby the Government is playing into the hands of the extremists at both ends of the political spectrum of South Africa. By not presenting a credible alternative, it is in fact undercutting the middle ground. Here one sees evidence of it.

If the hon members on the right, the CP, are gaining ground among certain White voters at the expense of the NP, then the NP Government has only itself to blame. It has itself to blame. [Interjections.] Quite apart from the fact that the CP has its roots deeply embedded in the old apartheid philosophy of the NP, the CP is exploiting with considerable skill the frustration and concern of NP voters by using the uncertainties and ambiguities which have now become a chronic feature of the NP Government. [Interjections.] That is the case. Those are the facts.

I believe the CP is bad news for South Africa. [Interjections.]

Order!

I also wish to say that I have sufficient faith in the goodwill and common sense of the ordinary South African voters that, given a clear-cut lead, they would reject these people on the right. [Interjections.] I have faith in that middle ground, but they want somebody who can come clean. Even if the message is not a comfortable one in the short term, it must be a message in which they can believe. The rest of South Africa wants to see whether the hon the State President is going to give that credible lead that will cut the ground out from under the CP, or is he going to remain stranded in an ideological no-man’s land which will eat away at his innards?

In conclusion I say this to the State President: I, together with 3 million South Africans—so they tell me—listened very carefully to the TV debate between the hon the Minister of National Education and the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition a couple of months back. We all listened very carefully. While I think that the policies propounded by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition were unworkable in practice, and if they were workable, they were dangerous, I also wish to say that what the hon the Minister of National Education presented was not an alternative to apartheid. What he presented was not a vision for the future. All he did was to present an alternative bid in the market-place of White privilege. That is what it was about. The two of them were outbidding each other, putting in alternative bids in the market-place of White privilege. That is what it was about. We are doomed as Whites if that is what our leadership is going to give us. There is no future for us on that basis.

I wish to point out that when the hon the State President is looking for alternatives in direction, style and in courage, I do not believe he should look to his left on his side over there, but that he should look to the hon member for Innesdal. [Interjections.] Maybe he has no status on the formal office in the party, but I believe that his statement the other day about the importance of the ANC and other organisations on the Black political scene was a significant one coming from a Nationalist. I believe his warning that we should not bluff ourselves by thinking we can either lock up a political message or wish a political message away with guns and violence, was an important statement for all South Africans. I believe his comments about the need to bring together again in some new constitutional dispensation the separate states we have created, points to a greater and better South Africa, rather than a smaller South Africa or Bantustan or Boerestaat. It points to something bigger and better, and I believe we have to talk that way. I believe the hon member’s concluding comments, his sense of idealism for a new South Africa around the concept of the individual and around the concept that the individual citizen should be free to exercise his rights and privilege and opportunity of that in a “groepsverband” or outside a “groepsverband” if that is his choice, represents a fundamental thrust and direction that should be the thinking of NP leadership.

I hope therefore that the hon the State President gives heed to these factors and to what South Africa needs above all. It does not need motherlove, pie in the sky or “soetpraatjies”. What it needs is a really tough, courageous lead. I believe that in that connection he should look towards what was said the other day by the hon member for Innesdal.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Sea Point is a leader of a party that has for a long time supported a lost cause. Today he made a great fuss about what we on this side of the House should do after 40 years in office. He leads a party, however, of which the leaders are tired and the supporters are confused and full of doubt. At the same time he made some very irresponsible remarks.

†He made some very wild statements saying that the good name of the country had been destroyed, that we do not care etc. [Interjections.] In my speech today I shall attempt to show the hon member for Sea Point and other hon members to what extent the statements that the hon the State President has made are reflected in the views expressed very renowned and internationally well-known journalists like Charles Moore, Duff Watkins etc, who actually agree with the points made by the hon the State President.

By the way, Charles Moore had a long interview with the hon member, so he knows him well and he knows his stature. There is no argument about it.

I would like to refer to the hon the State President’s speech on 5 February at the opening of Parliament, relating to Africa and the rest of the world. The hon the State President first of all repeated South Africa’s earnest desire for peace in this region, and he repeated his call for greater contact with major powers, whilst clearly stating our country’s view vis-á-vis threats of disinvestment and sanctions. He said, inter alia …

Order! The noise level in the Committee is too high. Hon members must lower their voices. The hon member may continue.

He said:

These are very true words. The hon the State President then went on to reiterate his proposal for a Southern African conference on matters of common interest. It remains an enigma that the do-gooders in this world have all failed to respond to this open-ended invitation.

As far as the hon member for Sea Point is concerned, it is very interesting and surprising to see the support of and agreement with these views by very important and influential overseas commentators. I am referring to an article in the Daily Telegraph of 29 February 1988, where Charles Moore, the editor of The Spectator, forcefully argued to the effect that Britain had a moral duty to help find a solution rather than criticise South Africa. He wrote:

Kenneth Clarke said in this regard:

Furthermore it is interesting to note the extent to which the hon the State President and Charles Moore agree on the basic attributes of our present society, notwithstanding what the hon member has just said regarding our international standing. This is what Moore says regarding our situation: It is built on the free-market system. Our society understands what is meant by a free Press and free expression. We have a rule of law. We have independent professions. We have a free Parliament. There is freedom of worship. This is what Moore says. He concludes by saying that although every freedom is qualified and hemmed in, none is snuffed out.

In his interview with the Washington Times the hon the State President listed virtually every one of these matters which Moore has mentioned. This sort of balanced view is not typical of overseas reaction but, thankfully, these voices of reason are gaining momentum.

Recently Watkins expressed similar positive views in The Observer when he discussed the posturing and hypocrisy which is so often associated with views and criticism concerning South Africa, and he questioned the motives for such action. He compares South Africa to a blind man in the following manner. He says:

In the interesting article under his pen, The Psychology of Sanctions, he supports the contention of the hon the State President to the effect that the world should allow South Africa to change at its own pace. This, of course, is the practical and realistic principle which the hon the State President has expounded for many years, because he knows the African turf. Watkins states that criticism of South Africa probably meets the psychological needs of the critics, more than the political needs of South Africans. He states that we criticise in others what we dislike most in ourselves and consequently it is far easier to assail in other countries that which one has difficulty in accommodating at home.

The world dislikes apartheid, but so do most South Africans. South Africa does not have the monopoly on racism or institutionalised violence. From Australia to Zimbabwe there are similar and even identical or worse aspects of apartheid. This sad fact does not relieve us from our responsibility, but it certainly does cast a doubt on the purity of the motives of the criticising countries. This is exactly what the hon the State President was referring to. The solution in Southern Africa and South Africa has to be found here on our home turf in terms of our time scale and the circumstances which will make this possible.

One often hears the words “Let us send them a message or let us do something” when foreign countries discuss South Africa. The Western World and in particular the United States of America has an aggressive problem-solving mentality and it likes to right wrongs and to be seen as doing so. The desire to intervene is maximised thanks to the media, while the actual impact is minimised due to the economic realities.

Nations critical of South Africa but that wish to make a contribution would do well to bear the following in mind to relation to the psychology of the attack on us. The world must resist the temptation to see South Africa’s problem as belonging to the world rather than the region. Every layman knows that interaction, in other words discussion or constructive engagement, is the remedy. Isolation is part of the problem, while interaction is part of the solution. As the hon the State President has said, we need interaction with the West now more than ever. International ostracism and sanctions make matters worse by aggravating the problems rather than promoting solutions. This truism was directly stated by the hon the State President.

If South Africa is to grow in this time of duress, it will be at its own pace—a pace its resources can stand. Deriding South Africa endlessly does little to motivate it. One is appalled by their hypocrisy if proper note is taken of the American point of view that sanctions should be applied except as far as those exports are concerned which are strategic to American defence or their economy. They profess to want apartheid to go but they are not prepared to make any sacrifice, however small, themselves. It is the easy way out. Some other sanctioneers, like Bishop Tutu seem to forget that peace and prosperity, and especially prosperity, is a greater catalyst for change than any other peaceful method. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, …

Order! Before I call upon the hon member for George to speak, I want to point out that I have called for order several times now. I now inform hon members that I shall be compelled, if I can identify an hon member’s voice, to call him to order by specifying his constituency. The hon member for George may proceed.

Mr Chairman, in the course of my speech I shall come back to the hon member for Sea Point’s remarks regarding the 40th anniversary of the coming into power of the NP as well as his remarks regarding the 10th anniversary of the leadership of the hon the State President.

Before I do so, I want to refer to the article which appeared in The Argus of 18 April and to which the hon member for Sea Point referred and from which he quoted selectively. What did Dr Jan Marais go on to say in this open letter? I am continuing to quote:

Why did he not quote this? This year is a special year in the history of South Africa. This year the NP will have been in power for 40 years and the hon the State President, Mr P W Botha, will have held the highest post in the political hierarchy of our country for 10 years.

This afternoon I want to say that South Africa’s history over the past 40 years has also been the history of the man P W Botha. If hon members were to ask me this afternoon what his outstanding characteristic is, my reply would be his concern for the underdeveloped sectors of our community.

This afternoon I want to refer hon members to one of the first speeches he made in this House when he made an appeal on 18 August 1948 for the conditions of the forestry workers in his constituency. His life was filled with compassion for all people and characterised by good organisation and reform for the sake of improvement in the interests of the entire community.

The characteristics of the hon the State President are that he is a man of hope, and that he has never allowed unfair criticism to make him deviate from the course he has adopted. His vision remains his hope for a new and better South Africa. He realises something which certain other hon members in this Committee do not realise, namely that a mere shoot-on-sight mentality is a sign of moral bankruptcy, and attests to a lack of leadership. He is the man who has given the masses in this country hope for a better future. He is the man who sells hope and not despair. His is a clarion call and not a swan song. What is needed in this country against terror and terrorism is hope for a better future by and for all people. We need sensible leaders in this country. We in South Africa need leaders who can think, plan and lead, who can accept responsibility and who above all can display sound judgement. We need versatile, level-headed and adaptable leaders. We do not need leaders who are so specialised that they no longer have any vision.

It was he who helped to steer South Africa on a new course of justice, which was not always strewn with roses. I shall now quote a short segment from a speech made by the hon the State President in August 1979, when he was still the Prime Minister, at the opening of the KwaZulu Legislative Assembly. I am quoting:

I maintain that he is doing this every day.

The hon member for Sea Point made the accusation that reform was dead. I maintain that statement is devoid of all truth. The position is that reform in South Africa has so far been manifested in three ways, namely reform in respect of facilities, reform in respect of legislation and political or constitutional reform.

The point of departure of this side of the Committee is that in the final analysis social and political stability cannot be assured by laws or guns alone. It must be assured by giving all people, irrespective of the colour of their skins, an interest in the rights, privileges and benefits of a democratic society. The Government is in the process of doing this.

We realise that it is a naive perception that the solution to South Africa’s political and constitutional problems will automatically convert the country into a socio-economic paradise in which all the inhabitants will be equally happy and prosperous. We realise that the foundation must be solid and that reform and renewal must take place at all levels.

In the Africa context South Africa is an exception, and stands out like a beacon, simply because this Government believes that political and constitutional progress are not possible without the attendant socio-economic reform. There should be more appreciation for the Government’s process of reform over a wide spectrum. Simply consider the imaginative and comprehensive social development strategy launched by this Government.

This Government has kept pace with the urbanisation process. I am going to mention a few examples. If we look at housing, Sir, we see that it was this Government which in the 1986-87 financial year made available the largest amount for housing in the history of South Africa in a single financial year, and in that same financial year allocated R400 million to the Housing Trust which was established with the assistance of the private sector.

General conditions in Black residential areas have been improved on a massive scale, and we are not apologising for this; on the contrary, we are proud of it.

Various discriminatory measures were removed from the Statute Book under the leadership of this hon State President. I shall refer only to the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act and section 16 of the Immorality Act.

The population development programme which was launched in 1984 and which culminated in the establishment of the Population Development Board in 1986, was another success story.

Another aspect I am proud of, Sir, as a pinnacle of achievement of this Government, is the fact that in 1986 we could decide that all disparities in salaries of educators of different population groups should be eliminated. If we look at tertiary education we see that yet again, particularly at the Black level, enormous progress has been made in the last decade. A few examples are the establishment of Vista University, the establishment of university branches in, inter alia, Qwaqwa and Umlazi, and I can carry on in this vein.

The fact is that 25% of South Africa’s population is on the school benches today, compared with 17% in the rest of Africa and only 9% in Europe.

Let us consider regional development. I cannot elaborate much on this. I merely want to refer to the establishment of the Development Bank of Southern Africa in 1983.

For me personally the most drastic and far-reaching reform which this Government introduced was undoubtedly in the field of labour. If we look at agriculture, we see that today South Africa is one of the few countries in the world which is a net exporter of food products. At present serious attention is being given to the general reconstruction of agriculture—yet another of the initiatives of the hon the State President.

Is agriculture faring well?

Agriculture is faring better than that hon member is!

Then things are very bad!

I can continue in this vein. Any country which is developing, must change. I am glad that I am part of a Government which has the desire to change for the sake of improvement. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for George paid tribute here to the hon the State President on the tenth anniversary of his coming into power and he is entitled to be so honoured. There are many things which the hon member said with which I and—I think—most hon members in this House can agree. However, there were also other remarks, and I do not want to go into this, on which I think different interpretations are held.

In the debate on this Vote, which I actually consider to be the most important political debate in any session, I want, against the background of this period of ten years which is about to elapse, to refer back and analyse the situation to see what the most important trends of developments were during this period. In the first place I think that this hon State President has contributed more than anyone else towards moving away from apartheid. To tell the truth, I have already said on a previous occasion that the Government has renounced the ideology of apartheid. We saw this in the removal of a whole series of discriminatory measures, for which I and others were extremely grateful, whereas others were perhaps a little more worried. In the perception of the hon the State President apartheid has not only served its purpose but has virtually been removed from the Statute Book and—from his point of view—quite rightly so too.

Because this process has virtually been completed I, and everyone of us here, so I believe—with the exception perhaps of the hon members of the Official Opposition—want to give him credit for this. If I may just refer to the Official Opposition in passing and the perception which became apparent from debates that the political spectrum was in the process of moving towards the right, I want to give the hon the State President the further credit of saying that this is the wrong perception, which is being attached to the developments in politics by political commentators.

When we listen to the debates and the speakers of the Official Opposition, we hear them talking like the NP spoke in the early and mid seventies. It is the same rhetoric, and what is more they pride themselves on the fact that they support that policy. When we take note of what the Government says nowadays, it becomes apparent that it has progressed in accordance with a new policy of which one cannot say that it has not gone further than the policy approaches of the old United Party, which was the Official Opposition in those days. This is the case no matter what angle we view it from.

Closer to the Progs!

In die mid seventies the representation in party loyalty of those persons who supported the ideas of the then official opposition was approximately 65% of the possible voters. Today it is approximately 30%. What I am therefore saying is that when we remove the party labels from the lapels of the general electorate, it is clear that politics has not shifted to the right; nor is it in the process of shifting to the right. In conventional terms it is therefore clear that politics is shifting to the left, or towards a view of the future. [Interjections.]

No, you are wrong! [Interjections.]

I think the hon the State President steered matters in that direction, and I believe we should be grateful for this. [Interjections.]

A second and, I feel, more alarming trend is the movement in Black politics which actually points to a withdrawal from participation in the political process. I am speaking specifically about systems politics. If this does not amount to a withdrawal, it is nevertheless a reflection of a form of resistance or dissociation based on a perception of a reduced legitimacy of the present political system.

I nevertheless believe that it is important in this regard for us to look briefly at certain parallels in South African history before we simply pass judgement. It is well-known—or perhaps it is not that well-known to all hon members—that Lord Milner tried to establish a national council. As a matter of fact he did establish it, and this national council functioned from 1902 to 1906. He tried to get the Afrikaner leaders, and specifically the generals, to participate in that national council. Generals Botha, Smuts and De la Rey in the Transvaal simply refused to participate, and eventually he managed to get the defeatists and the traitors of that time to participate. I am referring specifically to Genl Andries Cronjé and a few others. The true Afrikaner leaders did not want to participate. Eventually, when that national council did not work, Lord Milner accepted in 1906 that there would have to be representative government. Then all the Afrikaner generals co-operated wholeheartedly in the acquisition of representative government in which they could make decisions.

Another very important matter is that when this national council was established, and shortly thereafter, there was also a mass protest rally, in which the Afrikaners in the Transvaal protested against the importation of Chinese mineworkers. At that stage—this sounds familiar—Lord Lyttelton, who was the British Minister of Colonies at that stage, stated that the Afrikaners in the mass rally were not representative of the leaders of the people. [Interjections.] I am merely trying to say that we must seek parallels in our own history, and not lightly pass judgement on what is going on in extra-parliamentary politics.

A third trend at this time is increasing polarisation. I feel this may be ascribed to the fact that there is an inability in the policy to put something in the place of this ideology of apartheid which is now disappearing. Actually two systems have now developed in South Africa, which exist simultaneously—actually two regimes, which want nothing to do with one another; which do not want to recognise each other’s legitimacy or relevancy. The polarisation is nevertheless virtually complete.

A fourth trend is that to an increasing extent a totalitarian content is being given to policy—on both sides of this division; in both systems. Sir, this is not only criticism against the Government. The same trends are appearing to an increasing extent in the extra-parliamentary, so-called liberation politics or progressive politics. When I refer specifically to what can happen inside, I must say that I fear that a new ideology is developing in the place of the ideology of apartheid—in NP circles, or at any rate in the Government. This is the ideology of permanent White security.

I am not sure whether we will not cause ourselves greater problems with this ideology than the problems which existed under the ideology of apartheid.

The method by which one arrives at one’s objective—I certainly do not want to question the need for security of all White people, because this is an absolute necessity—is becoming all important. It is no longer the objective, it is no longer the expectations which must be satisfied; it is how this is to be achieved which everything must fall in with, and everything which does not adjust to this, everything which does not fall in with this total strategy, is being demonised by both sides, by the ANC, or the “struggle” and the reference to “puppets” and the consequences of “necklacing” and so on, and by the Government.

In the latter respect the hon the Minister of Defence is the best example. Every concept which is used, which does not fit in with the total counter-strategy, must also be demonised, and for this reason, when one talks about democracy nowadays, it is said one is using the same language as the Eastern bloc countries and one is therefore actually a communist.

“People’s democracy”.

“People’s democracy” or democracy; an hon member referred in this House to the name of this movement in which the word “democratic” appears and indicated that we were therefore also part of the powers of darkness.

The fifth trend is that violence is escalating, in spite of the state of emergency, and also that the risk of violence is increasing. Again the fault lies with both sides of this polarisation, and also with those persons who indicate and actually protest that they are involved in so-called “non-violent protest” politics.

Many of these people know what the outcome of this is going to be. The hon the Minister of Law and Order has already referred to it. They foresee that there is going to be confrontation. I think that if they choose to protest they are entitled to take the consequences. I think this is an inherent democratic right and it may become a Christian duty from time to time.

When one’s view of the possible consequences is that the violence is going to escalate and that blood is going to flow, the person who starts the protest is as responsible as those persons who caused the circumstances which necessitated your protesting.

What I am trying to say is that the people in extra-parliamentary politics—this is a warning to the outside world—should not think that they can get away with only looking at one side of the matter.

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

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

Sir, the sixth trend …

Say thank you first.

I apologise. I thank the hon Chief Whip, and also the hon member who pointed this out to me. [Interjections.]

The sixth trend is that the political game itself is becoming less and less possible. Organisations are being restricted and effectively-speaking banned as far as political activities are concerned. In the latest action against the 17 organisations and other persons this was phrased so well in a statement made by both the hon the Minister of Law and Order and the Chief of the Security Police—

but they did not abandon their objectives, namely political power or political participation. For that reason they are going to make use of other methods. This is why the organisations have to be restricted as regards their politics. This is a very negative trend.

The time has come for a fresh new approach. Under the circumstances I honestly want to make an appeal for us to pause for a moment, for us to stop before we carry on with further legislation or with the implementation of any strategies of whatever kind. We must tell ourselves we cannot go any further. As we sit here we all know this, and everyone outside knows it too.

We are in a crisis, and the safest thing to do in a crisis is to stick to the hard facts of the truth. Those facts are that we are losing control over circumstances which can reveal our future to us.

The appeal we on this side want to make is that everyone in this country should pause for a moment and consider whether they are not too busy concentrating on ways of achieving their objectives instead of thinking about the objectives themselves. We must start to think, not on the basis of a government of national unity, but on the basis of an endeavour by all of us to say to one another that we must stand together and try to seek our future; we must all be involved.

This is not an easy choice. It is a difficult choice and a great responsibility. It is not an order or a demand to the Government only. It is an order to everyone and to all political organisations and parties, including those of us sitting here. It is a serious request and it calls for statemanship, but we have a choice. With this crisis we will either be remembered as a footnote in history, or we can seize the future which is ours to seize.

Mr Chairman, I should like to exchange ideas with the hon member for Randburg with reference to two main concepts which are fundamental to his whole speech, viz democracy and nationalism. This Government has chosen the course of democracy for the future. There are numerous possibilities on the course of democracy, because democracy as such has many variants. Democracy is merely the banner. It is the product of something that is much larger than democracy itself. It is the banner under which we express and perpetrate our values.

This is not the place in which to give a full explanation of the values underlying democracy, but let us try to adhere to two basic values—I can almost say two basic motives—which may give us some direction for the future. I do not see these values in a sentimental humanist framework. I see them, and hon members must understand this, as motives that are based on and are accountable to the demands of the Bible, and in particular the demand of justice which we have to live with from day to day.

The two basic values that I want to emphasise are respect for the individual as a human being in the first place, and the best interests of the broad community and every subgroup in that community in the second. Very simply, democracy reflects the guidelines of common humanity and of lebensraum for everyone. If that is the course South Africa has elected to take, we have nothing to be ashamed of if we take a stand against the world and tell them that South Africa has chosen this course with responsibility. These are basic values within which nationalism can flourish. Not only a single nationalism, but a variety of nationalisms can be accommodated if these basic values are our guideline for the future.

To see democracy as an overnight solution or an instant channel to peace and justice, however, is an illusion, because democracy can very easily degenerate into a channel to power; a channel for the complete destruction of the values that democracy seeks to protect, as was the case in Africa. One cannot sit on the roof of a house without walls, because the roof will collapse and destroy everything with it.

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

I have no time, Sir, because I should also like to discuss the Official Opposition.

The extension of democracy is not a rapid process, because the values that are protected by democracy must remain protected and may not be destroyed by democracy itself. What we are seeking, therefore, is an evolutionary course. We are seeking a course that can truly bring peace.

I now want to turn to the Official Opposition, and I want to put a very specific question to them. What is their view of democracy, and of the basic values that have to be protected by democracy?

I want to go further. How does the hon members’ view of nationalism link up with democracy? Hon members have answered us already. One need only fit the pieces of the puzzle together to get the whole picture.

What is the Official Opposition’s approach to democracy? It is an approach which treats democracy with contempt. Have hon members not heard in this House how easily the Constitution will be changed? Have hon members not heard in this House that rebellion against justice sometimes becomes one’s right? Have hon members not heard in this House, and do they not know, that the Official Opposition is harbouring people who propagate a one-party state? Are there not people in the bosdm of the Official Opposition who advocate totalitarianism? Are there not people in the bosom of the Official Opposition who are prepared to take the course of national-socialism? Is it not true that we have an Official Opposition which has made racial privilege its motto? [Interjections.]

Order!

When members of the CP talk about partition, they say the boundaries have already been drawn. Is that not true? The CP says the boundaries have already been drawn. The CP freezes history at what it regards as a convenient point. The CP is adopting the standpoint that with regard to the economy, it can demand for itself what it regards as its share.

Do those who work on the farms not also have a share in the economy? Do those who work in the goldmines not also have a share in the economy? The CP, however, claims everything it wants for itself in its selfish and self-favouring economic policy. [Interjections.]

Order! In the space of a minute the hon member for Overvaal has made three interjections, and I think that is too many. The hon member has made his quota of interjections now and must not make any further interjections. The hon member for Sundays River may proceed.

The CP rejects the free-market principle. The CP talks about nationalisation or so-called privatisation and they talk about conglomerates and national assets. They are already on their way, because if one looks at all the literature about the advent of national-socialism, which states that people thrive on threats or supposed threats, and that this serves as the breeding ground for the demagogues to lead the people by the nose, one realises that we have had to listen to this ad nauseam in this House; the CP is therefore taking the classical course of national-socialism. The CP must hoist its flag now.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: There is a perception that national-socialism was responsible for the death of 6 million people. Is it in order for the hon member to compare the policy of this side of the Committee with national-socialism?

Order! The hon member for Sundays River may proceed.

People within the system of national-socialism were responsible for the death of others, not national-socialism itself.

The CP must hoist its flag and stop sailing under the banner of democracy if it has assumed a qualified democracy for itself. The CP is already the national-socialist party in South Africa. Hoist the flag and admit it. Change the CP’s name, but know that history will be strict in judging the CP; know that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition will be known as the Von Hindenburg of South Africa in future.

Mr Chairman, it is a great privilege to speak after the hon member for Sundays River who showed the hon members of the Official Opposition a thing or two with regard to democracy this afternoon.

South Africa simply has to accept that the onslaught against our country is not aimed at a specific population group; on the contrary, its purpose is to destroy the whole Government dispensation and replace it with a Marxist form of government. The onslaught is aimed at every resident of our country, White, Black, Brown or Coloured. The target year was 1986, when it was the objective of the ANC and the SACP to make South Africa as a whole so ungovernable that they could take control. The actions of certain internal organisations and the coverage given to them particularly by the Press in South Africa which is not favourably disposed to us, as well as the foreign Press, gave rise to the perception abroad that all that was needed for them to succeed in upsetting the order in our country was a final little push.

Why do hon members think that that was when disinvestment and sanctions were instituted against our country, that that was when our foreign loans were cancelled, and we had the debt repayment standstill, if not to force our country finally to its knees? Those people underestimated us, however. In his New Year’s message in January, Oliver Tambo openly admitted that the ANC had suffered terrible setbacks. Joe Slovo of the SACP had prepared himself to take his place as head of government in the Union Building in 1987. Even he now admits that this dream of his will never be realised this century, if ever.

The security management system contributed a great deal, therefore, to preventing the dreams and ideals of these people from being realised. Unfortunately concerted efforts have been made recently to destroy the credibility of this very system, and allegations were made that the autonomy of Parliament had been overlooked, and that this was merely a military regime that had taken over in our Black urban areas.

Surely that is not true. It is a deliberate, malicious distortion of the facts. South Africa is involved in a revolutionary war which is a political war at the same time. That is why it is so essential that the forces that are intimidating and inciting the Blacks to attain their own political objectives be eradicated, and that their influence be destroyed.

It is difficult, however, to identify the enemy in a revolutionary war, because they are so much a part of the communities. That is why it is important to win the confidence of the residents, so that the evil forces can be crushed by informers.

This security management system was established in the seventies, when our hon State President was Minister of Defence. The purpose of this system was to ensure stability in the Black residential areas. It was realised, however, that this system did not address the social, economic and political problems, and that is why the other leg of this system, viz the prosperity management system, was established. The main objective was to address the grievances, and especially the miserable conditions that prevail in the Black towns. This purpose is attained by the joint action of Government departments. The revolutionary forces have made their greatest inroads where the social conditions are at their worst, in their attempt to incite the people to rebellion and to making our country ungovernable. That is precisely where action is being taken today. The purpose of the security management system is not to replace existing governments and administrative structures at all, but to create prosperity, calm and peace by means of joint action. It is not a hidden form of military government at all, as the Black Sash and the PFP like to contend.

†

Mr James Silfe, who is a PFP specialist on the national security management system, admits that the ground is being cut from under the feet of the UDF with the success that has already been achieved in the Black townships. It must be stated categorically that the security management system is in no way dominated by the military. It is centred on the co-ordination of various Government departments. There is nothing secret or sinister about the work that is being done to improve the quality of life of the people in the Black townships. This is not, as the Black Sash said last year, “the smashing of the popular community organisations existing in the Black townships through massive detentions”, as though community organisations such as the ANC and the UDF are as such popular organisations.

It is ironic that the PFP, which is always clamouring for the withdrawal of the security forces, was the first to ask for intervention by those same people in Pietermaritzburg. Somehow it does not always add up. Before the state of emergency was proclaimed, the townships were subjected to murder and arson, schools were burnt and boycotted, and the ordinary law-abiding Black citizen was so intimidated that it was impossible for him to lead a normal life. The revolutionary forces do not want social stability. They want the people to lose control so that this country of ours can become ungovernable. That then, of course, would be the easiest way to take over control. To ensure peace and stability in the Black areas attention is given to the following, and I would like to mention them: Restoring Black local government, normalising education, upgrading the infrastructure, providing free trading facilities, and the training of Black local government officials.

In the security management system there is close co-operation between the SAP, the Army and other Government departments. It is imperative that through co-operation the safety and well-being of our land and all its peoples should be ensured. In two townships close to my constituency, Alexandra and Tembisa, where conditions were really bad—I admit they were; they still are—tremendous improvements have already been made. This has come about not only because of the security management system, but also because of the co-operation of neighbouring local government as well as the regional services committees.

*The unrest situation has been curbed to a great extent. The fact that the ringleaders are constantly being arrested and that the credibility of the instigators is being destroyed means that the Blacks are becoming more aware of our honesty and sincerity in our objectives. The people are beginning to overcome their fears. The hand of co-operation and friendship is being extended to us more and more often. The Government realises that joint action that is aimed at security, prosperity and good communication goes hand in hand with positive action, so that we can neutralise the revolutionary onslaught against our country.

It is a privilege to congratulate the hon the State President today and to thank him for his very strong leadership and positive attitude. We wish him God’s richest blessings.

Mr Chairman, in this time of seeking reasons and causes for the crushing defeat the NP experienced at the polls in its fortieth year of existence, the focus must of necessity be on the captain of the political team that bit the dust. This afternoon is the appropriate time to consider the performance of the two captains of the two strongest political teams in the political arena. How do they compare with one another? [Interjections.] I see things a little differently from the hon member for George.

On the one hand we have our captain, who has become the symbol of the desire of the Afrikaners and the Whites to govern themselves in their fatherland. [Interjections.] This is the one important message which has been relayed to every home in South Africa by means of television.

The more the NP’s news media tried to denigrate him in their propaganda documents, the more they tried to insult and belittle him, the greater his stature became in the eyes of his people and the more points his team chalked up. [Interjections.] In the most recent match it was 3 711 to 0.

Now let us take a look at the captain of the NP, the hon the State President on the opposite side. Hon members must make no mistake; two years ago he still had the reins firmly in his hands and all that was needed to make any headstrong person jump back into the NP kraal was a slight flick of the whip. The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs will remember that fatal day two years ago well, because on that Friday, 7 February, lightning struck when the hon the State President said to him (Hansard, 1986, col 409):

He went on to say:

Hon members must remember that part of this was a repudiation in respect of the release of Mandela. It was the last time anything of that kind happened, however.

Let us look at a few examples in which the hon the State President no longer made the slightest attempt to repudiate anyone. On 19 June 1987 Mr Willie Lemmer of the President’s Council said: “’n Swart staatspresident, ja, maar binne ooreengekome strukture.” He said exactly what the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs had said, in so many words.

You are distorting that interjection!

On 20 May 1987 the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said the following in the House of Assembly:

The hon the State President also permitted his people to accept the ANC as a team-mate on South Africa’s political scene. Also in 1986, on Saturday, 21 June, the hon member for Innesdal said the following to me across the floor of the House (Hansard, col 9209):

Who is that? It is the ANC and the terrorists. He went on to say:

The meaning of these words and the spirit in which they were used corresponds exactly with what he wrote in Inside South Africa of January 1987.

You said that in court too.

In that regard he said the same thing in his speech in this House last week, as quoted by the Leader of the Official Opposition. That is why the hon member for Innesdal had to speak first; he had to confess. Those words remain, however.

The judge said you lied there too!

Those words still stand, from those days. The hon member for Lichtenburg was correct when he said we would go out of here to tell the voters that it was NP policy to include the ANC. That has not been repudiated yet. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Order!

There was a protest from the hon the Minister of National Education, who became so excited a moment ago, but there was no repudiation whatsoever from the official hierarchy of the party. In fact, the hon member for Umlazi agreed. So did other hon members. The hon member even said colleagues had telephoned him to congratulate him. Others were not very happy about the matter, however. [Interjections.] The hon the State President himself was responsible for the release of Mbeki, who is a member of the ANC and the Communist Party. Let us take a look at what they distributed immediately after that release.

The UDF and Cosatu distributed a pamphlet entitled “A People’s Victory” at schools in the Cape. I quote:

It goes on:

If one buckles under pressure, one’s supporters leave one by the thousands, as they are doing now.

In addition there was further uncertainty about matters such as the Group Areas Act, and the NP’s standpoint has to be evaluated in terms of the hon the State President’s reaction on 5 October with reference to the President’s Council report. In looking at that, we see the leadership of the hon the State President disintegrating even further, because in that speech he said inter alia:

“You want it, we have it.”

He said this also applied to rural areas and that a body of experts would make further investigations. He said there would be own schools, but also mixed private schools. He said the Government was making no choice in respect of voting arrangements in open areas; the options of the President’s Council were still in the air. He said the lebensraum of groups and people should be extended without diminishing that of other groups. Comme ci, comme ça.

One does not know where the Government is heading. That is the dilemma of power-sharing and of a unitary state. If one allows the political power to slip from one’s control, one loses everything. One also loses the support of one’s people, because they regard that kind of leader as someone who has turned his back on his people.

There is no point then in challenging a Black clergyman at a reunion of former youth members of the NP at Naboomspruit to take one to court and then to say repeatedly, to the amusement of the audience, “I’ll like it! I’ll like it!” [Interjections.] That does not impress the people of this country. It is going to muster the Afrikaner people and the other Whites firmly behind a leader who, with undisguised ethnic nationalism, is leading a people on the course to freedom with justice.

I recently read a description in a very old publication called Anti-revolusionêre Staatkunde which was written in 1916 by Dr A Kuijper of how Generals Botha and De Wet visited him in his office. On page 417 of his book he wrote: “Sinds is Botha al verder van zijn verleden afgegaan.” He then showed how his sympathies had changed and said: “Maar De Wet blijft de heros der historie.”

The one is leaving his people and striving for a new South African holism, whereas the other continues to live in the heart of his people. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I am speaking after the hon member for Pietersburg, but I shall comment on what he said in the course of my speech.

Today I wanted to single out the positive aspects in connection with the importance of the Vote of the hon the State President in order to do justice to them. I wanted to discuss the successful and goal-orientated reform with which the hon the State President is involved for the decisions which must be taken in these times in which we are living, are vital for the future.

I wanted to discuss the big share which the hon the State President has had in the recovery of our country’s economy and the combating of inflation, on the way in which he has succeeded in keeping the private sector involved and on the initiative which he took in connection with privatisation and deregulation.

I wanted to discuss the Group Areas Act, not as the political monster which the opposition parties have made of it, but far rather as a very useful and social instrument to make it possible in a country like South Africa with its variety of people to regulate our society so that each population group has the vested right to cherish and protect its own way of life in its own residential areas with its own schools and its own political and constitutional power base.

I could continue to spell out to hon members the positive matters with which the hon the State President is involved, but unfortunately it is sometimes necessary—one is compelled to do so—to descend to the level of the Official Opposition, because during the by-elections we again had the old story that our candidates were challenged to appear on a platform with them.

While I was there I also received such an invitation from the hon member for Losberg, which I then accepted. I do not want to elaborate on this. However, let me say at once that I think it was a very pleasant meeting, but if one thing became apparent that day, it was that no one in that party, including the hon member for Losberg, knew what partition actually meant.

The last person who tried to spell out partition in this House, was the former hon member for Randfontein, the late Dr Connie Mulder, and eventually it also became apparent that he was dealing with his own personal ideas, because he referred here to a state which according to him would not be a “Boerestaat”, but later it became apparent that it would have to be “Suidland”.

That day the hon member for Losberg tried to explain, in contrast to the hon member for Lichtenburg, how they did not mind people remaining where they were and that they would allow these people to elect their own local governments, but he said that they would have to exercise any other rights in their homelands. He said that the CP would make this offer to them, and if they did not accept it, that would be their own affair. In this way the hon member also went on to show us how the policy of partition could not work for the Coloureds and the Indians.

Is it any wonder? Is it any wonder if one bears in mind that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition never talks about partition any more. No, Mr Chairman. In the past the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition occasionally referred to partition, but nowadays he only concludes his speeches with partition.

“Driesie Gewese Partisie.”

After he had been speaking for some time on 2 February 1987, he concluded with the following words (Hansard: House of Assembly, 1987, col 79):

I think only he knows what this means. Since then he has made various speeches, inter alia during the motion of censure in May last year, the no-confidence debate at the beginning of this year, as well as his reply to it, in which he again ended his speech by saying (Hansard: House of Assembly, 1988, col 828):

As if he had spoken about partition! He did not say a word about it. In the television debate with the hon the Leader of the House he never referred to partition once; not even once. During this year’s Second Reading debate on the Budget the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition did not refer to partition either, but he did utter other words of wisdom, instead of taking the opportunity to spell out his party’s policy to us, and instead of taking the opportunity to join the hon the State President and make a contribution towards uplifting and improving our country’s economy, with which we are battling every day. But no, he did not even refer to it.

Do you know what a no-confidence debate is?

Was it not your first no-confidence debate?

He tried to attribute things to this Government which do not exist. I am not the first and only person who has said this to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. Just listen to what the hon the State President said to him on 4 February 1987 (Hansard: House of Assembly, 1987, col 226):

Up to now, since the report of the President’s Council on the Group Areas Act appeared, not a single amendment has been made or proposed to the Group Areas Act, but the CP and its followers are intimating in their propaganda campaign that this Act has already been abolished or is going to be abolished, in spite of what the hon the State President told them on 5 October. Now I do not want to quote the entire speech of the hon the State President…

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

No, Sir, I am not prepared to take a question; I am sorry.

They are doing this in spite of the fact that the hon the State President spelled this matter out very clearly on 5 October. I do not want to read out the speech, but I think it would be a good thing if some of those hon members went and reread that speech, because they would then know what is going on here.

I am quoting what the hon the State President said:

He then went on to say:

After the hon the State President had explained further, he went on to say:

Are you going to allow this kind of thing in Bethlehem?

Then the hon the State President went on to explain what would have to be done. He says:

What did the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition say about open areas? Recently, on 13 April of this year, he said:

I should like to know from the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition which hon Minister said this, and when. This is an untruth! [Interjections.] You see, Sir, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has a problem. I am sorry that he is not here now. He admits that everyone inside and outside his party is blowing hot and cold about this. They are getting him deeper and deeper into trouble. What is more he does not have the courage to repudiate anyone. He no longer talks about partition. I believe Eugéne Terre’Blanche has told him he is not allowed to talk about partition any longer; this does not fit in with his “Boerestaat” plans. [Interjections.]

I want to issue a word of warning to him, Sir. Eugene Terre’Blanche is losing patience. He wants a constituency now, and he is becoming an embarrassment to the CP. Consider what the chief secretary of the CP said, Sir. He said:

Sir, I think that is asking too much. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is true that the Official Opposition was riding the crest of a wave of success during the by-elections. Now we ask what that wave of success entailed. At first they propounded partition. Afterwards there was the cry that the Whites have rights, and in the third place was the attack they directed at the person of the hon the State President. [Interjections.]

Let us consider what they say about partition. Have we ever heard them speak about partition during this session? Not once. [Interjections.] I was in my constituency last weekend. There I read in the local newspaper something written by the CP organiser in that region. He wrote as follows:

Good heavens, Sir! [Interjections.]

We understand it; you don’t! [Interjections.]

If we all understand it clearly …

Order! The hon member Comdt Derby-Lewis has also made his full quota of interjections. The hon member for Vryheid may proceed.

Mr Chairman, if all of us now understand the partition policy clearly … [Interjections.] Well, the CP owes us an explanation, because it does not help asking them questions in that regard. They avoid replies like the plague. Yet Eugéne Terre’Blanche has already made a decision in this regard.

Furthermore they say the Whites have rights. They say that as though the Whites had a monopoly. Hon members should go and listen to what they say outside this House about the other population groups. One becomes afraid of the confrontation they are stirring up.

Furthermore they say the Afrikaners have rights. They emphasise this aspect, especially whenever the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis is not present, as though we have ever failed to appreciate the rights of the Whites and the Afrikaners. When the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis was still wetting his bed …

Order! I ordered the hon member Comdt Derby-Lewis to refrain from making interjections. The hon member for Vryheid must in all fairness refrain from provoking him now.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: What the hon member said about another hon member, requires you to order him to apologise.

Order! The hon member for Vryheid must withdraw that reference to the hon member Comdt Derby-Lewis.

I withdraw it, Sir. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member may proceed.

The CP speak as though the NP never featured in respect of the rights of Whites. The hon the State President’s record during the past 40 years proves that he did his best to ensure the rights and security of Whites, and other hon members pointed this out.

As we have said, what we are dealing with today, is not the denial of the rights of Whites, but the recognition of the rights of other people in South Africa. Furthermore we have the method to ensure these rights in future. Then we can ask what other rights of other population groups are important to secure.

The security and the rights of the Whites and the rights of the Afrikaners are just as important to us as to those hon members, but it is the method that differs. I should like to allege that it is precisely the method the Official Opposition is adopting to protect the rights, which endangers those rights. All South Africans have a right, but no one has a sole right.

I should like to refer to the bomb explosion which occurred outside the Parliamentary building last night. The cause can be ascribed to certain circumstances in the country. The responsibility of the political parties and the Government is not to aggravate those circumstances, but rather to alleviate them. The danger in South Africa is not the person who plants the bomb—he is only an individual—but the support he gets from the public. On the day on which the people of colour applaud such actions, the situation will be dangerous, and it is our responsibility to recognise this.

We must really attend to other people and their rights. It has become important. During the initial years of the NP regime the hon the State President was at the forefront of the struggle for the rights of those Whites who had lagged behind, and for the rights of the Afrikaners, and he tried to ensure them.

Order! The noise level is becoming too high again. The hon member for Vryheid may proceed.

Furthermore it was also the NP’s task to ensure the rights of the English-speaking section of our population. We must try to ensure equal treatment for all. If we now look at the rights which must be ensured for the other population groups, we realise that what is most important to the Black people is the education of their children.

They see it as an instrument with which they can improve the living conditions of all of them. The children will then be in a position to obtain job opportunities and to obtain the better things in life.

Furthermore job opportunities are important to these people. Housing or a piece of land on which to build a house, is equally important to them. They support the regional services councils, by means of which they believe that their standard of living will improve. It is a fact that urbanisation is taking place at present, and this urbanisation is dreadfully unsettling to the Black community. We must comprehend that.

There are also health services. They are very important, and I request the CP to agree with me and to help us today to promote consultation and communication and to cultivate healthy attitudes between population groups in South Africa. We must undertake these things if we want a peaceful future together.

I move around a lot amongst the Black people, and I want to tell hon members that today a vast number of Black people in South Africa are sympathetic towards the hon State President and have appreciation for what he is doing. There is appreciation for what is being undertaken in respect of the backlogs that exist in their communities.

The backlog which exists in respect of the participation of Black people in the system of local government and other systems will be dealt with constitutionally. Decentralisation is very important to Black people. The Government is making a commendable effort to furnish these people with job opportunities in the areas where they live, and in so doing avoid having all these people end up in the metropoles of South Africa. The Government is decentralising and it must definitely get credit for that.

Something important which must be accomplished in South Africa, is surely property rights to a small piece of land on which a person can build his house. The Government is doing this, and for that it must also get credit. It is a problem that the Government is willing to tackle.

The economic reform that the hon the State President has accomplished at this stage is also important. Even if we eliminate all the problems I have just mentioned, all our well-laid plans for peace in South Africa would have been for nothing if we are not economically successful. We shall also have to succeed economically.

I should like to thank the hon the State President for focusing the spotlight on the economy for investigation and promotion so timeously in order that we may all reap the benefits. Those of us in South Africa who seek peace and want to coexist in future, must acknowledge and establish certain rights and assist the hon the State President in his endeavour.

Mr Chairman, I will return to what the hon member for Vryheid said in a moment. May I at the outset make use of this occasion—I believe it is an appropriate one—to deal with a personal matter? Many members of this House have extended their congratulations to me on receiving the award of the Order for Meritorious Service. I would like publicly to express my thanks to them. I would also like publicly to thank the hon the State President, as well as the committee who made the recommendation.

Allow me to say on a personal note that I came to South Africa as a child of a family seeking refuge from persecution. We found that refuge here. I believe in paying debts and I have tried to pay the debt which I believe I owe to South Africa in my own way, both in war and in peace. In my own way—one way or another—I will try to continue paying that debt in the future.

Hon members will understand that my way of paying that debt in politics can never be the way of racism, bearing in mind my history. It is the way of peace, reform, law and order, and the way of Western democratic political and economic philosophies. I somehow believe that that is the way in which most South Africans of all races would like to have South Africa’s problems solved.

If I may I should like to take a theme for what I want to say today embodied in two words. The first concerns the question of security, or the question of sacrifice—I think that is a better word—and the second word is uncertainty.

I should like to invite hon members of this House to go and view the film Cabaret once again. I should like them to look at that film and see how White people were living in Germany in the 1920’s in an age of inflation, with constitutional uncertainty in the Weimar Republic, a feeling of hostility towards foreign powers, an endeavour by people to blame others for what was happening in the country, confusing economic and political philosophies, high levels of unemployment, social conditions which in any kind of society would be regarded as undesirable, people turning to drugs and to drink, turning to moral standards not in accordance with the concept of anyone with any religious beliefs. People were turning to crime. Crime was rampant, and people were wearing uniforms with guns at their hips in the 1920’s, intimidating people.

When we look at that scene as it was then, I say there are lessons for all of us to learn as to what can come about in a time of uncertainty, when there is no law and order, when there are no plans for the future and there is no certainty in regard to what will happen to one. To my mind these three things, the question of law and order, of certainty and a plan for the future are the very antithesis of the uncertainty which prevails in the minds of many of our people today. What we need is a degree of certainty as to where we are going in the future.

The second point concerns the question of sacrifice. Over the past few weeks in this House the debates have been of a particular nature. From the CP benches we have heard the arguments again and again that the Government’s policies affect the incomes and the standards of Whites and that it is a question of using the White taxpayers’ money. That is what we have heard coming from the CP benches again and again. The response from the Government benches has been largely the argument that the CP claims are false and that they are based on incorrect premises.

Even though I do not agree with it, I can understand that certain politicians try to exploit situations, whether they be economic, of uncertainty, or whatever they may be, for their own political advantage. I do not condone it, but I can understand it. I can understand that MP’s are looking for votes, and are trying to play to the voters whose support they seek. I can understand all that. However, one would hope that in all of this, somewhere along the line there would be a degree of realism and an acceptance of what the real situation in South Africa is.

Does anyone in South Africa expect that people growing in numbers, becoming more educated, having expectations and having most of the outside world on their side, are going to sit meekly and mildly and continue to remain in what they believe to be a position not only of no political power in the land of their birth but also without the same benefit and opportunity economically that others have?

Does anybody really believe that that can be expected from these people? Those people who believe it are living in cloud cuckoo land.

There is no way that we can ignore the realities of what the aspirations of the people in South Africa are. With special reference to the social and economic benefits which exist, if stability is to be attained, if a situation is to be achieved where negotiations on the political future can be conducted on a reasonable basis, we have to deal with the economic problems that face South Africa. The reality is that we, the Whites, will have to make sacrifices, whether we like it or not. Sacrifices have to be made by those who have in order to help those who have not. I would like to ask the leadership of the people in South Africa, irrespective of who they are—whether it be the hon the State President or the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition—whether they are prepared to tell the Whites of South Africa that in order to ensure their future they have to make sacrifices.

One has to tell South African Whites that if the economic cake cannot grow fast enough—the reality is that it appears that it cannot, because of the constraints which are imposed upon us—then let us take smaller slices of that cake. It is better to take a smaller slice of cake, it is better to take a slice of bread, than to end up having nothing at all. Somewhere along the line we have to be prepared to make these sacrifices and to tell the public of South Africa that survival requires a payment of an insurance premium for the future, and that premium is to make a sacrifice now.

There is a disparity in per capita income which is viewed internally in South Africa. It is no use comparing ourselves with what is happening in other parts of Africa. The reality is people compare themselves with their neighbours, and we have to face that situation and deal with it. Take a simple example, such as the gap in pensions. The gap in pensions is being viewed purely on a racial basis by some people. However, the reality is that it cannot be allowed to continue. This is just one example; it has to be dealt with. The closure of that gap is inevitable because of the demand. Unless White South Africa is prepared to make sacrifices in the economic field, we are actually buying a ticket to a society of indefinite unrest, instability and even worse.

Churchill did not get the English in 1940 to stand together and to fight by telling them everything was going to be wonderful and that their living standards would not be affected. He told them it would cost blood, sweat and tears. In that way he united the people in a spirit of sacrifice in order to ensure their future. We do need sacrifices if our future is going to be safeguarded in this country.

Mr Chairman, I want to take this opportunity to associate myself with the congratulations expressed by other hon members to the hon member for Yeoville for the Decoration for Meritorious Service which has been awarded to him. This is indeed a great privilege to fall to the lot of any South African. The hon member for Yeoville and I have come a long way together. I think in our lives we have disagreed more often than we have agreed. However, I want to say this afternoon that we are in agreement when we talk about the interests of South Africa and what must be done to turn this country into a bigger and better RSA.

I want to disagree with the hon member on one aspect. I think the possibilities and the opportunities are so great in South Africa that I do not think we should talk about a smaller slice of the same cake. We should rather talk about a slice of a bigger cake. I do not think we should try to impoverish people at the expense of others. I think there are enough opportunities in South Africa for us all to be part of a bigger South Africa.

This afternoon, in the short time at my disposal, I want to deal with the efforts by this Government which are, in fact, aimed at creating an opportunity for everyone in this country. Apartheid remains the magic word with which our opponents, enemies and particularly overseas critics of this Government, want to break South Africa. It is astounding that the standpoints, the actions and the statements of the Government, particularly those of the hon the State President, are in the final analysis totally ignored and disregarded in the evaluation of what the NP has actually achieved over a period of 40 years. Unfortunately the word “apartheid” has a negative perception, and if the opponents, enemies and foreign critics were to lose this word or concept as a definition of the Government’s philosophy, then they would lose the emotionally-charged weapon which has been used successfully for years in their propaganda campaign against South Africa. In other words, we are not dealing with the abolition of the word.

[Inaudible.]

We are not wedded to the word, and the hon member for Claremont is the last hon member who should interrupt one, as regards what I want to say here this evening. He does not understand what is at issue. I think the hon member should rather go back to Holland; he may feel more at home there than in South Africa. [Interjections.] Although the facts and the realities of reform and the concrete steps and the actions by the Government cry out to high heaven to put the concept of apartheid, as overseas countries use it, in perspective, the opponents of this Government are clinging tenaciously to this weapon. They dare not lose this weapon, because then they will fail in their propaganda campaign against South Africa.

The Government has on occasion expressed itself clearly on this standpoint, speaking through the hon the State President. I think we had better repeat this, because unfortunately it seems to me that there are none so deaf as those who will not hear, and none so blind as those who will not see. The hon the State President had occasion to put his standpoint on the concept and the philosophy of apartheid with which the world is trying to blacken us, as follows:

This is what is important—

Mr Chairman, is the hon member prepared to take a question?

Mr Chairman, I cannot take any questions now. We only have 10 minutes. The hon members are deliberately asking questions, and I request the hon member please to resume his seat. [Interjections.] It is after all a clear standpoint, and if people are seeking a declaration of intent, then this is after all a concrete example of what this Government wants to do in South Africa. The examples are legion.

This afternoon I again listened with great disappointment to the hon member for Sea Point. He said here:

Yet the hon member does not give any recognition whatsoever to the process of evolution in the constitutional processes of South Africa.

*Let us consider examples of this. We can, for example, consider the broadening of the democracy and the introduction of structures for participation in the decision-making processes in South Africa. [Interjections.] Must we then totally ignore what already exists in South Africa? Must we ignore this tricameral Parliament in which we are sitting, the TBVC countries, the six self-governing states? According to this party’s policy there will, after all, be certain areas which are self-governing. They exist. Why is no credit being given for this? What about multiracial provincial executive committees, the regional services councils and more than 250 Black local authorities, which have been elected and are operating in South Africa?

Let us consider this Government’s recognition of the permanence of Blacks in the metropolitan areas of South Africa, the granting of freehold to those people and the abolition of innumerable laws. I do not want to mention them all, because they are on record for all of us to see.

The fact of the matter is that the Government is committed to reform and is in the process of broadening democracy in South Africa. We are creating opportunities for all communities to participate in the democratic process. However, the most important point is that the Government is not only committed to removing statutory discrimination, but also to removing discrimination from the hearts and minds of the people of South Africa. It is important to note that this entire process is not taking place at the expense of but to the benefit of order and stability in South Africa.

There is a great deal of argument and speculation about negotiation. The opposition has asked us to give them concrete examples and show them the results of negotiation. The Government also adopts a very clear standpoint on this. Again I am quoting the hon the State President:

Get on with it!

Of course we are getting on with it!

Oh? Where?

The difference is this. A few days ago the hon member for Yeoville said here that the time had come for us to talk to one another. I fully agree with this, but the question is what the hon member for Houghton, the hon the leader of the PFP and other hon members of their party are doing to persuade Black people to participate in those statutory bodies which have been created by the NP Government. [Interjections.] That is the question!

It is the duty of everyone in South Africa to identify the leaders of those groups.

They must decide that for themselves!

We must make every effort to make a contribution towards persuade those people to sit around the negotiating table and talk about the future of South Africa. [Interjections.] It is tragic that every Black person or person of colour who dares to participate in the discussion with South Africa and the Government outside the ranks of the ANC or the UDF, is branded as “stooge of the Government” or “collaborator of the Government” by the enemies and opponents of South Africa and hon members of the PFP. [Interjections.] But that is the truth.

You are locking them up!

There you have it again. They say we are locking them up. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to speak after the hon member for Turffontein. I shall try to take the theme of the first section of his speech further. I should like to associate myself with the statement made by the hon member about the larger economic prosperity cake which is available.

I should also like to associate myself here with a point which the hon the State President made earlier this year in his opening address. The contents of that address were subsequently published in a publication entitled Die ekonomiese uitdaging word aanvaar. I want to discuss this further.

On the basis of what has already been discussed here, of the budget debate last week, it is essential that we always bear in mind that development in the constitutional sphere can only succeed if there is a strong economic foundation for it. It is essential to continue to allow the working of the economy to create this prosperity. As the hon member for Turffontein said, a larger cake must be created.

While I am saying that, I want to come back to the Official Opposition. I listened to this debate last week and this week, and it was very interesting to listen to their attempts to discuss the economy, they did not say very much about it.

They do not have any economists!

The question that must be asked is whether or not the party has an economy policy, and it is this question which can fruitfully be replied to during this debate.

Then I want to add a second part. If they do in fact have such an economic policy, we have not yet been able to find out precisely what it is, because it is an ambivalent policy. When it comes to the economy, they react with partition and the rights of the White man. I want to dwell on this for a moment.

When the economic policy of the CP is related to the constitutional model they advocate I come to the conclusion that it can lead only to an economy of poverty in South Africa. The surprise—we must go and tell this to the voters in the country—is that this economy of poverty is not only confined, as the CP thinks, to the non-Whites of this country. It is also confined to the White people of this country; they are also going to pay a price for it. This compels me to say that the economy of poverty of the CP is based on their selfish partition policy.

During the Budget debate of the past few days the NP has repeatedly been accused of the redistribution of wealth. However, I want to accuse them of something far worse. They are engaged in the redistribution of poverty, because that is where their policy is headed. We shall tell the voters this too. This policy of theirs is ill-considered, and based on the total foolishness of their emotional partition policy, and this can lead to nothing but an economy of poverty which will subsequently come into existence.

In the few minutes I still have at my disposal I want to confine myself to the goal of the economic reform policy of the hon the State President. In his opening address the hon the State President gave us very clear guide-lines. I think this is very essential, but when I say this, I also want to say that the hon the State President announced unpopular steps.

What worries me about these unpopular steps is that it takes two to tango when it comes to the national economy. I am referring to the public sector and the private sector.

When I read the newspapers and I listen to the other media and my voters, I get the impression that the hon the State President has been dropped—here I would like to use the words students are so fond of—by the other sector because as I see the matter it is only the public servants and certain trade unions that were prepared to go along with the hon the State President. For their sacrifices we thank them very very sincerely, but if we want to combat inflation, the road ahead is tough, because inflation cannot be combated if only one half is making its contribution. Inflation can only be combated if it is a total onslaught.

We made certain announcements. In his Budget speech the hon the Minister of Finance advocated certain things and asked for co-operation as far as the withholding of price and salary increases were concerned, in the sense that a reasonable attitude must be displayed.

When I consider the price increases announced recently, no one in this Committee will contradict me if I make a request to all people in the country who announced price increases to reconsider them, and if justification does exist for those increases, let us go so far as to ask them to pass only 50% of that increase on to the consumer, because the higher prices rise and the more impatient I see elderly pensioners, certain trade unions and the public servants becoming, the more my sympathies lie with those people who are suffering hardships if we choose to solve this problem from one side only.

As far as this problem is concerned, I agree with the hon the State President, the Government has pulled its full weight. It is correct that we are now asking the rest of the country to do the same. Without this effort the total onslaught with which we are now, for the umpteenth time, trying to break the back of this monster of inflation, will merely miscarry once again. It is no use fighting half-heartedly against that hydra-headed monster. It is either total onslaught or nothing. I repeat that the hon the State President and the Government have played their part. Now we are making an appeal to the rest of the country to take the matter further. To those who have already made their contribution, we extend our very grateful thanks.

But now the hon the State President is being accused of something else. It is the statement which is being made that the hon the State President must now intervene—this is the latest one hears outside—to freeze wages, salaries and prices. I do not think the hon the State President can do that. On this matter I want to associate myself with the Economic Advisory Council of the State President, which has already made an investigation in this connection, and say I think the hon the State President and the Government are acting correctly. I do not have the time now to dwell on why it does not work. All I want to say briefly is that past experience has proved that such a step only works when one is dealing with hyperinflation; that is to say inflation of 100% and above. In South Africa we do not have inflation of that kind yet, thanks to the Government. However, to want to apply those measures to the rate of inflation with which we are dealing now will not solve the problem. The problem of inflation can only be solved if each one cooperates and heeds the appeal that was made; otherwise we cannot combat inflation because to freeze prices and wages is simply not the answer—not in the long term, and not in the short term either.

Of course there is no doubt that it is essential that something be done if there is no co-operation. I must say that. However I want to recommend that such a measure should take the form of a deterrent. In addition it will have to be applied very subtly. When it is applied, however, it must be a deadly blow. I should like to describe such a policy as a policy of the iron fist in a velvet glove. When that iron fist emerges from that velvet glove, everyone must know it.

Furthermore I want to thank the newspapers and the rest of the media, which are playing a very major role in the education of consumers. At the end of the day the consumers themselves will have to be the key to the solution of this problem. I am greatful to ascertain that the Consumer Council and the Competition Board are going to be given new potency. Nevertheless it is essential that the consumers of South Africa make use of that new potency. In this respect the media and the newspapers have a special role to play. Most newspapers, and even television, offer consumer news or programmes on consumer affairs. I think that that service will in future have to become more important, for the sake of the education of the consumer in order to combat the monster of inflation and support the hon the State President in this effort of his. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I want to use the few minutes available to me to react to the speech the hon the State President made last week. Before I come to that I first want to refer to what the hon member for Bethlehem said earlier today in this debate when he alleged that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition had, since early last year, made no statements in this House about partition.

It is true!

That is of course a complete untruth! [Interjections.] I want to refer the hon member to a speech which the Leader of the Official Opposition made here in the House on 21 September 1987 in which he devoted no fewer than five columns of Hansard to partition. [Interjections.] It makes excellent reading material and the hon member for Bethlehem would do well to go and read it again. [Interjections.]

Order!

On 14 April the hon the State President, on the occasion of the Huguenot Festival in Paarl, referred to the sense of freedom which the Afrikaner and our people have. He made mention of the influence which the Huguenots had exerted on that urge for freedom which exists in our people. On this occasion he said inter alia the following:

The hon the State President then drew the following important conclusion:

I should like to associate myself wholeheartedly with this conclusion by the hon the State President. It is in fact true that our people have inherited their desire for freedom from their forbears. It is in our blood. Our forbears included people of Dutch, French and German extraction. The Dutch fought for their freedom against the Spanish for 80 years. The French Huguenots left their country for the sake of religious freedom. To a large extent we have our forbears to thank for our sense of freedom.

An important question to which we must provide answer, however, is the following. What do we mean when we say that we pride ourselves on our people’s desire for freedom? In the first place of course it has to do with religious freedom, the right to be allowed to worship freely. But that desire for freedom goes beyond that. It concerns the space that people create for itself to be able to govern themselves in their own fatherland. A people with a true desire for freedom does not tolerate joint government or domination by other peoples. Our people have made great sacrifices to realise that ideal of liberty. They trekked into the interior regardless of the dangers and the tribulations which awaited them there. They left the relatively protected life here in the Boland and ventured into the unknown, where the greatest sacrifices and even death awaited them. The desire for freedom which still burns in our hearts, inspired them in wars, including two wars against the mighty British empire.

I want to come closer to our own times and our own generation. For the sake of our freedom we created separate, independent states and self-governing territories so that Blacks would not be incorporated into our political system. We realised that those people must receive full political rights, and for that reason not only has R1 219 million been spent over a period of 50 years on land purchases and consolidation, but many of our people have been relocated—yes, relocated!—to achieve the eventual ideal that our freedom in this country would remain untarnished.

There were no headlines in the newspapers because Whites were being relocated to make room for Blacks, but our people did not complain. They made those sacrifices because they considered the ideal of a free people in their own country to be greater than possessions and temporary advantages.

Our sportsmen have in recent years had the opportunity of participating in world sport to an ever-diminishing extent. Many of our young men have died on the border for the sake of this ideal—the freedom of our people.

These sacrifices spell out one truth to us. The desire for freedom of our forbears is rooted as deeply in the hearts of our people today as it was at that time when they were prepared to sacrifice everything because they refused to live under a foreign power. The on the State President was therefore correct when he said, referring to our forbears: “In hul nageslagte leef die vryheidsdrang.”

In one respect, however, the hon the State President was incorrect. He was incorrect when he made this further statement: “That spirit of freedom lives on in our Constitution today.” The hon the State President was correct in his assessment of the past, but his assessment of the present and of the future was incorrect.

The present Constitution meant in fact that we were deprived of a large part of our freedom which we had previously enjoyed. The NP itself acknowledges that we must share power with other peoples in this country over matters of vital concern. Surely we can no longer decide on our own about the amendment of the Constitution. Surely we can no longer decide on our own about the defence of our country, our budget or our foreign relations—and surely these things are important to us.

They have now become general affairs, and if we are serious in saying that the other two Houses of Parliament are not merely a lot of puppets, then surely they must also have the right to assert their will in these matters. No, Sir, to say that the present constitution is still the embodiment of our people’s freedom as we knew it prior to 1984 is to render true freedom, as we see it, ridiculous.

The new Constitution contains the principle of power-sharing—a political concept which directly encroaches upon the freedom and self-determination of every people. Surely history has proved that to us. Power-sharing is a destructive philosophy for each people that wants to continue to survive in a meaningful way.

Everywhere one finds its trail of failure. In Africa there were many experiments with it, and each one of them failed. Initially the minority rights of the Whites were guaranteed. Initially Whites were even included in those governments, as in Zimbabwe, but eventually the result was Black domination, and the freedom of Whites was lost. This afternoon we are saying that to the Government. We are saying that to the other peoples of this country and we are saying it to the world: The Whites in this country are not looking for such guarantees. We are not going to make ourselves dependent upon the graces and favours of other people. We refuse to be subject to the whims and fancies of other peoples who today might decide one thing about our destiny and the next day something else.

Even though we have a great deal of respect for other peoples—the CP has that—we say there is only one people in this country to whom we can entrust our future, and that is our own people. Can the NP not understand that? Can the hon the State President, who dedicated the best years of his life to that ideal and who earlier rejected power-sharing as a dangerous political philosophy, no longer hear the clarion call of freedom among his own people? The NP says that they will be able to protect the rights of Whites under a power-sharing policy. Let us accept that they are honest when they say they mean that. In that case they are being extremely naïve. Minority rights can only be protected if the majority agree to that and can abide by that undertaking. I cannot imagine a situation in which the majority of Blacks in this country will agree to protecting the established White rights permanently in South Africa.

The rights under discussion include decisions concerning the election of a State President, the say over the country’s flag and national anthem and the retention of two White languages, Afrikaans and English as the official languages in our country. I can multiply the examples. What Zulu or Tswana nationalists will say in a new South Africa that they are prepared to accept that the Whites could permanently elect the State President and permanently be loyal to the present flag and the present national anthem and to support Afrikaans and English as the official languages in a new South Africa? Whoever hopes for that, is deceiving themselves and is living in a dangerous dream-world. Such a person believes in a completely unviable future for South Africa.

Mr Chairman, today I should like to make use of this opportunity to congratulate the hon the State President. It has been 10 years since he was elected Prime Minister of South Africa, after a very successful career as Minister of Defence, during which he succeeded in building up our Defence Force into the most formidable force in Africa and in building up South Africa’s own armaments industry from scratch to the point where we are today an important arms exporting country. That is one of the monuments in the career of a man who has dedicated more than 50 years of his life to his party and his country.

During his term of office as Prime Minister he erected even greater beacons than he did during his years of office as Minister of Defence. This hon State President of ours, at his own expense and at the expense of the NP, placed the interests of South Africa above his own interests and those of the party and introduced this tricameral Parliament.

That step was taken in the interests of the Whites of South Africa, as much as it was taken in the interests of our Coloured and Asian peoples in South Africa. We lost people in that process, but I tend to think to an increasing extent that it is not a loss but a blessing. [Interjections.] That does not apply to everyone; there are nevertheless a few of those men whose loss I regret, and who I think might return to us one day.

The hon member for Brits said—oh, it has been explained to them so often—that the hon the State President had always been opposed to power-sharing, but that he now supported power-sharing. [Interjections.] Is it not true that the hon member said so?

Surely it is true!

What he cannot seem to realise—I do not know whether it is due to a lack of knowledge or an inability to comprehend—is that the fact of the matter is that the power-sharing which we reject is the power-sharing of the hon member for Sea Point—a unicameral parliament. That was the power-sharing we rejected. [Interjections.] We said that that power-sharing was dangerous.

It is still dangerous now!

It is not dangerous because that hon member supported it in the 1977 proposals. At that time the hon member for Pietersburg clearly supported the proposal that a State President be jointly elected. He has forgotten what the 1977 proposals looked like, or was he still an HNP at that stage? [Interjections.] I want to ask him that.

I want to go further. I want to ask the CP in what direction they want to take South Africa and its peoples. I am becoming uneasy. This morning in Die Burger I read that the hon member for Lichtenburg made a speech yesterday evening in Pretoria. The title of the report is: “Wil SDR’e saboteer, sê Hartzenberg”. According to the report he said—

He said—

The words he used were “stukkend slaan”, “breek” and “boikot”. [Interjections.]

Order! No, it is not necessary to comment on every statement the hon the Minister makes.

Mr Chairman, I realise I have many enthusiastic admirers on that side of the Committee. Give them a little pleasure. [Interjections.]

The hon member went further, he was indicating how the regional services councils of the Rustenburg-Groot Marico-Zeerust area would be controlled by the CP, and the report reads—

I now want to ask something. Water supply is surely one of the most elementary and fundamental amenities a person can expect for improving his living and health conditions. I now want to know: Does the CP begrudge other population groups in this country having those basic amenities for a decent human subsistence? It is begrudging one’s fellow human being an absolute fundamental necessity of life, and it is this callousness which is conducive to polarisation.

What is the purpose of these regional services councils? They are there to rationalise services, to improve the living conditions of all the people of South Africa, and to increase their standard of living and level of prosperity. It is the answer to the revolutionary onslaught on South Africa. The hon member for Lichtenburg has difficulties with the fact that funds are being spent for the sake of the improvement of the Black man’s position.

I am not going to reply to him. I am going to have his own hon leader reply to him on this matter of the appropriation of funds for the upliftment of other colour groups and the reason why that is necessary.

On 7 March 1981 the then Transvaal Leader of the NP, Dr Treurnicht spoke at a youth congress on this matter of the spending of funds on Blacks and said … [Interjections.] That hon member, who is a shareholder in the HNP’s newspaper should rather keep quiet. He is hurting a little. [Interjections.]

Then the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition told the young people of Transvaal:

[Interjections.] He said: “Skaam julle julle nie om so iets te sê nie?” He went on to say:

[Interjections.] He went on to say:

[Interjections.] I now want to know whether the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition still stands by what he said here.

I said it again subsequently.

I see.

However, I have a slight problem with the Leader of the Official Opposition’s assurance. I do not know how long he is going to stand by that, because my problem is that on 1 April 1982 I quoted the following to him from the election manifesto:

I then asked him:

And now, does he still stand by his 1982 undertaking?

I do.

I now ask him how long is he going to stand by this 1982 speech.

Do you people stand by your standpoints?

If the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition stands by this speech he must repudiate the hon member for Lichtenburg because the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said: “Skaam julle julle nie?” I just wonder whether the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition might not perhaps be ashamed of the hon member for Lichtenburg. [Interjections.]

I want to go further. The hon member for Lichtenburg referred in his speech to the fact that the regional services councils were the foundation of the NP’s policy of decentralisation, and he said:

The regional services councils are aimed at improving the conditions of people of colour. The Blacks who participate in it are castigated as collaborators. In fact they risk their lives by serving on those councils. The Comrades work them over. What do the ANC and the Comrades want? The very thing they want is for these structures not to work. The very thing they want to do is destroy these structures and replace them by alternative structures. Now the hon member for Lichtenburg comes along and supports them in the town hall of Pretoria by saying we should destroy these structures. [Interjections.] If I were a Comrade, and I had read Die Burger this morning, what would I have said? What would I have said had I been the Comrade who had planted the bomb across the road here yesterday evening? I would have said to myself: “Well done, Comrade Hartzenberg, carry on. Keep up the good work. We are working together. We are going to break them.” [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Minister must withdraw the word “Comrade”.

Mr Chairman, I shall withdraw it, but may I just explain? I say that if I were a Comrade outside Parliament, I would have said: “Well done, Comrade Hartzenberg …”

Order! No, the hon the Minister must withdraw the word “Comrade”. [Interjections.]

Very well, Sir. I withdraw it.

Order! The hon the Minister may proceed.

If I had been a Comrade outside this House, I would naturally have applauded the hon member for Lichtenburg and thanked him because he would have been doing the work I wanted done.

Our problem in this country is polarisation. That is of course the destruction of structures and the implementation of alternative structures. It involves “peoples courts”, “peoples democracy” and the establishment of alternative structures. It is also concerned with rendering South Africa ungovernable. The Comrades operate out of the Black townships, and the hon member for Lichtenburg operates from Pretoria’s town hall to achieve the same goal. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon the Minister is now asserting that the goal that the Communist Party and the ANC are striving for is also being promoted by the hon member for Lichtenburg. [Interjections.]

Order! As I understand the hon the Minister, he is referring to a specific matter, namely the destruction of structures, which is the ANC’s goal. From the gist of this speech from which he is quoting, that was also according to him the tenor of what the hon member for Lichtenburg said. I can find no fault with that. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Mr Chairman, on a further point of order: I just want to know whether one may, according to the tenor of the hon the Minister’s speech, draw a comparison with the bomb which exploded here yesterday near Parliament?

Order! No, the hon the Minister may proceed.

I accept that they cannot endure the pain, but they will just have to endure it. Mr Chairman, you are quite right, the kind of conduct which the hon member for Lichtenburg propagates and advocates is exactly what the ANC wants us to do, and what the Comrades want us to do, because it plays into their hands. They do not want happy Blacks in South Africa. They do not want friendship between White and Black. They do not want peace between Whites, Coloureds and Asians, because that destroys the revolution. It counteracts the revolution if we improve those people’s living conditions.

I want to return to my point. I say the hon the State President came forward with measures for the sake of South Africa which are being exploited at the expense of this party by the Official Opposition. Today I want to tell them, however, that a survey has shown that 42% of those who voted for them, did not vote for them because of their policy, they do not believe in their policy. In other words those are people who have been deceived and misdirected as to what the NP’s policy is.

[Inaudible.]

Once again I just want to say that we in this country have to act in a responsible way as leaders and must advocate mutual understanding among our own people and among other population groups. If we are not going to understand each other and not meet each other half way somewhere, we are going to lose everything. The person who wants everything and wants to keep everything for himself is going to lose everything. However, those who are prepared to share with others on a reasonable, sensible and Christian basis will survive. [Interjections.]

I have been reading another interesting statement that the hon member for Lichtenburg made yesterday evening. He said that trade unions would not be permitted under a CP government. [Interjections.] I could not believe my eyes when I saw that he had said that. I then telephoned upstairs and got hold of the correspondent who reported the speech—a certain Ina van der Linde. I then asked her whether he did not say Black trade unions. She then said that he had only said trade unions. It was unqualified.

That is not true!

Today I want to tell the trade unions of South Africa—the White Construction Workers’ Union, the Mineworkers’ Union, the Iron and Steel Trade Union, the Confederation of Labour … [Interjections.]

Order!

Once again I want to tell the White Construction Workers’ Union that I shall see to it that their rights are not tampered with by the CP … [Interjections.] … because trade union rights are a universally acknowledged right of the worker. That is the right to collective organising and bargaining. Those are universally acknowledged rights and I shall not allow them to be tampered with as long as the hon the State President keeps me in this job, despite what the CP is doing. [Interjections.]

I want to reassure the trade unions, because everyone who acts in an irresponsible way in respect of the White or Black trade unions in South Africa will cause so much industrial unrest in this country that they will not be able to deal with it.

He will lose in Lydenburg!

I want to go further. The hon member said that he would only allow White trade unions, but does he know that the other trade unions are not only Black, but there are 29 trade unions which are exclusively Coloured and Asian? Is the hon member also going to abolish them?

Yes!

The hon member is laughing now. There are indeed a lot of Black trade unions, but there are also 71 open trade unions with mixed membership.

You caused them!

Is the hon member going to abolish them as well?

That is your baby!

They now have 194 000 members. [Interjections.] Surely there are mixed trade unions, and they are the most rapidly growing group. Is the hon member going to abolish them only half way? [Interjections.] He will either have to colour them green or he will have to boot out one lot and bring in the other lot again. He will have to do something like that.

That is a Minister of State speaking like that!

The hon member has not thought carefully. Shame, look how hurt the hon member for Brakpan is. [Interjections.]

Order!

We know the hon member or Brakpan is a nervous man, with problems.

I am only glad I am not a member of Club 22!

I want to speak a little more about the CP policy.

Tell us about Club 22.

Order! The hon member for Brakpan must really try to restrain himself a little.

Mr Chairman, I shall devote some attention to the hon member for Brakpan in a moment. [Interjections.] He must try to behave himself though.

We must govern the people of this country in a responsible way and act accordingly. I want to make the point that the CP’s policy of White majority occupation in South Africa is a myth with which they are falsely trying to placate the Whites, and which is completely unfeasible.

I went to some trouble.

That cannot be!

To give hon members an idea, I want to mention the following figures. In the Wolmaransstad district there are a total of 47 500 people of colour and only 6 000 Whites. One would therefore have to remove eight out of every nine people of colour from the district in order to get a bare White majority. In Schweizer-Reneke 28 out of every 32 people of colour would have to be removed in order to achieve White majority occupation. Those are the cold facts. In Standerton 53 out of every 63 Blacks would have to be removed in order to break even. In the Vereeniging/Vanderbijlpark area three out of every five Blacks would have to be removed in order to achieve White majority occupation.

I want to make the point that if we had to move so many people of colour everywhere in South Africa—I am not speaking about the cost and the feasibility now—and one were for example to remove eight out of every nine people of colour from Standerton, one would first have to remove the domestic servants, then the farm labourers and the municipal workers. In Standerton one would not even have enough workers to run the coalmines which extract coal for the generation of electricity. All the farm labourers of the farmers and all the industrial workers and all the domestic servants would have to be taken away. The factories would have to close down and the power station would hardly be operational because there would be hardly enough people to keep even the mine going. Those are the realities of CP politics. The people who vote for them must know that if they come to power and they implement their policy, the country will be economically ruined. Their policy is going to cause racial polarisation.

It would cost between R40 000 and R50 000 to move just one family. To create a job opportunity today costs R15 000. How and where are they going with these people, and where is the money going to come from? I want to say the following about the CP’s policy. It cannot withstand the test of reality, Sir.

We shall see!

It cannot withstand the test of reality because that party is deceiving the public. The CP is presenting them with a false image, Sir! [Interjections.]

Order! No, the hon members for Pietersburg and Carletonville are making far too many interjections. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Sir, do you know what I heard the other day about the hon member for Carletonville? [Interjections.] Sir, that hon member is secretly addressing a new organisation, something like the White Conservative Workers’ Union.

What is wrong with that? [Interjections.]

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! What is wrong with the Mineworkers’ Union? Why do you not stick to your own people? That semi-secret union of theirs is probably a CP or an AWB trade union, because these days it is very difficult to tell who is in charge there on the opposite side. It is rather difficult to tell who is in control.

I merely want to make the following statement. It would be dangerous for South Africa if the CP were to take over, because if they did take over, they would not be in control. Eugene Terre’Blanche would be in control of this country. Sir, that is where the danger lies.

Hear, hear!

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to speak after the hon the Minister of Manpower and of Public Works. Once again he spelt out for the CP in his normal effective manner, to which we have grown accustomed, the unreality of their policy and their allegations to the voters. The hon the Minister also said of the hon the State President that he would be remembered as a person who had accepted the challenges of his time. In my opinion the greatest challenge the hon the State President accepted was the challenge in the economic sphere. In his opening address on 5 February this year, the hon the State President gave further momentum and direction to his programme for economic policy renewal, and in particular spelt out his policy on privatisation and deregulation.

There are so many advantages attached to privatisation and deregulation that there is not enough time to spell them all out, and for that reason I shall rather confine myself to the general objections that have been raised in this regard. In the debate on the privatisation of the sorghum beer industry, the main objection of the chief spokesmen of the Official Opposition was concerned with personnel considerations. The White Paper on privatisation laid down a policy that personnel would be treated fairly in all cases. It also dealt with the methods which have already been successfully applied. The personnel themselves can take over activities and manage them as their own enterprise. The personnel can also obtain an interest as co-owners in the undertaking that is going to be privatised by means of licensing agreements or shares in a company, and in this way be transferred to the new undertaking as co-owners.

Owing to a shortage of skilled manpower the existing personnel will be in a strong bargaining position with regard to the new enterprise. The personnel can be seconded to the new enterprise for a specified or unspecified time, and thereby maintain their status as employers in the public sector while redundant personnel can be transferred. There is no doubt that we shall not take these steps without proper consideration for the personnel.

A second main objection is that it will increase costs. If we look at what happened in the past, we see that the Government did not participate in economic activities by means of nationalisation but that it did participate in branches of industry that the private sector could not run profitably, industries that were not profitable enough, as it did at the time with Iscor, or where it was necessary to provide a service for the public, as in the case of the transport services and telecommunications.

These industries were not market-orientated and were financed by means of loans and surplusses that were accumulated from tariffs. Their competition on the money market to obtain loans often had a disruptive effect in sluggish economic conditions. When loans were not available tariff increases were implemented for the financing of capital expenditure. Surpluses were not always passed on, but certain methods were used to conceal this, such as the writing off of assets against replacement costs. In many cases surpluses were utilised uneconomically in order to replace production assets.

The enterprises that were aimed at rendering a service to the public did not remain static, but entered areas in which technology played a very large role, and in many cases, of course, they entered a market that was potentially highly competitive. While certain public service functions cannot and should not be privatised, there are nevertheless certain facets that can be left to the private sector on a competitive basis. The White Paper states very clearly that although certain services that are being run profitably cross-subsidise the cost of others, this is not a valid reason for them not to be privatised. Therefore, privatisation will not necessarily bring about an increase in costs, nor should this happen.

A third main objection is that cartels or monopolies will be created. It is quite correct that it will be of no avail replacing a Government monopoly with a private sector monopoly. Nevertheless, deregulation goes hand in hand with privatisation. Deregulation is concerned with what is prescriptive between two private entrepreneurs. While we concede that there should always be a degree of deregulation in the economy, the danger of obstructions in the path of a free market mechanism can be eradicated by means of deregulation. The advantages of privatisation are legion. The most important is that a tax consumer changes into a taxpayer. Increased competition increases private ownership and broadens the tax base. However, the most exciting aspect is the advantage that the return will offer when it is utilised in the area that the hon the State President identified. It must be paid into the Government’s capital revenue fund and not used to finance current expenditure. It must be used for basic infrastructure and services in developing areas. The creation of funds for the development of small industries and small businesses must be utilised by the Industrial Development Corporation and small businesses. That will create more job opportunities and will be a further extension of development.

Nevertheless, in the process it also became apparent that the evaluation of functions in the Public Service was being scrutinized. This was done under the direction of the Commission for Administration and was co-ordinated and monitored by them. Not only will this increase productivity, but also indicate what functions can be successfully privatised and transferred to small businesses.

While this process is being co-ordinated and administered on the highest level ip the Provincial Administrations by the Commission for Administration, local authorities are tending to expand their functions. Of course, they are important. In the 1984-85 financial year the expenditure of local authorities was 31,75%—almost one third of Government expenditure. It gives rise to concern that there is no organisation like the Commission for Administration to maintain the necessary supervision here as well.

Of the 22 functions of the regional services councils almost all can be farmed out. The provision of the services on a larger scale on a regional basis increases the possibility of privatisation by farming work out. Since the regional services councils are now at their initial stage, without vested interests or personnel in their employ, the possibility of the privatisation of such services within a region must first be considered.

It is not a question of whether privatisation must take place; it is just a question of how quickly and how successfully it should be done. We are dealing with a situation in which all the parties can be winners, and in which the effect thereof will be felt in our economy for many years through a wider distribution of the cake which will enable us to provide the necessary relief where it is needed most.

Furthermore, it will curb inflation by offering greater employment opportunities. We shall reap the rewards of the hon the State President’s guidance in this regard as well for many years to come. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Nelspruit will pardon me if I do not react to his speech, and broach another subject instead.

The hon the State President has frequently, in opening addresses in this Chamber, and also on other occasions, claimed that under his regime and in South Africa in general there is respect for fundamental human rights. It is a pity that the public in general frequently consider human rights to be an abstract and highly theoretical concept, seldom applied in practice in politics.

The truth is far removed from that. Human rights are fundamental to liberty, democracy and a system of free enterprise. They are part of the values for which the forebears of everyone sitting in this Committee fought at one stage or another and frequently gave their lives. When all is said and done, it is a component of a dispensation in which intelligent people feel satisfied that they have a material say in the destiny of their country and in the decision-making which will determine their future.

Now I must say that in spite of the claims made by the hon the State President, there has not really been very much respect for fundamental human rights during his regime, and that during that period in fact an increasingly more oppressive atmosphere began to prevail in politics in South Africa.

In the first place I maintain that the freedom South Africans have to give expression to their politics has reached an all-time low in South Africa. Bans on organisations, meetings, protests and publications are the order of the day. [Interjections.] In fact I asked the hon the Minister of Law and Order—I think it was last year—whether any administrative orders had been issued in terms of which people were specifically prohibited from criticising the Government, and the reply was negative. However, I should just like to quote from such an order which reached me. It was issued against a certain Dziri Yekelo Madolo.

According to paragraph 4 of this order, during a certain period from the date of his release the said person was not permitted to do the following:

There are a number of other elements in this order, but this one is a blatant prohibition on attendance at a gathering where the Government is criticised.

There is nothing subtle about it. Nothing subtle, whatsoever! There is no attempt to soften it or to be more specific. It says that one is not allowed to attend a gathering where the Government is criticised.

*I can hardly imagine a more blatant prohibition on a person’s fundamental, democratic rights.

Furthermore I want to refer to the prohibition recently imposed on 17 organisations: Among others the UDF and Azapo. I honestly do not think it is exaggerated if one asks what those people, who considered those organisations to be their political mouthpieces, are now supposed to do. What is expected of them? [Interjections.] There are millions of people involved, [interjections.]

Order!

We are talking about a large number of Black South Africans.

There are other channels.

Order!

Mr Chairman, the hon member said there were other channels. Is that hon member and his Government saying that those people should join a political organisation with which he and his Government agree, or is the hon member saying that they must resign themselves to their position? [Interjections.] The hon members have no answers. [Interjections.] I just want to say that that prohibition inter alia, together with similar prohibitions issued by the Government, are making an appreciable contribution to the arguments of those very people who advocate political violence. What other channels exist? [Interjections.]

Secondly, I want to make the accusation against the hon the State President and his regime that democracy and in particular Parliament, has been undermined in South Africa during his regime. Even NP caucus members will concede here and there that they as a caucus have far less say today in the general administration of the country than they used to have in the past. [Interjections.] Many of the hon members here know what I am talking about, because they do discuss this occasionally.

Everyone knows how important law and order is in this country. I am one of the people who had the privilege of serving for quite a long time on the standing committee on law and order. At a relatively early stage during the time I served on it, in 1986, two Bills were referred to that standing committee; the Internal Security Amendment Bill and the Public Safety Amendment Bill. Incidentally, it was on that occasion that the tricameral Parliament showed its teeth for the first time. The House of Representatives and the House of Delegates decided to reject those Bills.

They were the last contentious Bills that were referred to that standing committee. Since then, any appreciable action taken by that department was of an administrative nature. Enabling legislation, used by the hon the Minister of Law and Order, magistrates and policemen to impose restrictions on people are of an administrative nature. They are introduced administratively by means of the emergency regulations and other security legislation. [Interjections.] Parliament is ignored completely in the process.

The simple truth is that the greatest onslaught on the status and relevance of Parliament has not been coming from left-wing extra-Parliamentary quarters for some time; it emanates from the executive of South Africa. I want to refer again to the recent prohibition of the 17 organisations. Hon members must remember that the enabling regulations, issued by the hon the State President, the prohibitions in terms of those regulations issued by the hon the Minister of Law and Order, and the motivating memorandum by the Chief of the Security Police, were submitted to them on one day.

Parliament was not even informed that the announcement had been made. There was no reference to Parliament whatsoever, and no debate. All those things happened outside Parliament. Do the hon members realise that we are playing with fire in regard to the status and relevance of this highest body in our country.

The last charge I want to level at the hon the State President is that a climate is developing in South Africa in which many intelligent people feel frustrated because they have little or no effective say in the course of national affairs, owing to this contempt for human lives which has occurred under his regime, as a result of the actions of various people and bodies.

They do not feel that they are in control of their own lives or their own future. They feel that they have less and less say over it. Furthermore they are frustrated because they are not entrusted with the necessary information to take intelligent political decisions in South Africa, because arrogant decisions are to an increasing extent being made on their behalf by high-ranking persons, from the hon the State President, and the Cabinet down to other Government bodies in South Africa, to the effect that certain information may not be made available to them because it ostensibly foments a revolutionary climate and for that reason decisions will be taken on behalf of those people. That is why ordinary, intelligent South Africans feel frustrated because they are, in the final analysis, being treated like children. We can go on in this vein. In last year’s election the NP once again won support on the grounds of the fears they evoked among people. In the process they received their quantity of votes. In the same process, however, they lost quality people, people functioning on a basis of idealism, people who would like to feel, owing to their own self-respect and their dedication to their country, that they must have participation in what is happening here. I want to tell hon members that that participation is being limited by the Government to an increasing extent. It is a situation which can only harm democracy. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I am following the hon member for Green Point this afternoon, but unfortunately I cannot congratulate him or thank him for a constructive speech, because his speech was definitely not constructive.

This is a debate which lends itself pre-eminently to constructive discussion. The hon member’s speech would have been better suited to the discussion of the Vote of one of the Cabinet Ministers of the hon the State President. This hon member tried to lay his finger on all the matters which he considered obstructive in the community. I want to concede at once that we are not a perfect community. However, I want to devote my speech to demonstrating to the Committee in a number of ways why we are experiencing certain problems.

I want to start my contribution with a quote. It is in Dutch and it reads as follows:

We must take particular note of the following:

This quote is not from a recent hostile Dutch publication. It is from Die Kerkbode of 20 October 1921—sixty-six and a half years ago. I am quoting it in order finally to lay the myth to rest that South Africa’s problems were created by this Government.

The fact of the matter is that the Government inherited a virtually inadministrable estate. In 1947—a year before it came into power—Dr W Nicol, the then moderator of the NG Church, expressed his concern about the lack of seriousness regarding the needs of the Black people. He went on to say:

That is what the NP inherited—a state of affairs which bordered on criminal negligence.

In a month’s time the NP will have been in power for four decades, and it is appropriate for us to look back over the past. While we are doing so, let us deal with another myth, namely that this Government is responsible for statutory apartheid. Statutory apartheid made its appearance when this country became a Union, when it was decided that the Parliament would be White—that is where it found expression as a principle and a policy. It was the embodiment of the wishes of the National Convention. An Act of Parliament of Great Britain gave constitutional substance to it.

The NP did not exist then. It was the NP which put an end to the colour bar in the Constitution Act 74 years later with the coming into operation of the present Constitution Act.

The Government of this country, and the course of our history, is being obstructed by myths. This is introducing a lack of reality into our politics which is hampering meaningful discussion. Inside the country the politics of myth arises from an unwillingness—sometimes an inability—of opposition groups to accept the dynamism of our population situation as it is. This is escapism.

Too many participants in South African politics are shying away from the truth. They want to redefine the realities of the country; they want to recreate them to serve their own interests instead of accepting those realities as they are. This is how myths are born. They have nothing to do the reality—such as the delusion that our multiracial country can be transformed into a nonracial democracy; such as the delusion that economically interdependent population groups can function effectively while being partitioned into one territory. Such flights of fancy are irrelevant to the future and one could ignore them if they were not so dangerous.

A myth which has taken hold in the political life of the country, is in actual fact nothing but a public lie, and it is extremely dangerous. It creates unrealistic expectations which give rise to explosive levels of frustration when they inevitably cannot be realised. This frustrates good intentions, positive development initiatives which are based on reality. The most damaging consequence of the lie known as a myth which developed here is that it has found its way into the ignorant outside world where it has been renamed a perception—such as the perception on apartheid.

Nowadays in overseas countries apartheid simply means a White Government, and in their eyes there is no other solution but an exclusively Black Government. Whether our left-wing groups, of which the hon member for Green Point is a member, like it or not, the overseas perception of South Africa is directly related to their myth of a “non-racial democratic society”. Today we are paying a heavy price for this. The price we are paying is increasing isolation accompanied by boycotts, sanctions and threats of sanctions.

Now the Government is being blamed for this. It is simply being said that the Government’s policy is responsible for this. This is not true. It is also a myth—an unfounded story. The real reason why we are being isolated internationally, is the myth created by the left-wingers, namely that we can become a non-racial democracy, meaning that Black majority rule is feasible here, and that we are refusing to accept it.

It is in the interests of South Africa, and in the interests of the people of our country, for us to re-evaluate our position realistically as a unified action and for us to let the world know that their perception is based on a lie. We must destroy the myths created here in South Africa if we want to avoid disaster.

In the midst of the mistakes which were made the NP has a good history of government over 40 years. I do not have the time to single out its achievements here, and this is not the object of my speech either. I can merely mention that from the outset—Dr Malan emphasised this a few days after the election—the point of departure was that ample development opportunities had to be created for our non-White population groups.

A great deal has been achieved, in the early days too. Unfortunately this was frequently overshadowed by the blind anti-government strategies. Elements in left-wing opposition parties could never accept the fact that the NP was in power. Over the years they frequently did the country harm in their battle against the party.

There is one aspect of our coming into power and what followed on this which I want to emphasise. I want the hon members of the CP to listen to this too, because they are my compatriots.

The Afrikaners of 1948 were still freedom fighters. Living in their hearts was an unrealised republican ideal. That ideal was realised by the NP when this country became a republic. In his own eyes the Afrikaner only became free in 1961. When he became free he was confronted by the demand that he should share his freedom and that he could not retain the position of power for which he had fought for years exclusively for himself. The members of the CP also admit this. I say it is to the Afrikaner people’s credit that they did not flinch from that challenge. Our fellow South Africans and the world must take cognisance of this, but they must also take cognisance of the fact that essentially the Afrikaner remains a freedom fighter. He will also fight for the freedom of others. He will share his own freedom, but he will never again accept a position of subservience.

Today we Afrikaners are politically divided. However, the heart of the people remains unscathed. The Afrikaners are not owned by the CP, nor by the NP. The Afrikaners of today are the product of yesterday’s struggle, and they are controlled and possessed by the desire for freedom which made them a nation. Whoever does not take this into account is making a mistake.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Stellenbosch must excuse me if I do not react in full to his speech, except that I want to say that I share his sentiments, especially when it comes to the Afrikaners.

The path of reform is a very difficult and lonely path in South Africa, because one must move between the revolutionary and the reactionary, between those who say we must shoot and those who say that South Africa is for Whites only. We are also moving between those in favour of negotiation and those who advocate confrontation. I believe that the approach of most of the hon members in this House is that plans should be made together and not for one another because, opposed to that, is the choice of the CP, namely that they are simply going to be prescriptive and say: Here is my plan; accept it or reject it.

I believe the approach of the governing party, namely that all are citizens of this country and that all should enjoy representation at the highest level, is the correct and the meaningful approach, because White supremacy is a thing of the past. The days in which the Whites are in charge and the rest are the underlings are numbered in South Africa.

I believe that hon members will allow me to refer again to my constituency, Hillbrow, this afternoon. In this regard, I again want to associate myself with what I shall call an extreme “nervousness” in Hillbrow. It has to do with the Group Areas Act and the direction that the Government is taking with regard to Hillbrow. In the first place, I want to say that there is a great deal of uncertainty among the Whites. I am not saying that because I revel in it. In this regard I should like to associate myself with an article that appeared in Die Vaderland which said that in recent years Hillbrow had been left very much to its own devices and that no one really saw his way clear to accepting responsibility for its decline. However, this cannot continue. I agree wholeheartedly.

I am asking in all sincerity and out of respect for the hon the State President that we should be told where we are going with regard to Hillbrow.

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

Mr Chairman, I have so little time that I will not answer any questions now. I believe that the majority of Whites in Hillbrow—I have already said this in this House—are not racially conscious, but they are certainly class conscious. What they are asking—I am also asking it of the hon the State President—is that when Hillbrow or other areas are declared open areas, safety mechanisms be included to protect minority groups. In the Hillbrow constituency there are approximately 16 old-age homes or residential hotels for elderly people. That gives a total number of 1830 elderly people. These people are asking to be protected. They do not want to be prisoners in their rooms. Therefore it is important that we create the necessary infrastructure …

You are a prisoner in your own home!

Those hon members are prisoners of their own tragic stupidity.

For this reason I want to plead with the hon the State President, to use his own words, to establish safety mechanisms so as to be able to maintain civilised standards in Hillbrow as well.

Autocratic groups are beginning to emerge everywhere and there is a feeling among the Whites in Hillbrow that we cannot allow these people to take the law into their own hands. The days of words are over and we are now asking for action. I believe that the hon the State President will be able to guide us in this regard as well.

Mr Chairman, if one reflects on what one heard in this debate one finds that there is much that is not in keeping with reality. I think there are many more matters in South Africa on which we agree with one another than hon members are trying to imply here. There are many more things that bind us together and which make South Africa a country of tranquillity. When I listen to the exaggerated views on how bad the situation in South Africa is, it surprises me that South Africans want to have that perception conveyed while foreign people and tourists who visit this country return to their own countries with best wishes for South Africa and the nicest words about our country.

Today I received another letter from a number of people who attended the Huguenot Festival. All of them signed the letter in which they said that they were going back with a perception of South Africa that was directly opposed to what they had heard about this country. Yet hon members are standing up here and trying to create perceptions that place South Africa in a false light. What should our enemies do if there are hon members who behave in this way? I shall deal with this further tomorrow.

This afternoon, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition rightly expressed his strong views on the question of the ANC and what the ANC stood for. I am grateful to him for that. I do not think that we as South Africans should have any quarrel with one another in that regard. That applies not only to him and his party, but also to the other opposition parties here. I think that if there is one matter on which we should be in full agreement in all respects, it is that we shall not hand over this country to the tyranny and the putrid situation the ANC-SACP alliance wants to impose on it. [Interjections.]

Therefore, I am glad that the hon the Minister of Finance quoted here yesterday what I had said in this regard. I want to place on record that I said the following in Springs in 1985:

I am repeating it and it is at the same time my answer to the hon member for Sea Point who almost became feverish this afternoon telling us about how bad the situation in South Africa was. Surely it is not only in South Africa that there is a revolutionary onslaught. The revolutionary onslaught is being launched throughout the entire civilised world. There is almost no country in which bombs are not exploding and in which revolutionary onslaughts and subversion are not taking place. Does the hon member not know that? Of course he knows that. Why does he single out his own mother country to create the impression that the situation is so bad here?

You are playing small politics.

No, it is not “small politics”. The “small politics” is sitting over there and that is why the hon member is not getting any further. He remains in “small politics”. Let us be honest with one another. The hon member ought to help me. He ought to have stood up here and said that he supported every measure to combat the communist and the revolutionary onslaught on South Africa. That is what he should have done.

Harry will do so.

Yes, I must say the hon member for Yeoville will do so. He will do so.

I have issued repeated warnings in this House and outside about this matter, and I want to ask in this House today that we stop bickering about these matters.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition tried to drag in my friend the hon member for Innesdal and attach a label to him. Let me say this frankly here: I do not think that the hon member for Innesdal is always careful enough about what he says, and I have told him as much, but I have the highest regard for his earnestness and his commitment and I want to say one thing in his favour tonight—he cannot be labelled as a friend of communism or of the ANC.

Hear, hear!

In this regard I will take his part. He knows that I sometimes think he is over-hasty with what he says, but we all over-step the mark occasionally and allow our tongues to run away with us.

Not you!

And now our hon little old lady is piping up again … [Interjections.] Sir, I shall continue with this tomorrow.

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.

Order! Before I ask the Secretary to read the First Order of the Day, I want to give a ruling about a matter that has been held over from yesterday’s debate. In his speech the hon member for Border used the following expressions: “politieke tweegatjakkals”; “besluit by watter gat hy wil inkruip”; “by die Arbeiderspartygat inkruip” and “by die DWP se gat inkruip”.

In his speech the hon member for Ravensmead referred to the speech made by the hon member for Border and inter alia used the word “gatkruipers”. Mr Speaker ordered him to withdraw this word. The word “tweegatjakkals” is not unparliamentary, but the other expressions used by the hon member for Border are too strong. I therefore ask the hon member for Border to withdraw the other expressions.

Mr Chairman, I withdraw those expressions.

Mr Chairman, I move without notice:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, before I requested yesterday that the debate be adjourned, I was emphasising that the LP should be praised for the initiative it has displayed in getting joint debates to take place. I want to conclude by quoting what Henry Royce of Rolls Royce fame said. He said:

Mr Chairman …

Hear, hear! [Interjections.]

Order! I gave the hon member for Robertson the floor. It is quite sufficient for hon members to say “hear, hear!”

Mr Chairman, it has always been a pleasure for me to take part in the debate of the hon the Minister of Finance. I should not like to be in his shoes, because not only is he expected to explain the why’s and how’s of the financial position of South Africa, but he also has to deal with the reality that MPs expect and hope that an announcement that they can convey to their voters and which will be to their advantage will be made.

Not only the public servants, but also South Africa’s workers in the private sector were asked by the hon the State President and, if I remember correctly, the hon the Minister of Finance to tighten their belts a little. Employees were also asked not to make exorbitant requests with regard to increases etc. In many cases they were asked not to expect increases at all. In other words, they were asked to make large sacrifices for king and country.

However, there is uncertainty about this country’s financial position at present. I am the first to admit that there are perhaps other countries that are worse off than we are, but it is my duty in this House to represent my voters, and they are the people that are worse off at the moment.

We were told only the day before yesterday that the price of soft drinks had been increased by 13%. First it was the price of milk, and now it is the price of soft drinks that is rising. One asks then: What is the next announcement going to be with regard to increases? I am the last person to want price control implemented on certain products, but enough is enough. Someone will have to do something. We are playing into the hands of our enemies with this kind of increase. Therefore I want to ask the hon the Minister if it is not possible to do something about this situation. If these people are allowed to increase prices left and right, I do not know what the result will be.

Yesterday evening I spoke to a young woman. She told me that she was a student nurse at Tygerberg Hospital and that her boarding fees had increased by R60 and that she had not received a salary increase. She is already earning so little that she can hardly afford to buy her uniform. If she now loses a further R60 of her salary every month she will be in a very bad position. I feel that something should be done about this. As I said, Sir, she received no increase.

I now want to ask the hon the Minister whether the time has not come for him as Minister of Finance or for our hon State President to implement a total restriction on all price increases in general. I think it could only be to South Africa’s advantage if people knew that they could go so far and no further. I am saying very clearly that I do not like the idea of price control, but there are times when one should close one’s eyes and put one’s foot down in a matter that one believes to be right.

Like everyone here, Sir, I am working for a cause. That cause is the new South Africa. However, how can I be expected to be successful if Government policy handicaps me around every corner? Too many Whites talk about a people’s commitment (volksgebondenheid) at every opportunity. Last week I ate at the same table as the hon member for Ermelo, Mr Moolman Mentz. Of course, he is a member of the CP, and his point of view is people’s commitment (yolksgebondenheid) from beginning to end. But do hon members know something? South Africa will go under, people’s commitment (volksgebondenheid) and all, if we do not stop things such as price increases.

It seems to me that the Government’s reform plans are put on the shelf every time they lose a by-election. I am sorry, but I must say that. It may be a good thing to try to tell the clergymen in our country that they may not do this or that or say this or that. Sometimes the only option that clergyman have is to protest against those things that affect their people in this country. Reform is not like a tap that one can open and close. Reform is either implemented or it is not implemented. However, once reform has begun, one must continue with it. One cannot suddenly stop it, because many people would then be disappointed. I understand why the security in the country is being increased, but people should not be kept quiet simply because they do not agree with one. Must our clergymen remain silent about matters such as what happened a few days ago in Stellenbosch? In this regard I want to quote from the Cape Times of 15 April 1988 in response to a debate in the House of Assembly. The newspapers did not have much to say about the matter, because people have reached the stage where they say let things be. I quote:

Sir, whether the allegations are true or not—I believe there is much truth in this article—such things can simply not be tolerated. I discussed the matter with our rural brothers the morning before the debate in question took place. They will corroborate this. Hon members will agree with me that we went so far as to say we were going to find the fault. Tomorrow morning we are going to meet again. We could not talk to our hearts’ content and say how we really felt. Unfortunately there are all sorts of reasons for that raid’s having to take place. Why did it have to be carried out in that way, however? Why must people be disturbed at three or four o’clock in the morning? Some of the members of the so-called “Dad’s Army” are respected members of churches. They are deacons and elders who are reservists, as we call them. I do not deny that things are wrong, but the way in which that raid was carried out really shocked me very deeply. I hope that this kind of thing will not happen again. However, I am also very pleased about another matter, and I want to quote from the Cape Times again:

I am pleased about that. It is of cardinal importance that no one is denying anything. However, I want to go a little further and refer to another matter.

Are hon members aware that people sleep on top of one another in those hostels? The man goes to work in the morning and the woman secretly enters the building to sleep with him.

The next morning someone else arrives who also wants to sleep with that woman. Sir, there are many rapes daily in Kayamandi. However, no one will know about them because a woman is too embarrassed and too scared to open her mouth and tell her husband. In the first place it would mean murder and in the second he would tell her to pack her things and leave. Sir, the conditions in those hostels stink. I do not want to talk about someone else’s constituency—the hon member must excuse me—but I am saying again that I live near Kayamandi and I see what goes on there. I have often held prayer meetings there or entered the area with the Minister to hold prayer meetings.

My hon leader himself is a clergyman. There are many people that get angry with him about things that he does. However, sometimes one has to do things because one’s conscience forces one to do them. If one wants to be a realist one must be prepared to face the facts. And a fact is a fact. However, in the long run it is always: “Oh, South Africa, dear land”—the South Africa that we all love.

Apartheid—the Group Areas Act included—has become a big joke, because no one pays any attention to it any more. Coloured people in the middle income group are moving into flats for Whites because they are tired of having their names on waiting lists for years to acquire houses. The Coloureds who can afford it find ways to move into vacant White flats. Apartheid has become unenforceable. That is a fact that we must accept. About a year ago none other than the hon the State President himself said that South Africa relied heavily on Blacks to keep its weapon industry going. Therefore, the Blacks play an important role in the weapon industry in this country.

Today, many companies are appointing Black managers to manage their businesses. An example of this is Woolworths in Stellenbosch where there is a Black manager who treats the clients very well.

I am convinced that separate development and people’s commitment (yolksgebondenheid) are something of the past and that the Group Areas Act is going to be abolished. It is no longer a matter of principle for me; it is now a question of when it is going to be abolished. I believe that this Government cannot be overthrown—not from the left or from the right. Regardless of whether hon members agree with me or not, I want to make the statement that neither the churches nor the ANC can be ignored in the negotiation process in this country. [Interjections.] I agree with what my colleague, Mr Albert Nothnagel, the member for Innesdal, said about the ANC. He is a man who speaks with conviction. I am saying unequivocally today that I agree with him.

I should like to say much more, but I have already received a note saying that I should conclude. [Interjections.] Sir, I should like to say thank you for the opportunity to take part in this debate. I am only sorry that I could not complete my speech.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate. I am sure, when it comes to budgeting for the respective Houses, that the hon the Minister and his advisers prune the budgets which are submitted by our hon Ministers. I want to request the hon the Minister of Finance to visit our areas before the pruning takes place. He will then realise what the needs of our people are.

I want the hon the Minister to visit areas like Helenvale, Windvogel, Salt Lake and Gelvandale in Port Elizabeth—to mention just a few of the neglected areas. The needs include housing, the upgrading of existing facilities, more schools, day hospitals, community centres and old age homes. Sir, we require finances to provide our people with what they need.

We must thank the Cabinet Committee, our hon Ministers and the local authorities who so ably assisted during the recent floods. The effects of the disaster could nevertheless have been minimised if proper planning had been done years ago. [Interjections.] The other night on television a couple in the Orange Free State said: “We complained about the problems in our area but to no avail; we are flooded again.” I ask the hon the hon the Minister please to let us solve these problems by making funds available.

Unauthorised spending occurred again during the past financial year. If we cannot remedy this problem, our hon Ministers would welcome some money.

Let us come to the monster, the Group Areas Act. This Act cost the country millions in unnecessary expenditure. Land must be found to accommodate racial groups. Land is purchased from property owners at a price and in turn the poor must pay for it. Kakkerlaksvlei—it is called Booysens Park now—in Port Elizabeth serves as an example. It was bought years ago from a certain gentleman, a property owner, and was again sold to the State. Our people have to bear the burden of this Act. This Act has made our people poor and frustrated.

The further one moves people from essential services such as hospitals, doctors, repair services, services for the collection of pensions and grants, places of employment, schools and sports facilities, the higher the cost of living per household. GST will soon be replaced by VAT. I appeal to the hon the Minister to deal effectively with the tax exploiters. They place an extra burden on the poor people by overcharging and doing other sinister things. Let us also consider exempting more foodstuffs, medicine and repair services from GST and VAT. An appeal was made by the hon the State President to everyone to keep costs down, but milk and cooldrink prices were increased recently.

In the last place I want to appeal to the hon the Minister to give us the financial assistance to end the poverty and frustration of our people. No budget can be satisfactory as long as apartheid exists. Scrap the apartheid laws and see the potential of our beautiful country. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the LP decided to participate in the Parliamentary system to further the interests of their voters in particular, and those of the people of South Africa in general. Our track record speaks volumes for the success we have achieved. Negotiation and consensus politics are not “yes master” politics, as the Official Opposition implies. The LP has the courage of its convictions, the will-power and the backbone to stand up and fight for its people.

Speaking of “yes master” politics, as the LP is gaining in popularity among its people from day to day, the status and effectiveness of the Official Opposition have declined, and the Government and other parties must take note of this.

The main aim of the LP is to broaden democracy, so that all South Africans can be included. The establishment of equal opportunities—social and economic—is linked to this. This field which the LP has entered is very complex, and it demands an ongoing dynamic approach from the party. Possibly it is for this reason that some hon members, particularly the Official Opposition in Parliament, are on the wrong track. They simply do not understand what is happening around them.

If one looks at South African society, one sees that the South African community is very segmented and polarised, on the basis of divisions such as culture, historical background, language and religion.

I want to quote Dr Nic Rhoodie in this regard:

Today I want to make an urgent appeal to all leaders and organisations not to play around with sanctions and boycotts. They must be man enough to admit that in a transitional phase such as the one in which South Africa finds itself, it would be suicide. It is torture, and it is selfdestructive for our children, since it adversely affects everyone’s future, particularly that of the descendants of those who are not White.

At the same time I want to issue a warning, and I want to know what these so-called leaders are going to do if the youth stand up and say: “You have suppressed our economic progress for personal gain. You have made the same mistakes as Nongquase, and we cannot forget you.”

It is as our leader has said. The new economic policy announced by the hon the State President is not going to change the economic status quo. In this regard I want to emphasise strongly that the LP is not going to sit still. The LP is going to fight for the people of South Africa, particularly the underprivileged, to get the best possible benefit from the development of small businesses. We differ from the opposition in this regard—an unfavourable situation is always a challenge to the LP. We are always seeking solutions.

Besides ethnicity, religion also plays a very important part. From the time of British rule in South Africa, religion has always played an important part in the political dispensation in our country. During the time of British rule in South Africa, the missionaries used religion to further the interests of the British Empire. The rise of the Afrikaner is also attributable to the part the DR Church has played. From a survey by the CSIR, it appears that between 46% and 84% of the South African population is of the opinion that religion ought to play a role in the freedom struggle.

The LP is fully aware of the ambivalence of its position. We find ourselves in a dispensation which we do not accept. We are in control of own affairs, which we reject in principle. We find ourselves in a separate House of Parliament, which is the antithesis of our basic principle. We are here because we believe that it is the most meaningful option we have in the present circumstances.

The tactics the party uses depend on circumstances. So far we have used various tactics to further the interests of our voters. We have used, and are still using, own affairs to improve the daily lives of our voters. Hon members need only think of things like the extension of equal remuneration in the Public Service and the narrowing of the gap in social pensions, to mention only two examples. We are not afraid of getting our hands dirty when the interests of our voters are at stake. We attend a large variety of meetings daily, where we are prepared to negotiate for the good of South Africa. We demand our pound of flesh, but we are also willing to make concessions for the sake of peace and progress. When our right to be human is assailed, however, or when others want to bully us, we stand up to them and we are prepared to be ruthless.

We are in Parliament as a full-fledged majority party. As such we are not prepared to act as junior partners to any other party. We arrogate ourselves the right to be consulted when important matters are placed on the agenda. We do not want to be confronted with matters that have already been decided. Many of the most recent clashes can be ascribed to this. I want to emphasise once again that we are a fully-fledged majority party in our own right and that we represent a broad electorate. Any negotiation which ignores this fact, takes place to its own detriment.

At the beginning of my speech I mentioned that ethnicity is the basis of the Government’s present policy. It also forms the basis of many political parties.

The Coloured community is the only community in South Africa which totally rejects ethnicity. We reject ethnicity as a basis for reform. This view is due mainly to the LP’s taking the lead.

I want to ask the Official Opposition to wake up now. While they were sleeping like Rip van Winkel, South Africa has undergone major changes. Hon members must note that I am not saying it was reform. The time has come for the Official Opposition to start living in the present.

I now want to speak about economic matters. Since the hon the State President announced his upgrading programme, an amount of R726 million has been made available for the upgrading programme up to and including the 1988-89 financial year. The funds have been used mainly for urban Black depressed areas. I have no objection to that, but the hon the Minister will have to tell me what definite and concerted efforts are being envisaged to upgrade the rural depressed areas, such as the Karoo, the North-West and Namaqualand. Those places, as well as others in the Transvaal and the Free State, need the servicing of plots and the improvement of infrastructure. There must be a clear programme indicating all upgrading in phases so as to give the voters courage again.

In the Additional Appropriation an amount of R75 million was allocated for 1987-88 for Black, Coloured and Indian transport services to subsidise bus commuters. Now the hon the Minister says the main reason for this is the establishment of regional services councils, which has resulted in contributions collected from employees falling away and therefore no longer accruing to these various accounts. As I understand the functions of the regional services councils with regard to transport, it was intended that these bodies should take over urban transport, particularly in the light of the Government’s policy of rationalisation. The hon the Minister must give more clarity in this regard. Was there in fact a prior study of the levy which companies have to pay? Another question is whether the ceiling the Government has set for the RSCs is perhaps too low.

More important, however, is that the hon the Minister says that in future it will only be necessary to provide bus subsidies for Black commuters. There is an increase of 46,9%, which represents an amount of R470 million which is provided in the budget for transport. I find that in order, but what about the Coloured commuters who have been driven away from their places of employment and places where they shop because of the Group Areas Act? They must also be subsidised. Not only are those citizens suffering financial losses, but physical losses as well. What I mean is that these people have to get up very early to get to their places of employment on time, and they get home very late at night. Some fathers only see their children over weekends, because the children are asleep when they leave in the mornings and when they get home at night.

Since I am talking about transport, I want to say in all sincerity that the hon the State President’s economic speech at the opening of Parliament, which was widely welcomed, was contradicted to some extent by the hon the Minister of Finance in his Budget speech in the subsection “Additional levy on heavy vehicles”. If the hon the Minister really wants to curb inflation in the present financial year, this step will have to be reconsidered. This additional levy on heavy vehicles is definitely going to push up inflation. It has a definite effect on tariffs. The businesses concerned will have to increase the prices of their products, and this will result in a chain reaction in respect of prices and tariffs. Now I want to know how that can be consistent with reality. In this case the reality is that the man in the street has not been given an increase, but he has to pay more for products because of increased tariffs. The fact of the matter is that the South African roads have not kept up with the rapid increase in the use of roads.

I should like to recommend that the hon the Minister take the characteristics of the consumer levy into account. The first requirement by which such a levy should be assessed, is that it should cover the cost or expenditure on such a service. That is why I am asking whether in-depth cost benefit studies have been carried out.

One also has to identify who the real consumer is. However, it could possibly be a good consumer levy.

Before I conclude, I want to ask the hon the Minister to order an investigation into the Bellville revenue office, and possibly other revenue offices as well. The reason for my request is that the staff at the Bellville revenue office in particular are not properly trained. I have proof to support this statement, which I want to discuss with the hon the Minister later. I just want to mention one example, however. Mr A completed his income tax return and sent it to the revenue office. The Receiver of Revenue addressed letters to him. In three letters which Mr A received, there was a difference of between R2 000 and R3 000 each time. Something is very wrong somewhere. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, one of the most important aspects of the economic decisions which the hon the State President mentioned in his opening address on 29 January is the effect those decisions would have on the country’s growth rate and on inflation in the future. Almost every aspect of the proposed plan has a direct bearing on the country’s economic capacity for future growth. The same applies to the measures used to tackle the problem of inflation directly. Apart from the political problems facing this country, inflation is certainly public enemy number one, and, in addition, it is so intertwined with politics, that it confirms the saying that like every person, every country has to pay for its mistakes. Most Western countries have forced their inflation rate down to single figures by way of stricter monetary discipline. One could look at countries like Japan, Switzerland, West Germany, and even Britain, for example.

The only way in which they were able to do this, was by manufacturing surpluses in consumer goods and creating surpluses in services for the export market. Poor South Africa, however, cannot even export its surplus maize at production cost, because its markets are too poor. In addition, South Africa is too unpopular. Poor South Africa cannot even “export” its athletes with pride. This country is politically unacceptable. Which hon member has not thought of Zola Budd, Sidney Maree or Mark Plaatjies with sympathy?

It was encouraging to see how seriously State departments—like the SATS and the Post Office—have implemented the State President’s recommendations by not announcing increases in salaries. A major question arose immediately, however. Would the private sector co-operate? It was clear that this announcement would have limited potential to succeed, because the problem is that there is already a shortage of skilled labour and that businesses are competing for the services of these people. If they do not appoint the right key man for a particular position, they have no choice but to buy the right person.

What is more, the power the trade unions have gained in the eighties has been overlooked. A classic example of this is that under pressure from Cawusa, Pick ’n Pay has granted wage increases despite the hon the State President’s request.

I now want to devote my attention to my constituency. The first institutions to disregard the hon the State President’s example were the bus transport services in George and Mossel Bay. Now I ask hon members: Who is affected here? It is the poor, those who live six kilometres or more from their place of employment, those who are badly paid and those who live in dilapidated houses. They are the ones who are affected. Their wages were not increased, because the hon the State President set the example.

The price of diesel was in fact reduced, but there was no relaxation, and the reduction in the price of fuel was not passed on to the consumer. We have just returned from the Easter recess. There were many deaths on our roads—the death toll was a record in South Africa. The NRSC has projected that, according to the present rate of road deaths, 100 000 people are going to die on South African roads in the next 10 years, and for every one person who dies on the border, 10 people will die on the roads.

The national traffic department also claims that it is going to cost R46 million to empty the roads of unlicensed drivers who, in many cases, are responsible for the many deaths. The South African Government, is shying away from using funds for this purposes, however. Yet South Africa has millions of rand available to implement apartheid. This gives rise to the question: Is the implementation of an ideology more important than the lives of so many people?

Mr Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon the Minister on the earnestness with which he and the hon the State President want to get the country’s economic machine moving. The hon the Minister’s policy of privatisation and deregulation is definitely going to have a positive effect on the tightness of the economic machine.

There are certain aspects which I am concerned about, however. Firstly, there is the degree of polarisation which exists between Whites and people of colour in this country. There are various concepts and perceptions which give rise to the degree of polarisation which exists at present. I want to address this problem today, but I want to approach it from a political point of view.

Until recently, the NP’s policy was mainly one of partition, and the result was nationalisation. The NP has learnt from that mistake. Yes, Sir, it has learnt, because this had an exceptionally detrimental effect on the taxpayer.

Great expense was incurred to settle the approximately 7 to 10 million Black people in the national states. The economic interdependence of Blacks and Whites began to take large chunks out of our economy when Black people were settled far from their places of employment and more comprehensive commuter services had to be introduced. Later a policy of decentralisation became necessary, which further impoverished the taxpayer.

Companies had to be re-established in Black areas with costly tax concessions. In 1982 it cost almost R20 000 to create an employment opportunity in a metropolitan area. In the same year it cost R60 000 to create the same job in a decentralised area. This is a huge waste of money. Research has shown that 20% of the companies which are decentralised at present, are, or could be, economically self-sufficient if their so-called concessions were taken away from them. “Soft loans” were needed to create infrastructure in decentralised areas. These are all things for which money was used. Employment opportunities in these areas became a drain on the country’s economic prosperity, instead of resulting in economic progress. A low economic real growth rate was the order of the day, which caused a lack of money needed to uplift the Blacks and other communities in the country. This, in turn, led to political unrest.

I do not have the time to elaborate on the consequences of what political unrest in the country has cost. I shall deliberately refrain from doing so. White taxpayers are advocating a certain idea, and that makes me very sad, because it is causing polarisation among our people. White taxpayers are in fact claiming that they are doing us a favour by agreeing that the tax collected from them can be used for the upliftment of our people. However, it is false to claim that the tax they pay is being used for the upliftment of our people. I want to support this standpoint by pointing out that the other communities in the country do not live only on handouts from the Whites. I am not saying this to score points, but it is a fact. We work jolly hard, and we do our share in this country. We render the most essential services and labour, and for this reason we should be treated with the necessary respect. A White person once had the audacity to tell me to my face that Whites pay a great deal of tax to develop our people economically, but that we do not appreciate it. That person told me this to my face. According to him, that is also the reason for the large degree of polarisation among the Whites, in other words, why there is so much support for the CP in this country. According to this person, the Whites support the CP because tax has become costly and because the taxpayers have become impoverished as a result. That is not a reproach that either my people or I wish to hear, however. In my opinion, Whites like the person concerned say that kind of thing just to ease their conscience.

At one stage this House pointed out to the hon the Minister that the NP’s policy of apartheid was costing the country too much money. The hon the Minister reacted by stating that other countries also pay for their policies, and that the South African economy was not struggling only as a result of apartheid. He said that there were economic problems in countries where there was no apartheid as well. He was saying, therefore, that apartheid is not put forward as a reason as to why South Africa is struggling so much at this stage. From what the media report, however, the results are clear. One can see what the effect of this policy is on South Africa. The fact remains that apartheid is a burden to the economy. The sooner the Whites in this country realise that, the better for all of us. [Interjections.]

Another argument advanced by the so-called right wing, as well as certain Nationalists who are leaning slightly towards the CP, is that without the White’s level of civilization and their technical skills and inputs, South Africa would have stagnated completely. Sir, there is no doubt that the Whites have made a contribution, but surely the Blacks have also contributed.

Let us look at the oldest civilization to have had an influence on European civilization—even before the Whites came here. Which civilization was that? It was Egyptian civilization. Today we have an Egyptian woman in our Chamber. In this country she is classified as a Coloured person. Egyptian civilization made a tremendous contribution. There was no real question of colour as far as the development of the world was concerned. People, irrespective of colour, were responsible for this.

Today South Africa still imports technical products from countries such as Taiwan. [Interjections.] People of colour live in Taiwan, if one looks at the pigment. They are leaders in the field of technology, however. I want to emphasise that the interdependence of people is a reality. Whites, Blacks and all the other population groups we have in our country are interdependent on one another.

Africa has not become impoverished only as a result of Black ignorance. We must abandon that idea. Africa has become impoverished also as a result of exploitation because of White colonialism. [Interjections.] We are not trying to score points. Nor am I trying to reproach or object unnecessarily, thereby polarising people. These are realities, however, and we have to live with them. I therefore concede that it is a good thing for the hon the Minister and the hon the State President to come forward with new initiatives in respect of deregulation and privatisation. It is a good solution. I only hope that monopolies do not arise as a result of deregulation and privatisation in particular. The people of colour in this country must also benefit. They must be involved economically. The involvement of people of colour in the economy will merely strengthen our economy.

In the past the Government has truly done everything in its power to implement partition. I am pleased that the hon the Minister said in the no-confidence debate in the House of Assembly the other day that partition would not work in this country. It is simply too costly to succeed.

We shall simply have to learn to live together in this country and each one will have to do his share in an honest manner. South Africa’s mineral wealth will not last for ever. Our biggest alternative wealth is the Black masses. Let us involve them economically and see what happens to South Africa then.

Mr Speaker, when the House started its business earlier this afternoon, I sat back very expectantly to listen to how the hon member for Mamre would continue the speech he made yesterday. My satisfaction was cut short, however, when the hon member merely rose to read a quotation aloud and then resumed his seat. I agree wholeheartedly with the hon member for Mamre, who addressed the spectre of sanctions, because I know that it is the lesser privileged in South Africa in particular who will have to pay a high price for them. I also realise that South Africa will lose a great deal as regards technical progress as we depend on the West in that respect at the moment. In spite of this, however, I am not totally in despair. I read the hon the Minister of Finance’s speech made before the IMF last year in which he said that disinvestment in South Africa would also have a detrimental effect on the entire region south of the Sahara. Southern Africa is certainly dependent upon South Africa.

I want to state clearly that disinvestment will be less detrimental financially to South Africa than many of us may think because, firstly, we can sell productive assets at a written-down value and, secondly, capital will only be able to flow out of the country by means of the financial rand. We have already seen that we are able to counter sanctions. One need only think of the arms embargo which was applied against South Africa a decade or so ago, yet today we export arms. In the long run sanctions can offer a golden opportunity to replace imports and then I want to say that sanctions can only emphasise self-sufficiency in South Africa. Industrial development can then be expedited and we can be proud of what is distinctive to our country.

For these reasons I think the hon member for Mamre should have told the policy-makers he met during his travels abroad that they should start applying a type of Marshall Plan to South Africa. They must furnish our people, who have been less privileged over the years, with financial assistance so that we can be lifted up out of our poverty. I want to rectify one statement which the hon member for Mamre made yesterday, however. He said that South Africa was supposedly the only democratic country in Africa. That is certainly not the truth. I think Botswana is the only democratic country in Africa. I think South Africa is semidemocratic, with a racially aristocratic substructure. That is how I see it. [Interjections.]

I no longer find it pleasant to participate in the Second Reading debate of the Main Appropriation as I have to struggle with a bone which has been picked bare. [Interjections.]

I can assure hon members that, after the House of Assembly and the House of Representatives have discussed the Budget and I now have to participate at the tail end of the discussions in the House of Representatives, it has really been very difficult for me to find something to say and to build up a case around it. Yesterday evening I even took a look at the evidence given before the standing committee and that has been exhausted too. That is why I should like to scrutinise in brief the question of urbanisation and the improvement of the quality of life of the South African community in my argument.

I also have to address certain aspects of the budgetary proposals, however. I think it would be only right to thank hon members who participated in the debate, because I intend linking up to a great extent with matters they addressed. I want to congratulate the hon member for Schauderville in particular on a striking speech. I was perhaps able to appreciate it better than other hon members in the House as the hon member furnished me with a copy of his speech shortly before he rose to speak. Unfortunately I cannot support the hon member in his plea for the rejection of the Bill before the House but I agree wholeheartedly with the hon member’s request for the repeal of the Group Areas Act, the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act and the Population Registration Act. I know even the hon the Minister supports this standpoint as these laws are a handicap to our economy. I should like to hear what the hon the Minister has to say about this in his reply.

Earlier this year, during the discussion of the Part Appropriation, I welcomed the new economic policy as it was spelt out by the hon the State President and promised our wholehearted support. During his opening address, the hon the State President announced an economic strategy which not only created expectations among the private sector about the public sector’s participation in the economy, but was also important owing to the announcement of an anti-inflationary policy and a policy of deregulating the economy. It is very clear that the Government is aware of the importance of a long-term economic policy. A long-term policy can lead to the stabilisation and development of the modern sector in time. A long-term policy can lead to the promotion of inward industrialisation with a view to satisfying the requirements of an ever-growing urban population. Nevertheless it is very important that a long-term policy promote regional development, for which a few of my hon colleagues appealed in the House.

Furthermore I want to discuss a few proposals in the hon the Minister’s Budget speech in brief. Firstly, a White Paper on changes in the taxation structure, as recommended in the Margo Report, has been published. Throughout the Margo Report proposed a policy by which individuals should pay less personal tax. The question now arises in my mind whether the average man—the poor man whom I represent in the House—will really be better off after the latest Budget speech. As matters appear now, John Citizen will pay more in indirect taxation—which the hon the Minister either levied or increased in his Budget speech. It is as clear as daylight that personal and indirect taxation make up more than 60% of State revenue at the moment.

Secondly—the hon member for Robertson referred to this—the hon the State President writes in full-page advertisements in the Sunday papers that “we have to tighten our belts”. No general salary increases have been announced for public servants this year and both the hon the State President and the hon the Minister have appealed to the private sector to do the same.

I have personally lost count of the number of price increases since the Main Appropriation was introduced on 16 March, however. Consequently it is essential that the Government and the hon the Minister of Finance in particular should launch a monitoring action and be able to do this without deliberately interfering in the economy. It is essential that information on this be made known to the public or the consumer. As I have mentioned salary increases, I want to say that a rumour is going about that teachers will possibly receive a 10% salary increase.

Thirdly, to my mind insurance companies play a vital role in capital creation. The hon the Minister said in his Budget speech that the percentage would be increased from 40% to 70% in the formula. Quite a few organisations—and not only insurance companies—gave evidence before the committee and branded this as undesirable. These new proposals have a definite effect on policyholders’ bonuses and the hon the Minister will readily concede, in spite of what he said earlier this week in the House of Assembly, that a certain insurance company acted within its rights by informing its clients accordingly.

I said so on TV.

Insurance is the poor man’s way of saving. To me it is also a welcome way to save in the light of our inability to obtain any more foreign loans. Mr Donald Gordon of a well-known insurance company deals with the matter in a masterly fashion when he says the following in The Star of 30 March:

Consequently I regard it as essential that the hon the Minister review this recommendation in the coming financial year.

The entire question of minimum taxation of companies also elicited wide discussion. I want to mention that certain witnesses disparaged this as “ill-considered” before the standing committee while others said it had been used as “a last resort” but I read the following in Business Mail of 24 March:

Sir, this was very good news to me. The question occurs to me, however, as to where the Government will find the R350 million next year which is being acquired by means of the minimum tax on companies this year.

Mining in particular also objected very strongly, since the implementation of minimum tax on companies anticipated the findings of the Org Marais Committee. South African gold mines especially have been the backbone of our economy for decades and it is therefore undesirable that they should be overtaxed at this stage. Nevertheless statistics indicate that there has been a drastic decrease in income from tax on gold mines over the past few years, but who in this House can argue away the enormous investments of gold mines? I am referring to investments in infrastructure and also in people. Beautiful homes have been erected in towns such as that beautiful town, Klerksdorp, where I come from. There are also other towns everywhere in the country and I am thinking especially of the Black town called Naledi at Middelburg.

The hon the Minister himself gave great prominence to the important role of the mining industry during an international conference in Johannesburg. I should like to quote him as follows from The Citizen of 16 September 1986:

• Accounted for 10 per cent of the South African GDP
• Provided the State Revenue Fund with R2,6 billion during 1985 in the form of lease payments and taxation
• Provided employment for more than 500 000 people on the mines.

I am quoting the article especially because I want to make doubly sure that we do not cut the throat of the goose that lays the golden eggs.

A very sensitive matter during the standing committee sitting was the voting of funds for agricultural purposes. I cannot express it better than the hon member for Riversdal did yesterday. It is very clear that agriculturalists of colour are being discriminated against. [Interjections.] The agricultural sector forms an important component of our economy and it is our standpoint that agriculture must be a general affair. I want to place it on record, for hon members who do not know this, that the hon the Minister gave us the assurance in the standing committee that he would give financial assistance to Coloured agriculturalists facing ruin. I want to ask the hon the Minister whether he still intends honouring this promise.

How many promises have I ever broken?

Sir, I do not want to go into the breaking of promises, but the hon the Minister’s reply is affirmative, for which I wish to thank him heartily.

Have I confirmed it?

Assistance to agriculturalists has been confirmed and I want to thank the hon the Minister heartily for this.

In my reaction to the Budget speech I congratulated the hon the Minister on the greater stability our economy is experiencing at present. I want to repeat these congratulations here. In spite of negative tendencies in world economy, South Africa has started showing some growth over the past few years. Sir, this growth has been such that there has really been a revival within the country. But what is more, Sir, we have been able to pay foreign loans and arrange settlements with foreign creditors. In this regard I should like to quote the hon the Minister when he appeared before the annual general meeting of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the International Monetary Fund in Washington last September. He said the following there:

Sir, that takes some doing. That is why I say we should like to congratulate the hon the Minister on the way in which he and his advisors have tried to set our economy to rights.

Next I want to address the question of urbanisation. In April 1985 the Government requested the Committee for Constitutional Affairs of the President’s Council to conduct an inquiry into an “orderly urbanisation process for South Africa”. The report was MDFRsubmitted to Parliament in September 1985 and the Government’s reaction is contained in a White Paper which was tabled on 23 April 1986.

Urbanisation opens the door to growth. In the long term, urbanisation can hold unprecedented economic advantages for South Africa and this much-discussed inward industrialisation must now really get off the ground. Dynamic urbanisation and the development of small businesses can do a great deal to defuse the hostility which we find in some of our Black residential areas in particular.

The hon member for Schauderville referred in detail to the poor White question and it was clear from what he said that the Afrikaner nationalism which was apparent at the time was riddled with a type of African socialism to uplift the poor White. The rest of the people were left behind in the process, however, so we say today: Apartheid has served its purpose; abolish it now and give the other people a chance to get onto their feet as well. I am saying this because since the twenties only limited business activity has been permitted in the so-called locations surrounding cities and towns where Black people are concentrated. Control was applied by means of a system of licensing. For instance, nobody was permitted to launch more than one undertaking and manufacturing, in which our salvation lies today, was not permitted in those Black areas under any circumstances. Consequently urban development patterns were totally unbalanced. In contrast with this, one could establish more than one business in the so-called White areas and could manufacture to one’s heart’s content. There were stringent restrictions in Black areas, however.

If we examine urban residential areas today, we see they consist of ethnic capsules. This is the result of influx control—which has fortunately been abolished—and group areas regulations. In addition, urbanisation has also been influenced by the strict implementation of legislation on slums, health and housing. [Interjections.] I am not talking about the “Slamse” now. [Interjections.] I am referring to slums. I do not believe we really have an equivalent in Afrikaans for the word “slums”. In this way the establishment of slums was kept under control but this curbed the development of active informal accommodation and a business tradition.

Today the Government has started to realise that activities in the informal sector are essential to the development of a balanced urban tradition. The Government has started to realise that instead of restricting a man who shows initiative in his back yard, one should rather encouraged him. The hon the Minister knows as well as I do that there are certain ways of getting the economy going which cost money, but there are also others which do not cost money. The only thing one has to do is just to keep out of the way so that people can get on with what they are really able to do. Consequently we welcome the newly announced policy of deregulation, because it offers room for individual creative ability.

Just think, Sir, how much genius there has been over past decades which could not find expression because people were not offered the opportunity. [Interjections.] Although there are other reasons too, it was the unemployed in particular who usually resorted to unrest. Those who were employed did not have time for unrest; they got on with their work.

We see that an estimated 25% of our labour force is unemployed at the moment. In a specific microsituation like Soweto, 26% of these people between the ages of 20 and 64 are unemployed. I see in the latest quarterly bulletin of the SA Reserve Bank, however, that the current population census indicates that the Black unemployment rate declined from 1 180 000 to 922 000, or from 19,9% to 14,5% of the Black labour force, from July 1986 to September 1987.

This is still high, but unfortunately the conditions will continue as long as the population grows faster than the economy.

Our solution lies in the deregulation of all control measures, which will promote entrepreneurship, initiative and creative business. This must also apply to the rearrangement of priorities when it comes to the allocation of services such as infrastructure, access to training facilities, financing, advisory services and basic business space. Is it not high time to reconsider racially orientated group areas, because how can deregulation come into its own if mobility continues to be hampered? One cannot promote self-interest and stability at any price. Does the hon the Minister realise what a great moral price one now has to pay for a peaceful, homogeneous residential area?

I now want to pause at the concept of the quality of life. To me the quality of life is concerned with the fact that people must be given the opportunity to live life to the full, in other words to have adequate opportunities and facilities at their disposal, but at the same time to be able to utilise these opportunities and facilities fully.

In this regard it is important to get one’s priorities straight. Before one does this, one must identify a target group. It is also essential to determine what percentage of the population will be affected by this. In addition, one must determine how great the effect on that group of people will be and also what the effect of the decision will be on the country in general. Education, medical services and housing are among the facilities and services the State has to put at the disposal of all people. Unlike many other Western countries, South Africa is not a materially privileged country; rather it is a developing one. Added to this, the distribution of prosperity among the heterogeneous population groups is unbalanced for historical, but especially political reasons. Prosperity, as well as opportunities of choice, are unequally distributed in the country. The country can no longer afford this and consequently existing and developing facilities must be utilised jointly and effectively.

The White community must be made aware that the standard of education to which it has become accustomed actually depends on a position of privilege which will have to be surrendered in the long run for the sake of a more equitable distribution of opportunities and resources with a view to a higher standard of living for all the inhabitants of South Africa. I want to point out to the hon the Minister that when those of colour note that Whites’ quality of life is perceptibly higher than their own, they obviously accept that they are entitled to the same standards. Nevertheless they also see that Whites maintain a certain standard of living at the expense of their own standard of living and this is interpreted as injustice.

The time has passed when judgement on the part of the Whites of other groups’ living situation can be based primarily on knowledge of people, especially in the workers’ or domestic situation. Contact with other people must be sought on far more levels and must be promoted in order to counter the force of distorted perceptions and expectations.

Until such time as the Government strives purposefully to make opportunities and facilities available to all, the hon the Minister of Finance will find it very difficult to make the economy run smoothly.

Mr Speaker, I see the purpose and function of my address at this late hour basically as that of underscoring what so many hon members have already said during this debate. First of all, however, on behalf of the House I want to congratulate the hon member for Elsies River, Mr Paul Kleinsmidt, whose wife gave birth to a son this morning. [Interjections.]

Before I continue, I have to look at what was relevant in today’s issue of Die Burger.

*Sir, I must say that I have never tried, either in this House or elsewhere, to blame Die Burger for my problems, because I have no problems in my caucus. My problem lies in what is interpreted as being a problem. The whole question of the problem which supposedly exists, has in fact been the wish of Die Burger since last year. I can only see this paper as an agent provocateur, in the sense that it tries to create difficulties where none exist.

The facts have undoubtedly been twisted. In this morning’s Die Burger, the one of 20 April, it is reported that once again they were simply reporting “accurately”. I do not know how a report can be accurate when it is based on hearsay. I find that difficult to understand. Furthermore they say that I had initiated a turnabout this year, that had led to negotiations which have now led to this joint debating. Once again that is not true. It was not a matter of a turnabout at all. It concerned the establishment of what we believed had to be the basis for the establishment of the opportunity for joint debates. Nor did it only start this year. I mentioned that here the other day. The discussion—not a turnabout—concerning the introduction of joint debates started at high level last year. We spoke to the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament as well as Ministers in the Cabinet and we did negotiate to some extent—on two occasions this year for more than an hour. Consequently it should not be viewed as a turnabout as far as joint debating is concerned; it should rather be seen as a serious attempt to establish what we wanted.

The report in Die Burger goes on to say—

Sir, I wonder how Die Burger interprets the major victory in the Cold Bokkeveld. I think The Argus pointed out in its leading article that that increase, as well as the fact that we took the seat, must be attributed to the fact that there is a greater measure of support and acceptance of the LP. I believe that Die Burger’s editor is in fact groping in the dark.

It is precisely because we take constructive action that we are here. If we did not act constructively, we would be outsiders. What is now being seen as confrontation is in fact the consequence of determined leadership. What they want already exists. By participating we stated clearly where we were going, and how we wanted to get there, and we hope that this country will arrive at that new situation. We know where we are heading and it is in that spirit that we are here.

The columnist also touched on this topic in his column. On the one hand there are truths and on the other untruths, but he was telling the truth when he said:

I think that is my position. I have explained our position repeatedly. I am not white at the moment; consequently I shall probably never become blue, perhaps purple. [Interjections.] It is true, however, that it is entirely a question of perceptions. The fact that we cannot imagine ourselves in the position of other people and that of people of colour gives rise to these differing perceptions and misconceptions. That is why a sound understanding of others’ perceptions is going to be very necessary. The columnist also said that the present system would have to be marketed well, but then one wonders whether it is easy to speak well of the present system.

It is true that a lot has been achieved by our participation, and I shall return to that in a moment. When things go wrong, however, it is difficult for us to market the present system. We made it clear in Eshowe that this system should be seen as a transitional phase in moving away from where we were before, hopefully to the point we want to reach, but as a final product it cannot be lauded in any way. As far as final decision-making is concerned, we still find ourselves in a position of White domination and White decision-making.

It is important that hon members of the NP who condemn us, and especially the editor of Die Burger, should not forget where we come from, and must not lose sight of our people’s history. We are familiar with hardship, injustice and oppression. I, the former leader of the Official Opposition, and others in this House have paid the price under the present Government in that this Government had us locked up. I spent 60 days in solitary confinement. People forget that this Government did that, and that the same Government is still doing things like that to our people. They forget where they came from. I shall come back to this point later. Allow me merely to say what our position is as a result of our participation.

†This party, of which I am proud to be the leader, is dedicated, as was said yesterday by our hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare, to promoting and advancing the dignity, rights, socio-economic and cultural wellbeing of all South Africans. That is what we are dedicating ourselves to.

However, we are saying very clearly that we differ from those outside who have opted for other strategies. We have written this into the preamble to our constitution—“through responsible negotiation”. That is where we stand.

Negotiation, however, does not mean that one can be dictated to. Negotiation means that you come forward with what you have and hope, while I come forward with what I have and hope for, and by talking to each other and exchanging ideas we reach consensus. In our present situation, however, when consensus is not reached because of an unwillingness to be browbeaten and to kowtow to the desires, hopes, fancies, beliefs and ideologies of the NP, one is accused of not being prepared to negotiate and one is termed a confrontationalist.

This party is dedicated to the cultural, social and economic advancement of all South Africans. As has already been said this afternoon in this House, we cannot forget the strategies and the means which were employed by the Afrikaner to get to where he is—first by negotiation, then by participation and then by a process of upliftment as a result of the first two. Because of those three things the Afrikaner could move out of the subculture of poverty to a situation where today he finds himself economically the strongest. What we say is that we must not forget their experience; and they, because of their experience and because they have reached the heights, should not deny others the opportunity of upliftment and of getting to where they want to be.

We want to state emphatically—hence we are here and hence we are participating in this debate—that we are opposed to all forms of communism. We believe that the fundamental method—I want to underscore this—of defeating communist influence is not the rigid application of laws that have been made to deal with circumstances, but the positive maintenance of a free democracy, the total rejection of all forms of political totalitarianism. If decision-making is a White prerogative and if there is no powersharing in the real sense—I admit that we are in a situation of limited power-sharing—we would see it as a form of totalitarianism. At one time the then Prime Minister spoke about the division of power, and in the old CRC we rejected those 12 points which included the division of power because of the fact that division could be unequal. As I say, that is a form of totalitarianism which is certainly immoral.

We are opposed to all forms of racial discrimination and we believe fundamentally in the right of the individual. It is on this that we differ with the ruling party in the House of Assembly, because by law and by discrimination the right of the individual is denied. We believe the right of the individual to make the choices he or she wants to make is paramount. We also believe that the State exists to serve the individual and not that the individual exists to serve the State. There has to be a healthy relationship. If we were to talk about the individual per se as having to serve the State, we would certainly be embracing a Marxist concept, and we certainly reject that totally.

We support the rule of law and we want to say this emphatically, despite being accused in the Afrikaans Press time and time again of being confrontationalists or of leaning towards the other side.

We support the rule of just law—I emphasise “just law”—because there is no place in our present and our future society for chaos. It is absolutely essential that development take place in an orderly fashion.

We oppose the exploitation of cheap labour and we shall certainly continue to work tirelessly towards a national economy based on full production, full employment and equal opportunities for all people. Furthermore, as was mentioned by the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare yesterday, we consider it absolutely important that we seek to extend social security to all people with special provision for the aged and the infirm, regardless of income and status. When we look at the present situation, we see that differentiation in income has certainly become a major factor in the whole question of welfare, pensions and grants.

Let me mention just a few examples. In terms of the means test, a Coloured applicant whose assets exceed R28 000 is not eligible for pension, but a White applicant whose assets exceed R42 000 is not eligible. [Interjections.] So one has here a discriminatory practice, because if one has an asset, for example a house, to the value of more than R28 000 and one is Coloured, one gets no pension. If one is White, however, one can have an asset to the value of R42 000. Sir, we did not determine the means test.

It is also true that if one is Coloured and one’s income is in excess of R1 764 per annum, one does not qualify for a pension. If one is White, however, one can have an income of R2 616 and still qualify. [Interjections.] Differentiation again!

It is important to realise that by our participation we have committed ourselves—like the hon the Minister did in 1985 when we met in the Cabinet Committee on Finance—to the principle of parity. When we arrived at that meeting in 1985 the old story of percentage increases was on the agenda. The gap would be narrowed on a percentage basis so that the Whites would receive an increase of 8%, Indians 10%, Coloureds 12,5% and Blacks 15%. So, in the eyes of the non-thinker, it looked very good in that the Whites would receive 8% whereas the Blacks would receive 15%. One can make the calculations oneself, however, and one will soon realise that 15% of R60 is certainly far less than 8% of R200.

Swindling!

This principle was accepted, however, because for the first time there was going to be an equal bonus across the colour line. I think the amount was R35.

R36.

It was R36 at that particular time, but it was going to be an equal bonus for Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Blacks. The principle accepted in that year was that for the first time the increase in pensions would be equal for all groups. Disparity continued to exist, however, because of the fact that we were not able to narrow the gap. So, today, a White pensioner has an income of R218 and a Coloured pensioner an income of R167.

We were able to give our pensioners an additional amount in 1986 and this enabled us to reduce the gap. However, we will go into the whole question of representation for pensioners at a later stage.

I have mentioned the nine points already, and would now like to come to the tenth which states that we are dedicated to advocating a free national education system, devised to enable all able students of all races equal opportunities to receive the highest specialised training. We have already heard this afternoon how education is separated. We must just remind the hon the Minister that the fact still remains that that which is separate is inherently inferior. Thus we get our ethnic universities, Coloured education, Indian education, White education and Black education. That is why we find ourselves in the present economic situation.

I believe that time is of the essence. The pressures from inside and the pressures from outside indicate this to us. The oppressive policies, inspired by White fears, have gone a long way to polarise the total South African nation.

I also believe that Black goodwill can be regained if we in Parliament can assist in removing those White fears. If this happens, a whole new political era, based on reconciliation, will be opened up. However, if the process of polarisation—we heard this here this afternoon—proceeds unhindered, any remaining Black goodwill—and I thank God it is still there—will evaporate and be replaced by the politics of retribution. May God forbid that this happens. There will be retribution for past suffering, and unless we do something about it now, the worst fears of Whites will become a reality.

In dealing with a changing world, we also have to accept that we will have to compromise. This does not mean that we shall have to abandon our principles in a cowardly way. We must accept the inevitable, however: A new situation is going to demand give and take from all of us and a willingness to consider the viewpoints, the hopes, the desires, and the aspirations of other people.

John Morley had the following to say in his famous essay on compromise:

We should never forget that in a free society no individual, group or nation can expect to have it entirely his or its own way. If this happens it will be disastrous for everybody concerned. It has been said that man is innately too selfish and too ignorant to be entrusted with much power over his fellow men, and a satisfactory settlement of any issue is usually one that satisfies no one. I do not think it necessary to dwell on the issue as to whether all groups in South Africa have to be accommodated in a new constitutional dispensation. I think we are all agreed on that point. As a point of departure we have accepted that all groups have to be part of the constitutional system which the Whites have been dominating for many centuries, and which they continue to dominate. However, this will not only entail the broadening of democracy, but also the elimination of the desire for the continuation of that domination.

The present dispensation has, to a certain extent, succeeded in proving that consensus politics is possible. My party remains of the opinion, however, that the present dispensation within the South African framework is doomed to failure, especially if we continue on the road we are now on. The present dispensation can certainly have positive effects, but in the long run such a dispensation can only add to the frustrations and dissatisfaction being experienced by us and by all others who are excluded from participation in all processes of decision-making.

It is so that South Africa’s plural society has to be taken into account in the formulation of an acceptable democratic and workable constitution. The problem, however, is that whatever system is devised will have to result in a balanced accommodation of White fears—which are real—and Black aspirations—which are also real. So, we enunciate four principles. Firstly, there should be one citizenship for all South Africans and universal suffrage within various governmental structures. Secondly, every community shall participate on a geographic or group basis in decision-making processes up to the highest level. Thirdly, equal opportunities should be granted to all citizens and injustice and inequality before the law should be rejected. And fourthly, in the accommodation of those fears, minorities should be protected so that no group can dominate the other.

I believe, however, that once we are in that situation it is going to be important for us to make a reappraisal of the approach and attitude of the hon the Minister of Finance, because I believe that his attitude does not contribute to the whole process of reconciliation. You see, Sir, the Afrikaners’ experience has been that of a vertical upliftment in order to achieve a horizontal equality. I want to relate that to our participation here and to the fact that we desired more money in order to uplift people socially and otherwise. I am talking about a vertical upliftment by means of which people of colour could reach a horizontal level of equality at which they could look the White man in the eye and negotiate the future of South Africa as equals.

Our allocation for the financial year 1987-88 could not meet our needs. Our Ministers’ Council then asked to meet with the Cabinet Committee on Finance. The hon the Minister refused, however, to meet with our Ministers’ Council. The reply we received was to the effect that nothing could be achieved by such a meeting. Now I ask hon members: Does this facilitate the process of reconciliation? Our Ministers’ Council is denied an opportunity whereas others have had an opportunity of placing on record what they thought they ought to receive.

It is also important to note, Mr Speaker, that the hon the Minister of Finance’s reaction—and he says this in his letter to me—was basically as a result of an article in the Cape Times of 21 March 1988. In other words, the article led the hon the Minister to respond by sending me a letter in which he said that he had authorised the Treasury to withhold R36,621 million.

It is a shame!

I can only say that before I had the opportunity of replying to his letter—unfortunately I cannot read the letter, because it is a secret document—he explained the situation to the South African nation on television. The hon the Minister said at a later stage that we should bear in mind that we are dealing with the hon members of the CP as well. The headline in the Cape Times created the impression that whereas Coloureds were going to get an increase, Whites were going to get nothing and that the CP was going to exploit that situation. Since the hon the Minister acted before giving me an opportunity to meet with him or even to reply—and I did reply—I can only believe that that was a racist reaction in terms of our present situation.

I then replied to the hon the Minister. I am not a financial expert or fundi, but we do have an accounting officer in our director-general for whom everyone in this House, as well as in the Ministers’ Council, has the highest respect. Without disclosing anything about our meeting with the hon the Minister, I want to say that I was perturbed and hurt by the attitude displayed by the hon the Minister to our accounting officer.

I will talk about that in a minute.

The hon the Minister is welcome to do that. The hon the Minister was bumping the table as if we were children and shouting as if we could not understand. This was a disgraceful attitude and display.

This amount includes an amount of nearly R40 million which was earmarked for the austerity programme. The Ministers’ Council consequently decided that they had the necessary funds to proceed with their announced programme.

As far as the amount of R36,621 million which was referred to in the letter is concerned, I cannot but express my own disappointment and that of the Ministers’ Council with the indication that the amount in the Budget will be suspended. This conduct is considered to be extremely unfair for the following reasons: It has been brought to the Treasury’s attention on numerous occasions that the allocation for welfare for the 1987-88 financial year was completely insufficient, and that an amount of more than R100 million would be necessary to supplement this shortfall. Our representations in this regard were apparently viewed sympathetically, because in his letter of 10 March 1988 the hon the Minister indicated that an amount of R103 623 million had in fact been allocated as an additional grant. However, the way in which the amount was to be financed, according to the hon the Minister, could not be realised.

Consequently there was no choice but to make use of the provision in section 7 (1) (b) (i) of the Exchequer and Audit Act, 1975, to wipe out the deficit in respect of the pension payments. I must point out that neither the administration nor I knew how the additional amount of R50 million which was granted in respect of a requested amount of more than R170 million, was made up. In fact only on the 10th of this month, in the letter to which I referred, were we informed on how the amount had been determined. Consequently it was not possible to make timeous representations to the hon the Minister in this regard.

What is important, however, is to note that the amount of R34 million which the hon the Minister took into account as being a greater return of interest and capital from the housing and development fund, may be utilised only for purposes approved by the relevant statutory boards in terms of the provisions of the Housing Act and the Development and Housing Act. As has been customary for decades, the aforementioned boards allocated the available funds for new housing or development projects. There can be no question, therefore, that the funds that had already been destined for other needs could simply be used for shortfalls in respect of pensions. It is clear that if the amount of R34 million to which the hon the Minister referred, and the inexplicable global cut of R20 million were not taken into account, it would not have been necessary to make use of the provision in the Exchequer and Audit Act, 1975.

Since it is clear to me that the austerity programme which the Ministers’ Council announced earlier is being used as a political ball game, and that my community can become the victims of blatant racial discrimination once again, the Ministers’ Council will have to forfeit its credibility if it does not proceed with the programme, which indeed does not differ in any way from other programmes in terms of which wage gaps and disparities in occupational differentiation are removed. As the hon the State President has announced, the aforementioned programmes are being proceeded with. Unfortunately, therefore, the Ministers’ Council cannot revoke its programme at this stage. If the hon the Minister insists, however, that the amount of R36,6 million be suspended, the Ministers’ Council will have no choice but to review its priority programmes and to suspend all services which in its opinion can be eliminated. In this regard services which maintain certain apartheid structures and which are not to the advantage of the Coloured community come to mind.

In conclusion I want to say that I support the hon the Minister’s view that we cannot proceed with an approach of overspending or suspension. We must be realistic, however. Decisions must bear witness of mutual understanding for one another’s problems. I should like to confirm once again that the administration is doing everything in its power to ensure that expenditure is kept within affordable limits, and that strict financial discipline is maintained.

Subsequently there was the unfortunate meeting, lasting an hour or more, with the hon the Minister.

†As I have said, the interview that took place on 30 March at 6 pm certainly was a farce and a failure and it underscored the whole question of continued “baasskap”. We must stop hiding behind increased expenditure, particularly educational expenditure. We expect to hear again that over the years there has been this percentage increase and so many millions more are now being spent on education in our particular sector than ever before. I have already indicated, however, that percentage increases reflect a lie. We must look at the difference in per capita expenditure, namely the difference between that which is now being expended on the Coloured child and the Black child and that which is now being expended on the White child. Hon members have already mentioned the cost of separate education and the cost of providing separate facilities.

It was also said at one time that the access to the Cabinet, in terms of the needs of people, has now been removed because of my resignation from the Cabinet. I would like to relate an actual incident to illustrate how absurd that view is. In February 1987 already I raised the whole question of the water problem at Heilbron. There was a shortage of R1,4 million, which the council expected to raise by increasing the water tariffs of the people in the Coloured and the Black township. We have not heard anything to this day. Whether it has gone somewhere else I do not know, but more than a year later I asked that R1,4 million be written off so that the burden of additional expenditure on the Coloured and African people at Heilbron could be lightened. Up to now I have still not received an answer. However, the Cabinet made a very easy and a very quick decision that R400 million be made available—before the election—to White farmers in need, people who are farming in the Western Transvaal, where they should never have farmed in the first place because of soil conditions and climatic factors.

Order! May I interrupt the hon the Minister? He must bear in mind that both the hon member Mr Douw and I come from the Western Transvaal. [Interjections.]

I do not believe that the hon member Mr Douw is a farmer, but perhaps you are more successful as a farmer, Mr Speaker. [Interjections.]

I would like to conclude, in order to give the hon the Minister of Finance some time to reply. We must continually ask ourselves why we are finding ourselves in our particular situation in South Africa today. Why is South Africa the target of boycotts, sanctions, disinvestment and isolation? Why is South Africa the polecat of the international community? We can only come to one conclusion—the conclusion that has been repeated here time and time again this afternoon, viz apartheid. Apartheid has been based primarily on race classification, which is not acceptable. It is becoming ridiculous, Sir. I read in this morning’s paper, for instance, that 459 Coloureds have now become White and 464 Blacks have now become Coloured. I wonder what happens to their offspring thereafter. I believe it is madness when by law a government assumes a divine right. I believe that God made man; he did not make Whites, Coloureds and Blacks.

The Group Areas Act has already been referred to and I have mentioned the fact that freedom of association and the right of the individual are certainly of paramount importance. However, when one looks at some of the countries where Marxism is the official policy, one sees that the right of free association is being denied in Marxist countries.

The right of the individual above the right of the State is being denied in Marxist countries. I wonder in which direction our country is going if we deny the right of the individual and freedom of association.

I am going to end in a moment, Mr Speaker, but I should just like to say, with regard to the Group Areas Act, that I am prepared to supply the hon the Minister and his wife and all the other hon Ministers in the Cabinet and their wives with tickets to go and see “Dit sal die blêrrie dag wees”, which is presently being staged at the Baxter theatre. Perhaps they will be able to live themselves into the situation and identify with the experience of the people of District 6 who were removed in terms of a law which I regard as iniquitous. We must once again be reminded in this House, Mr Speaker, of the truth of what Victor Hugo said. I quote him again:

We can never, we do never, and we shall never condone or support violence. One then has to remind the Afrikaners to be patient. The Afrikaners’ struggle against British imperialism and domination was a violent one. That was the Afrikaners’ response to the causing of the darkness, by the British. I believe this Government is trying to deal with the effects rather than to eradicate the cause.

When one looks, Mr President, … Oh, sorry, Sir, not quite President yet … [Interjections.] There are perhaps some people, Sir, who are aspiring toward becoming the next State President, but I do not believe that that dream will be translated into reality while policies and attitudes are racist.

When one thinks about the Arusha Conference, which took place from 1-4 December, 1987—it was organised by the association “Peoples of the World Against Apartheid and for Democratic South Africa”—and one thinks about the intention behind the action against this country, action that is being taken because of apartheid—one certainly has to conclude that now is the time for us to stop and review the whole South African situation.

I have just one page to go, Sir, but before I end I just want to mention how interested I was when I came across the following statement by Prof C F Miller on page 88 of his work Vyfhonderd Jaar van Suid-Afrikaanse Geskiedenis.

*I want to quote the professor. It is not that I want to endorse this, Sir, but I feel one should take it into account in the condemnation of other people. The excerpt reads as follows:

I also want hon members to hear what Dr Abduraman said at the tenth conference of the APO—African People’s Organisation—in Kimberley in 1913. I quote from page 43 of the book Suid-Afrika onder die Vloek van Apartheid by Steven de Broy:

Of course I do not endorse that kind of behaviour.

†May I just remind the hon the Minister, before I sit down, that we are meeting here this afternoon as victims of apartheid. The hon the Minister himself is a victim of apartheid. Every child who dies of malnutrition is a victim. Every White social outcast is a victim. Every demonstrator arrested or sentenced is a victim. I believe Zola Budd is a victim. Every person who is unemployed today is a victim. Every soldier dying in Angola is a victim. Every policeman dying while on duty is a victim. The hon the Minister may be a victim of White fear, but we are all victims of racism.

Although the Budget perpetuates racism and apartheid, circumstances demand that we agree to it. We do so with a heavy heart, however. We do so with sadness, and we cry for our beloved country.

Mr Speaker, we have reached the end of the final Second Reading debate on this year’s Main Budget. There were a number of speeches in all three Houses which have been recorded in Hansard. I want to tell the hon member Mr Douw, who made the last speech that dealt strictly with the Budget, that if he could manage that with a bare bone, he need not be ashamed of his contribution, because it is certainly not easy to be the last budget speaker in such a long line of speakers. He indeed made an excellent contribution. He contributed to knowledge in South Africa, and I thank him for that.

I want to congratulate the hon member for Elsies River—I see he is not here at the moment—on the birth of his son. We played cricket together the other day, and the best I can wish him as a fellow cricketer is that he will have an opportunity to play cricket with that new son of his one day.

I should like to ask hon members to give me an opportunity to complete my arguments. I shall reply to their questions with the greatest of pleasure—as has always been the case in this House—but when I am dealing with something specific today, I want to ask them please to withhold their questions until I have concluded my argument.

With regard to the whole debate about pensions, we can do a few very constructive things at this late hour this afternoon. In the first place we can remove the emotion, because we in the Government feel just as strongly about pensions as anyone else does. While on the one hand we admit that there are enormous backlogs in South Africa in a number of spheres, we as the Government and the Minister of Finance as the Government’s functionary are instruments with reference to finance within the unchangeable realities that we are working with. We cannot overbid one another, therefore, with reference to emotion concerning the matter, and I not going to say another emotional word about this.

We need not try to overbid one another as far as compassion is concerned either, because is there anyone in South Africa—let alone in the three Houses of this Parliament—who can say that enough is being done in our country, or in any other, for those who are needy? Of course not enough is being done.

In these circumstances in which one has the responsibility of maintaining a balance, one is not working with unrestricted means and sometimes one has to make the terrible choice—this is where government is harsh—of spending money on a road, a building, a vehicle or a gun instead of using it for compassionate reasons. That is the choice. Can one, therefore, when one has to decide on a comprehensive level between a rand for a bread for someone who is hungry and a rand for a gun take such a decision on any other basis than that of harsh reality and the harshness of the responsibility of government? No, Sir. In the process of emotion and compassion neither I nor any other colleague who works with currency needs to take a special look before a matter is considered. We know how it goes from day to day. In that evaluation it is a terrible experience for any normal person with feelings and emotions to have to make such a choice. Someone has to do so, however, and we have limited means.

The economy of a state is just like the housekeeping of an ordinary household. It is terrible for a father to have to tell his child that he cannot buy him something because he has to use his money to get to work the next day, and it is the last he has. The same kind of choice has to be made on a countrywide level. I shall admit frankly that I became very upset during that interview for a specific reason. I want to tell hon members what that reason was. I am going to declassify all the correspondence and take pains to place it on record here. It is going to take up a lot of time, but I think the history of this episode should be recorded on the basis of all the facts.

The choices I had to make that evening were personalised totally. I do not think that is fair. What I mean is that it was not I, Barend du Plessis, born at Orlando Station in a poor railways house, who made the choice about the priorities of the Budget. When I have to make a choice, it is as the Minister of Finance, and I find it a terrible experience to be confronted with that constantly as if it is my personal choice. It is not my personal choice. If I could have a personal choice, why on earth would I get up here tonight to say I was living in a country in which pensioners receive different pensions?

Sir, I have to work with realities and I have to accept that as a reality. If, however, I could make my personal choice, I would have filled that gap tonight. We can stop overbidding one another, therefore, about who has the most compassion and who feels most deeply about the matter.

We …

That is why, in our arguments about the matter, we must rid ourselves of suspicion and of forcefulness, because at the end of the day we are confronted by the cold reality of the balance we have to maintain in respect of these matters in South Africa. The struggle against poverty is one of the most difficult struggles in the country. Here is my hon colleague, who attended a Cabinet Committee meeting on economic affairs this morning. He can tell hon members in the caucus what we said about a specific matter this morning. I want to call him as a witness.

The struggle against poverty begins where the money has to be voted for this purpose. There is a struggle against poverty in the Ministry, as well as in the Department of Finance, but it is a long and hard struggle. It is a struggle that has to be conducted within the hard, cold, clinical realities. At the end of the day and in the interests of this country, the books have to balance. Our salvation does not lie in the constant division, to the very crumb, of the cake into equal parts. That is not where our salvation or our solution lies. Our solution lies in enlarging the cake, and we have a unique opportunity to do something about our economy this year.

I owe a great deal of thanks to all the hon members who submitted a neat analysis of the Budget and the economy to us in this House, and who acknowledged, and were prepared to say this for the record, that we had achieved results, because our economy is definitely growing. It is not growing enough, and that is a source of great sadness to all of us, but nevertheless it is growing. Economically speaking, we are moving out of one of the most difficult times in the whole of our history. This is an unqualified statement, and history can prove it. The hon member Mr Douw is a historian and he will be able to confirm it. For that reason it is a great disappointment to me personally, and also as the Minister of Finance, that we could not do more in many spheres. What were my advisers and I doing during our December holiday, however? I had a Fax machine with me and I could measure it exactly, but during that period I used more than 200 m of Fax paper. That is what we were doing in December in working on the guidelines the hon the State President had laid down for us.

With reference to privatisation, the hon the State President said we should sell the existing assets, that which belongs to the people of South Africa, in order to mobilise capital to discharge our debts. The second point is more important as far as our depressed areas and communities are concerned, however. Here we have a situation where, in recalling the problem to which the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council referred a moment ago, instead of having R1 million in shares somewhere, we can write off that money at Heilbron. One of the problems in taking such action is to know where to stop writing off money. If, however, one can launch a whole aid programme on a spectacular scale on the basis of the reutilisation of capital which is invested in Iscor and Eskom and Foskor and other places at the moment, one could perhaps do that. We cannot commence with privatisation in a dying economy, however, or while the economy is showing an increase in the inflation rate. We have a unique opportunity at the moment to iron out and resolve the basic problems that are threatening our economy. Hon members must not forget that as far as the pension situation is concerned, if we should succeed in reducing inflation significantly—and that is our objective—those who are suffering most, relatively speaking, viz our aged, are going to benefit most.

An indirect contribution was also made, therefore, to rectifying that matter.

On the basis of the hon the State President’s guidelines and those in the Budget, this Government has placed itself on a course of economic recovery which has far-reaching implications. It is already causing us problems in by-elections. What would have been more popular? I think it was the hon member for Riversdal, or one of the hon members there, who said that I had advocated a freeze in salaries. That is not true. We granted only partial salary increases. Despite the three imminent by-elections, the hon the State President was prepared to do a terribly unpopular thing. Why? Sir, he was looking at the next generation, not at the by-elections. The by-elections are important, naturally, and I shall come back to that in a moment with reference to what the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council said.

I want to refer to the question concerning the Director-General of this administration. It is true that he is in high repute as a director-general. I do not dispute his knowledge, but I did speak to him that night. Reference was made to this, and rightly so, because I do not want his career to be detrimentally affected as a result of uncertainty about what happened there. I addressed him on one important point. I told him it was not the Treasury’s task to check on whether the accounting officer knew his regulations. An accounting officer has to know the budgetary terminology, because he is accountable. I shall indicate in a moment what I mean in this connection.

Sir, the preamble to this Budget was a torment. It was not easy. I do not say this reproachfully, but unfortunately the hon the Ministers of this Ministers’ Council no longer enjoy the advantage of direct feedback from the Cabinet. In respect of the events that are being discussed now, I regard that as a great loss for this Ministers’ Council as far as the execution of its duties is concerned. I do not want to comment on that; I merely stated a fact.

On 4 December last year I wrote a letter, known as a letter of allocation, to all the Ministers who deal with Votes. I should like to have a large section of this letter put on record. I addressed the letter to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, and it began as follows:

Sir, the day secret things are made public, that Cabinet memorandum will stand out as a Cabinet memorandum which represents a watershed as far as the economy of our country is concerned. It was further elucidated on 1 December last year in a Cabinet meeting in which we dealt with these matters in detail. For the sake of completeness, I should like to refer to certain important points.

Hon members must not forget that a conviction exists among various schools of economists that the extent of Government expenditure is one of the main causes of a high level of inflation.

I do not want to say that I agree with that fully, or lay all that much emphasis on it, but in part at least it is the truth. I quote from the letter of allocation I wrote:

1. (i) Die algehele vlak van Staatsuitgawes is té hoog. Dit is dus noodsaaklik dat die jaarlikse groei in Staatsuitgawes in die jaar vorentoe heelwat afgeskaal sal moet word, ten einde toe te laat dat die tentatiewe oplewing in the ekonomie (waarvan daar reeds vroeë aanduidings is) momentum verkry.

My appeal is in the interests of the country. It involves enlarging the cake that has to be distributed. I continue to quote:

1. (ii) Die tekort voor lenings wat deur langtermynlenings gefinansier moet word, neem ook eksponensieel toe vanweë die feit dat belastinginkomste teen ’n beduidende laer jaarlikse tempo as Staatsuitgawes groei.

I want to emphasise this point. Revenue is increasing at a slower rate than expenditure. I quote once again:

My appeal is in the interests of enlarging the cake. I now quote point (iii) from my letter:

The simple truth is that current expenditure, such as pensions and salaries, which we are financing today, will still have to be paid by our children in the next century. It is just like someone who takes one of the parts off his car every day to sell it, so that he can buy something else. In the end there is nothing left of that car. I quote:

It is completely unacceptable.

I concluded the paragraph as follows:

I also appealed for the curtailment of Government expenditure, and pointed out the advantages this would hold. I also want to quote the following paragraph of my letter:

I made the point that this also applied to other hon colleagues. In the Schedule, under the Health Services and Welfare Vote, Programme 2, provision is made for an amount of almost R680 million for the promotion of welfare and continuation—this is treasury terminology and there is a specific definition for this in the regulations. In addition provision has been made for an amount of R800 000 for “place of safety: Bethelsdorp”. It has been indicated there. It represents an extension. It was at this point that I addressed the Director-General. This was the only extension that was envisaged under this Vote. It was dated 4 December. I have the definition for the concept “extension”. It means: “The scope of a specific programme in order to achieve an existing objective has to increase by more than the approved growth rate.” It cannot be made any clearer. That is what an extension means.

Now I ask what happened in the past. Are there examples of how this was done in the past? Yes, there are. I can refer to the printer’s proofs of 1985-86, but I shall rather stick to this year’s printer’s proofs. They say R688 million, but the Ministers’ Council contributed R8 million from their own revenue, which increases the amount I have just referred to, to R688 million.

There it is under welfare promotion. There is no reference to extension of pensions. In the past—on 5 December 1985—I wrote the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council a letter and at that stage we were in the fortunate position of being able to include a pension extension. Here it is, clearly: Plus social pensions—improvements, R30 million. That is how it is indicated. The letter of allocation did not follow the traditional pattern of indication, therefore.

Secondly, in the published documents of the Budget, it appeared clearly as a separate item in the Budget. On two grounds, therefore—grounds with which this Administration should be familiar—it was clear that no provision was made in the documentation for improvements from the central Treasury. All the taxpayers contributed to the Treasury on the income side, and the income, with added loans, was distributed on the basis of certain formulas and criteria. The Central Treasury had therefore done its distribution, as appears from the documentation that was in the possession of the Ministers’ Council in December.

Unfortunately, in view of the financial circumstances, I made it known at one stage that the demand for R798 million should be scaled down by R110 million. This is a difficult matter, and the closer we got to accuracy—as one gets closer to one’s estimates of revenue, one has to fit in the expenditure until the Budget is accurate—it was clear that, taking the proportional reduction of the allocation each one receives into account, we could not include an improvement. Unfortunately I saw that that morning, and immediately I was struck by the implications. What the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council said is true; I am a politician and I immediately saw the political implications. The Randfontein by-election was imminent; we had gone through the pain … [Interjections.] Yes, we have to face that; it is the truth.

What is the implication? The implication is the question of who is going to finance that increase, improvement or adjustment, whatever one may call it. Is the Treasury going to finance it? My answer was simply that the Treasury could not do so. I had already sent the necessary correspondence in this connection to the Ministers’ Council. But, I immediately said in public, if the Ministers’ Council could succeed by means of a rearrangement of its priorities—as this council and the House of Delegates had done two years ago—I would not stand in their way. I had to point out the implications to them, however, because the simple truth when one incurs a permanent obligation by means of an increase in the monthly pension, is that one has to make a permanent sacrifice in rearranging one’s priorities. One has to sacrifice something permanently, because this is a repetitive expense.

That is why I told my colleague in the letter—which I shall have put on record later—that unfortunately the central Treasury could not finance this. What implications would there be if the central Treasury picked up the account?

It is apartheid which …

Let us leave the Whites out of it. On what basis can the Treasury refuse if it makes good an improvement for which it had not provided? On what basis can the Treasury refuse to do the same thing for the House of Delegates and for the Blacks? What financial implication would that hold? I shall tell hon members. It would be R231 million.

That is less than R400 million.

We shall talk about the R400 million later. These are choices one has to make, and I do not want to quarrel with the hon member about them. The hon member gets emotional about these matters, and I do not begrudge him that. There are other criteria that have to be taken into account too, however.

Yes, you were not hurt by apartheid; you do not need to get emotional.

Mr Speaker, I was confronted with an announcement of an increase that morning. I was also confronted, however, with an overexpenditure of R36 million which was exactly the same as the previous pension increase. I should like to explain what happened. The previous adjustment did not take place by means of a sacrifice of something else, but without such a sacrifice. I was confronted by this announcement without the matter’s having been discussed with me. My colleague, the hon the Minister of the Budget, apologised and in future we shall certainly discuss the matters with one another. I was confronted with an account of R36 million for which I had not made provision. Where was I supposed to get it from?

[Inaudible.]

It is easy to make comments of that nature, but it does not contribute to the knowledge of what is really going on in South Africa.

The amount of R36 million was overexpenditure, therefore, to make good a previous pension increase. I told the Ministers’ Council that this technique of financing by making use of the constitutional authorisation amounts to what is known in the trade as kite flying. In other words, overexpenditure takes place and the overexpenditure is transferred in this way every year. I was very grateful when the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council put it in writing that he agreed with me that we could not enter into such a cycle of financing. That is my dilemma.

In the first place, I have no grounds for refusal if the other administrations ask for this as well. I am not referring to the Whites. I told hon members that the implication was R231 million—which we do not have—and in the second place unplanned, unexpected overexpenditure is contrary to the whole policy of fiscal discipline. Hon members may say “so what”. I shall bring hon members up to date with reference to the matter today. Earlier this year there were negotiations with large institutions about the placing of state securities. Not one of those institutions was interested in less than 17,5% in respect of one particular transaction which involved R1 billion. Then there was the additional appropriation. [Interjections.]

I should be pleased if hon members who feel strongly about this matter would follow the argument with me, because this is just as important as part of the perspective. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Addo must please give the hon the Minister a proper opportunity to make his speech.

The additional appropriation that I tabled in Parliament this year showed overexpenditure amounting to 2,1%.

I can tell you with all justification that this shocked the financial markets. That was the first step. For the sake of the record I want to add that the overexpenditure of the total Budget was 2,1%. What was the overexpenditure, including the R36 million to which I have referred, because that is the real amount that was eventually spent? For the House of Representatives it was 6,8%.

With reference to the Budget—hon members referred to this—that Budget was a hit in the financial markets. We placed that R1 billion at 16,5%, which was 1% less. We have already placed R3,7 million of our total loan requirement, whereas the total amount we have to borrow amounts to R9 billion. This means that we have to borrow more than R6 billion in new money. Do hon members realise the true implications of a demonstration of “stick to your budget”? One’s integrity and credibility as a Minister does not depend only on how that money is spent. It also depends on how accurate one is with one’s budget, because it is part of one’s credibility. Because we recovered credibility in our budgets, our money now gets up to 1% less. That may not sound like much, but work out what 1% on R9 billion amounts to. These are the implications I am talking about. I do not work with R36 million; I work with the perception of fiscal discipline. In other words, I was confronted with that amount with reference to the previous pension increase, but what about the next increase?

I have said repeatedly, and I want to place it on record again, that if this House and its Ministers’ Council want to rearrange their priorities in order to accommodate those permanent obligations, I shall be the first to say well done. I have nothing to do with that. I cannot stand in hon members’ way, and at most I can tell you that it can lead to an underfunding of those services from which money is taken. I also said in the letter that we should be careful, because already we have cut the Budget as a whole to the bone, and if more money is taken away from other services it will cause tension in respect of the financing of other services. This will of necessity lead to overexpenditure because those services cannot be stopped. We cannot throw someone out of his hospital bed, for example. If this House wants to skimp on education, housing or health services in order to increase pensions on a permanent basis, I shall not stand in hon members’ way. Nevertheless I must address a friendly word of warning in this connection and point out to hon members the implications I have referred to.

Last year, when the Budget of this Ministers’ Council was in the negotiation stage at the officials’ level, mention was made of a certain number of existing pensioners and of potential growth in this number. Because we knew that we could not make provision for an increase which would have swallowed up R40 million, I put this to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in writing. I also told him at the time that, with all due respect, I could not understand the calculations.

If we could hardly make provision for the projected numbers and were confronted here with an increase of R40 million, without obvious sacrifices, there must have been a serious mistake somewhere, perhaps an overestimation of the numbers. I asked for an explanation of this, however. I want to conclude the point by saying that with reference to the whole question of pensions and our endeavour to close the gap, we do not have the ability to do so by means of an arbitrary decision. I want to emphasise, however, that if this economy starts growing, inter alia because of fiscal discipline and a series of other policy measures, it will be one of the highest priorities and something that will receive immediate attention. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, with reference to what the hon the Minister has said, how and when are we going to eliminate this gap, which exists as a result of apartheid?

Mr Speaker, in the first place I am in no position to discuss how it originated, and I am not going to do so. I regard it as a reality. Unfortunately it is a reality.

In the second place I can only commit myself to an endeavour to close the gap. [Interjections.] I can give no guarantee of a specific time, however, just as I cannot guarantee tonight what the gold price will be, since that is one of the factors that has an influence on economic growth, or what the exchange rate or our export figures will be next year. [Interjections.] How we can do this is by means of sound and stable economic growth in this country. We shall be able to do this then, unless we can manage it by means of a rearrangement of priorities. [Interjections.]

I want to say a last word, without reproach, about the simple truth that the negotiation platforms which this system, despite all its shortcomings, makes possible, should be utilised fully in striving for these things. [Interjections.] Hon members are entitled to their own interpretations, but I say merely that there is a series of forums for negotiation, including personal discussions among Ministers. These should also be utilised, so that it is not necessary to correspond by means of exchanging letters or by means of the Cape Times. [Interjections.]

I should like to do justice to hon members’ contributions to the debate. Perhaps the hon member for Swartland should guide me, since he arranged the speaking turns. I prepared myself thoroughly, so that I can react to all the hon members. If hon members want me to react to everyone according to merit, we shall be busy for quite some time after the supper break. I am at hon members’ disposal. I have no problems with continuing the debate, but I should appreciate some guidance in this connection. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Minister is merely requesting the assistance of the hon member for Swartland at this stage, and not that of other hon members. Will hon members please assist the hon the Minister?

Mr Speaker, it depends upon the hon the Minister whether he wants to continue with his reply until he has finished, or whether we shall adjourn at 18h45 and resume the debate at 20h00. Hon members of the House of Representatives are prepared to sit tonight.

Order! The hon the Minister can decide by 18h45, therefore, whether he wants to continue the debate, and then the House will consider the question as they choose once the hon the Minister has completed his reply. The hon the Minister himself may decide whether he wants to continue the debate after 18h45 until he has finished. The hon member for Swartland has given him an opportunity to do so.

Mr Speaker, for the first time in five years I am going to dine with visitors from a long way off on a Wednesday night. It would be a great disappointment to them and me if the arrangement had to be cancelled. Unfortunately that is the simple truth.

In that case the proceedings of the House will be suspended as usual from 18h45 until 20h00, when we shall proceed with the debate. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

†I agree with the point which the hon member Mr Douw made with regard to the hon member for Schauderville’s speech. With many of the other points which the hon member Mr Douw raised, I do not agree. However, under the circumstances I think the hon member made a very good speech of which I think he can be proud. I want this placed on record.

I should like to take up a few points with the hon member. When he talked about the redistribution of land and wealth, I think he made a very loaded statement, to say the least. A redistribution of land and wealth—not of income or opportunity, but of wealth—means that acquired wealth, which will therefore include personal wealth and land belonging to persons, will have to be taken away, bought out or confiscated, and redistributed. [Interjections.] Sir, if that is not what the hon member meant, he must put the matter right, because that is what he said.

The hon member argued against the Group Areas Act. A lot will still be said and done about the Group Areas Act in this session, as we all know. [Interjections.] However, if he makes the abolition of the Group Areas Act a prerequisite for a more equitable spread of wealth and land in this country, there is a surprise in store for him because if the Group Areas Act is lifted, the rich will buy up all the land.

No, that is nonsense! [Interjections.]

Oh yes, Sir. I am sure we will have an opportunity to test that. [Interjections.]

That is the weakest argument I have ever heard!

The fact is that the distribution of resources in this country is such that land will go into the hands of those with concentrated economic and capital power. [Interjections.] Sir, I will refrain from further comment, but I can assure hon members that that is exactly what will happen.

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

I will take the hon member’s question just now.

In the end, what the hon member Mr Douw wanted to be a redistribution of wealth, will be a redistribution of poverty. I have no doubt in my mind about that. I will take the hon member’s question now, Sir.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon the Minister how many homes in White residential areas are standing empty at the moment and are for sale or for rent, and why they are not being snapped up by tenants or purchasers?

Sir, I am not fully informed about the distribution of those houses. I have heard various figures that differ by tens of thousands. I am not talking only about houses, however; I am also talking about businesses and about landownership. Even if I could give the hon member an exact figure and tell him where these houses are and what the circumstances are, it would not change the fundamental fact that if anyone can purchase land anywhere, the rich people would be the ones to buy that land. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Speaker, the hon member as well as other hon members, including the hon member for Border, referred to the question of formulae for pensions, education etc. The hon members stated that the Minister of Finance had refused to make it available. Let me say, Sir, that we face a rather difficult situation as far as that formula is concerned. The Constitution determines that the formula must be part of an Act of Parliament, but if one puts it in the form of an Act it can only be adjusted by an amendment to an Act, and once one starts developing a formula which must respond to a dynamically changing environment and one has to subject oneself to amending legislation each time the formula must be adjusted, one finds oneself in an impossible situation as far as administration is concerned. Therefore we have been trying to convince the law advisors to submit the formula by way of a statement or some sort of submission to Parliament. They say—this is the document I have here and this is the latest information—that that will be in conflict with the Constitution. So our choices are the following: Either we make it part of a law—which we believe is impossible—or we must agree to amend the Constitution so as to make it possible to table the formula in Parliament after having used it. I believe the latter is the more practical solution to the problem.

In order to save a little bit of time, I will try to go a bit faster as far the responses are concerned.

*The hon member for Diamant made a very constructive speech. He made a very important point. He said it was ironic that there was so much water running through the Northern Cape at the moment, but that ultimately there would be a water problem again. That is a very valid point. He made an appeal for the development of the rural areas. The hon member Mr Douw referred to regional development and other hon members spoke against decentralisation, but from my practical experience I know that regional development and a large degree of industrial decentralisation go irrevocably hand in hand. During the past few years we have spent large amounts on decentralisation and a number of areas have derived benefit from this. In direct assistance alone, we have spent an average of more than R550 million per annum on decentralisation. I want to be the first to say it is completely insufficient to meet the demand for regional development properly.

The hon member mentioned a number of important details, and I ask him to raise them again during the discussions of the relevant Ministers’ Votes.

The hon member for Southern Free State spoke about the freezing of salaries, and I merely want to tell him that this is really not what I said. Nor is that what the effect of this is. He appealed for the pensions of Blacks not to be paid out every second month. I think an administrative problem is involved in that. If it is at all possible to support this, we certainly have no objection, because it would not cause a cash-flow problem or anything of that nature. I courteously suggest that the hon member take up the matter with the relevant Minister, because I think there is a case to be made for it.

The hon member also spoke about the housing crisis in the rural areas and in particular as a result of the flood.

Proceedings suspended at 18h45 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening sitting

Mr Speaker, I should like to thank hon members sincerely for their patience in attending this sitting tonight, but although it is an effort, it is probably as the English say, “an ill wind that blows no good”. Hon members tell me this is a historic moment since it is the first time an evening sitting has been held in this House. In the second place I have it on good authority that a number of the hon members are alone in the Cape and had an opportunity to enjoy a proper hot meal here tonight instead of going home to cook. [Interjections.]

When the House adjourned just before the supper break, I was reacting to the speech made by the hon member for Southern Free State. I was on the point of referring to a point he had made in connection with the housing shortage in the rural areas, with reference to the floods. It is very ironic that after a disastrous drought, we have been stricken by so many disasters as a result of floods. The area in which the hon member’s voters live was badly afflicted. I want to give him the assurance that if he experiences problems in connection with the floods, provision has been made for this, because that is one loan that we support with the greatest confidence. A flood of that magnitude may occur once in a number of decades or even once a century. For that reason one can have confidence even to ask posterity to make a contribution to assist in this connection. I therefore invite the hon member to discuss any problems he experiences with my hon colleague, the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development. He has a very capable team that assists him, and I know that he receives very strong support from this House for the work that is done.

This does not mean, however, that his fundamental problem, viz housing in the rural areas, can be solved in this way. By its very nature, this is an enormous problem and the whole question of home-ownership, landownership and property ownership is linked to it. This is an instruction that we have to carry out in terms of our Constitution. We must simply find the means in some way or another, because we are talking about capital now, not current expenditure. We must find ways in which to overcome that problem. Before supper I referred to the exceptional steps that are already being taken in a very difficult time—and other steps are also being considered—to mobilise capital to solve these problems.

In this connection I want to refer to the conditions in Heilbron to which the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council made reference as well. When one can release capital which one can make available as development capital, one can, in terms of existing examples, but on a much larger scale and in the most ideal circumstances—which are not always attainable and do not always have a good built-in discipline—help people with capital at 0% or perhaps a nominal percentage interest rate which grows in percentage interest until eventually it is market related. In this way one gives people an opportunity to grow out of a condition of poverty. We must just remember, however, that when one grants assistance—and hon members referred to the classic example of helping someone to catch fish instead of giving him fish every day—also with housing in the rural areas, one accepts that land must be available for this purpose and the hon member can negotiate for that. If, however, one does not cultivate the responsibility associated with the privilege or right of owning a house, and give people a chance to grow within the system of free enterprise, one is doing them an injustice. I suggest that the hon member continue to discuss his problems in the short term.

With reference to the hon member Mr Lockey—unfortunately he is not here at the moment—I want to say once again that obviously we shall have different points of departure.

During the many times in which I have officiated in this House, I have often listened to a speech which I had sufficient reason to differ with because we had different points of departure, but which at the same time attested to a deeper study, a very exceptional insight and in which the arguments of the basic point of departure—with which I often differ—were well-founded. I want to place the speech of the hon member Mr Lockey in that category. I have literally pages and pages of notes, because the hon member said many things that are truly worth knowing and which invite further investigation.

The hon member pointed out that he was experiencing problems with the territorial allowance that White farmers receive whereas Coloured farmers do not. I made representations to the hon the Minister of Agriculture and the Deputy Minister of Agriculture supplied me with an answer. The hon member requested that consideration even be given to the Ministers’ Council’s asking the Department of Agriculture to administer such a scheme on an agency basis. In his reply the hon the Deputy Minister of Agriculture said that the department would be glad to grant every assistance in establishing such a scheme and having it administered. There are certain requirements with which a farmer has to comply, however.

Mr Speaker, in his speech the hon member asked me a question to which I could reply by means of an interjection as a result of your giving your permission. I want to reply to the hon member Mr Lockey and ask the hon member Mr Douw to convey my reply to him. I adopted a standpoint in the Standing Committee on Finance about the R400 million which hon members have said so much about. My standpoint was that in the first place that scheme was established to help farmers who were being faced by sequestration because of circumstances beyond their control. I am referring to the drought in particular, and obviously also the ironic part, viz the flood. I told hon members of the Standing Committee on Finance who took me to task in this connection through the hon member Mr Douw, that the Ministry and the Department of Finance are not Santa Claus and that they definitely do not discriminate. I had this put on record in the standing committee and I now ask the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture in this House, when Coloured farmers are confronted by the same conditions, to have discussions with the hon the Minister of Agriculture so that they can talk from their experience about the criteria that are used to identify such farmers and quantify assistance to them. If provision has not been made for this, we shall do so on the same basis as is applicable to the White farmers at present.

With regard to the question of territorial allowances, I want to repeat that a White farmer who lives in a designated area receives an allowance of R500 per month if he complies with certain requirements. I want to mention those requirements for the information of hon members. In the first place the person must be a full-time farmer. Secondly he must live there permanently. Thirdly he must fulfil a security function in terms of anti-terrorist action. In those circumstances a White farmer qualifies for a territorial allowance of R500 per month. A Coloured farmer in the same circumstances who complies with these requirements is also entitled to this allowance. We shall consider those representations favourably, because it is not our intention that a facility should apply to one category of farmers and not another.

Mr Speaker, I should like to put a question to the hon the Minister in connection with the people who are farming at Buisdorp. They do not possess property personally, but they also had to keep on farming in drought-ravaged circumstances, and they lost their stock. On what basis can they be considered for this assistance to farmers?

Mr Speaker, the conditions I have just mentioned do not have reference to drought-ravaged areas, but to designated areas, viz the areas on the borders.

To come back to the first part of my answer on this subject I can say that certain other conditions apply in respect of drought-ravaged areas. I do not know what the implication is when people farm on common land or occupy land on some other legal basis, but the fact remains that those farmers were affected, and we have to work out a system in terms of which we can address that problem. That is why I can only say, as I said at the standing committee meeting in the presence of certain hon members who are sitting here, that the hon members must please go and talk to the hon the Minister of Agriculture, because he has experience of this problem. He would be happy to help.

Let me come back for a moment to the territorial allowance which I referred to a moment ago. These representations which led to its establishment were submitted by organised agriculture via various channels, and on this basis they eventually received assistance. My courteous recommendation to hon members is that Coloured farmers should organise themselves. If the agricultural unions in those areas do not want to accommodate them, they must organise themselves on their own. If they want to get that assistance directly, they must organise themselves. They have an hon Minister in this House who can deal with their affairs.

He has no money.

He can go to the hon the Minister of Agriculture and in the end we can resolve the matter. With reference to the handling of the agricultural question, I want to appeal to hon members not simply to accept such a situation. Certain facilities were established for White farmers over the years because they made representations and organised themselves. I do not mean that they formed a lobby. No, I mean that they got together in a responsible way and put their case on behalf of a number of people. If that happens, there will always be a willing ear to listen.

Order! Is the hon the Minister prepared to reply to a question?

Certainly, Sir.

Sir, for years farmers have been farming in the rural areas. I now want to ask the hon the Minister why he cannot channel this assistance, which he says was offered, to the rural areas, where there are also farmers, as well.

Mr Speaker, I am not quite sure that I understand the hon member’s question. My task is merely …

To spend money. [Interjections.]

Sir, my task is to put my hand into other people’s pockets and take money out of them. We do not make money in the Department of Finance. We are not in the printing business. We do not print money. We borrow money on the market and we have to repay it, or we put our hands in people’s pockets and take money from there. [Interjections.] The only point I want to make is the following: I am not and expert on the ways of granting assistance to the agricultural industry.

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

I shall reply to that hon member’s question in a moment; I just want to finish replying to the hon member for Haarlem first.

There are numerous circumstances that apply in a particular region and for a particular kind of farming, let alone the whole country! Consequently an enormous source of knowledge is available in the Department of Agriculture in the Administration: House of Assembly and in the Department of Agriculture which deals with general affairs. The only thing I want to tell these hon members tonight is that when they identify their needs, they must follow the example set by those places where in-depth work has been done for decades. They must come forward with a motivated case.

If the Coloured farmers organise themselves and put their case in this House, one can quantify the matter. That is a very important principle in Government finance. One cannot merely decide that this or that must be voted for agriculture or anything else. That is simply not how it works. One works according to a properly motivated submission that spells out the need, as well as a specific plan to meet this need. On this basis and according to the country’s total financial ability, depending upon which part of this is current or capital expenditure, a plan is worked out within the framework of one’s financial capacity.

Mr Speaker, may I put a question to the hon the Minister with reference to what he has just said? The hon the Minister said it was an important principle in Government finance that proper planning be done. With regard to the aid programme of White farmers, the State voted R400 million. I should like to know, if this principle is so important in Government finance, why White farmers have received only R30 million to date?

Sir, the answer to that question, according to the information I received from the hon the Minister of Agriculture, is that the requirements that were stated for granting assistance to farmers were extremely strict and that consequently the original estimate for granting assistance was totally unbalanced. When they saw that they were not going to help that many people, however, they did not relax the requirements in order to spend the money. There is no point in that. They adhered to the specific requirements so as to utilise the taxpayers’ money in the best possible way. I want to add that I requested a figure about the median tax, in other words, the amount of tax that is paid by the largest number of people. That amount is only R3 600. When one talks about R400 million, therefore, or any large amount, one is in fact talking about thousands of people’s income tax. That is why one must be very circumspect in working with such funds. The hon the Minister of Agriculture in the House of Assembly decided that those requirements would not be relaxed and that is why the full amount to which the hon member referred has not been spent. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, the hon the Minister of Finance said there were three requirements for the border farmers who apply for Government aid, viz that they must farm, that they must live on the farm and that they must have a security function. We have a problem in that our border farmers do not get licences when they apply for firearm licences. This causes them problems. I want to ask the hon the Minister whether there cannot be some relaxation in respect of those applications. I know it is difficult to reply to this, but I should like the hon the Minister to understand our problem.

Sir, on a few occasions I have had the privilege of visiting the border and on numerous occasions I have visited machine-gun posts which were manned by members of the Cape Corps. If some of our most sophisticated equipment can be entrusted to a member of the Cape Corps who has completed his training, I can really see no reason in principle for drawing a distinction in other cases. I want to suggest that we have discussions about the matter, which was specifically raised here. Obviously the Minister of Defence will have to be involved in this, as will the hon the Minister of Law and Order, should that be necessary. I want to thank my hon colleague for drawing the matter to our attention.

I want to continue referring to the speech of the hon member Mr Lockey. The hon member put forward a very good argument about the enormous problem of unemployment in South Africa. My only comment to that is that I can give him a long list of evidence to illustrate the deep understanding the Government and advisers have of the seriousness of the matter. It is one of the main themes mentioned in the strategy of the Economic Advisory Council of the State President for the long-term development of the economy. We shall have endemic structural unemployment for years, unless we can succeed on the one hand in removing what is hampering our economy so as to provide our economy with its full growth potential, and unless we can succeed in our population development programme on the other, so that we can keep our numbers in check, and therefore tackle this matter on a broad front. [Interjections.] The only thing I can say is that in the first place, the answer resides in a stable economic growth rate. Secondly there is the question of the development of the informal sector, which is generally regarded as the largest single employer between now and the end of the century. That is why the emphasis is on deregulation. What I am saying now also links up with the comments made by other hon members. Deregulation is progressing very slowly in many respects. The hon member Mr Lockey referred to an extremely unfortunate incident which took place in Johannesburg, when a group of hawkers was taken into custody, and a raid was carried out.

Deregulation cannot easily be enforced from the top, because the original regulations were promulgated in second-tier and third-tier government. That is why, since the establishment of the tricameral Parliament, we have passed an Act which grants the State President greater powers to set aside such regulations, subject to the results of debating in Parliament once the regulations have been set aside. If that Act does not have enough muscle yet, we shall have to take another look at it, but deregulation with a view to the promotion of the informal sector is an essential element in the strategy that the unemployed must be granted every possible opportunity to work for themselves if need be. This involves certain risks with regard to certain activities in a specific environment and we shall have to deal with that too. There is a great deal of advice about this question of employment creation, however, and we are doing everything in our power to implement it as quickly as possible. One often has to work through other people and institutions, which is not all that easy.

The hon member Mr Douw referred to inward industrialisation, and I have sympathy with the impatience he expressed in this connection. Because the current account of our balance of payment is constraining us to such an extent that we have no choice but to direct our economic development plans at those activities which have a minimum import component. This is becoming a way of life and it is a wide-ranging matter which also concerns the utilisation of one’s energy. Should one promote the use of electricity, or the use of petroleum products? Petroleum products are imported, and the vehicles and machinery that make use of these also have a high import component, thus causing us to lose our reserves. On the other hand we have coal which we can convert into electricity. In other words, the use of energy as a subdivision of economic development is also an extremely important factor in the whole establishment of the process of inward industrialisation.

With reference to the hon member Mr Lockey’s standpoint about unemployment, I want to say in conclusion that all those who carry out policy have a definite obligation to pay attention to this on all levels of Government in terms of the guidelines laid down by the hon the State President in his opening address. The hon member referred to the Nafcoc conference where certain important standpoints were stated. Just as a matter of interest I want to tell him that coincidentally two extremely senior officials, a vice president of the Reserve Bank, Dr Jan Lombaard, and a director of the Department of Finance, Dr Solomon, were present at that congress. That is the kind of attention we grant to deliberations of this kind.

Sir, I am trying to hurry. The hon member Mr Lockey rightly referred to the destructive effect of tax avoidance and evasion on our revenue figures. In that regard we really have a great problem in many respects. It is like the children’s game of leapfrog. Hon members will remember from their primary school days how this game worked. I am afraid that when it comes to tax evasion and avoidance, it is often a matter of leapfrog. One thinks one is still ahead, when one has been “leapfrogged” by someone who has found a loophole in new legislation one has tabled.

We have a total restructuring of the Commissioner of Inland Revenue’s method of operation in mind, however. The full-time Advisory Committee, with a good secretariat, will also come into operation shortly. If we can eliminate those loopholes, we shall have the revenue to do those things that have to be done in South Africa. The alternative is to increase tax, and we do not want to do that, because it hurts the economy.

The hon member rightly argued that exemption from GST lays one wide open to abuse. Hon members must forgive me if my figures are not absolutely accurate, but the Margo Commission found that the exemption of GST which we granted in respect of food cost the Treasury approximately R1 800 million, whereas only R300 million of that expenditure helps the truly poor people in South Africa. That then is my reply to the hon member for Northern Transvaal’s appeal—I think he was the one to raise this—for greater exemption from GST. That is why I want to request in anticipation that when we come to the institution of value added tax, we shall not appeal for exceptions to be made. That increases the tariff.

That brings me to the hon member Mr Douw once again. He rightly said that there was a move towards indirect taxation. I want to tell him, however, that the Margo Commission recommended that an adequate aid programme to assist poor people should accompany the establishment of value added tax. That is part of the package the Government has accepted. I think it is a more fair way of doing so than to make exceptions, as we made with GST. We must please not kill a good form of taxation again, as was the case with GST.

The hon member said that residents of Bophuthatswana could buy goods in Vryburg free of GST. That is a deficiency in our legislation, because if the purchaser can convince the seller that he trades those goods in Bophuthatswana, he can buy them without paying GST. The value added tax makes it possible for us to plug this kind of hole in the dam wall so that no more water can flow out of the dam.

In the third place the hon member spoke about “hot money” which people hide under their beds and then take to a casino to get a cheque. He was quite right, but in the meantime we have employed a lot of wide-awake inspectors. In many cases that “hot money” has burnt its owner’s fingers badly. It does not happen so easily any more, therefore. The hon member was quite correct, however, when he called it an abuse. It has cost us dearly in the past.

With regard to the hon member for Bethelsdorp’s appeal in respect of drivers, I want to ask him raise the matter in the debate on the correct Vote. He mentioned another important point which I do not want to elaborate on at this stage. Naturally there are numerous ways in which waste can take place.

†This country cannot afford the squandering of human and material resources.

*I merely want to tell him that in principle I agree with him.

The hon member for Northern Transvaal—I have referred to him already—made an appeal with reference to a great deal of development that must take place in his constituency. Many of those matters are dealt with on the own affairs level, and I suggest that he take this matter further in the own affairs debates.

†The hon member for Ottery said that this was a First World budget but that we are largely a Third World country. I agree with his description of South Africa, but I cannot agree with his description of the Budget. If I go and delve in my files, I will find ample comment, not from friendly commentators—“friendly” in the political sense of the word, as far as the policy of the NP is concerned—but from commentators who have, in the past, commented on the fact that over the past number of years there has been a noticeable and very significant shift in emphasis in Government spending—more in favour of social spending.

In this regard it certainly depicts an understanding on the part of the Government that we are indeed in so many respects a Third World country.

*The hon member for Heideveld is quite correct—privatisation should not create monopolies in the private sector. I want to point out to him that the hon the State President, when he appointed Dr Dawie de Villiers as the Minister of Administration and Privatisation, transferred the Competition Board, which is our instrument against monopolies, to fall under the Minister of Administration and Privatisation at the same time. That is an extremely significant step on which I need not elaborate.

The hon member made a statement. According to him the Government’s salary cheque is too large, and there are too many people in its service. The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central said the same thing in the House of Assembly. He said the Public Service had grown too much. A CP member, the hon member for Losberg, referred to the growth in the Public Service by saying we had a monstrous bureaucracy. I am afraid that that monster is going to bite him, because the figures are here. I want to ask the hon member for Heideveld to give very careful consideration to the figures I am going to give him with reference to the growth in the Public Service. The growth in the number of so-called bureaucrats—if we subtract the Railways Police, which was transferred to the SA Police—was 44 661. This is how the figure was made up: 12 591 nurses—I do not think a single hon member in this House is going to object to that.

There are still too few.

Thank you, but that is part of the so-called monstrous growth that we have been scolded about. Secondly: 21 184 labourers—there can be no objection to them … [Interjections.] Thirdly: 10 886 new appointments in the services—the Police, the Defence Force and the Prisons Service. Many of these people come from the population group that is represented here. I therefore want to tell the hon member for Heideveld that it is dangerous simply to say that there are too many people.

That brings me to the hon member for Steinkopf. I have already referred to a very important matter broached by the hon member, viz the necessity of keeping farmers on their farms. I think I have replied fully to the hon member in that respect, but I want to refer … [Interjections.] Certainly, but I want to reply to the rest first. The hon member asked why the co-operative—I assume he was talking about the Goodhouse Co-operative—could not get credit etc at the Land Bank. Any co-operative that has been properly established, like this one, should qualify for that, but I have certain background information which was given to me with reference to the relationship between the co-operative and the SBDC at this stage, and I want to ask the hon member not to discuss the co-operative’s affairs across the floor of the House. The hon member must rather come and see me so that we can talk about this matter.

I shall ask the managing director of the Land Bank to join us with the greatest of pleasure, so that we can talk about this matter. It looks as though there are certain circumstances which have prevented that up to this stage. I think we should talk about the matter, but not across the floor of the House, because in my opinion that would not be fair. I do not blame the hon member for raising the matter here, but I think we should rather take the investigation further with one another, and not here.

The hon member made a moving appeal for Namaqualand. He requested that the proceeds of the diggings be utilised in that area. I do not have the figures at hand, but very definite arrangements applied there and the hon the Minister of the Budget will have more knowledge of this. There is certain money that is paid in tax and which we take from the Treasury just like that to spend in that area. In the second place I can attest to a discussion in the Cabinet in which the State President gave very definite instructions in respect of Namaqualand and the role of the diggings there. I think certain things have already taken place as a result of that discussion. I am aware of certain services that the diggings have to render in respect of health, surplus vegetables and so on. There were definite problems, and perhaps they have not all been eliminated as yet, but the Minister entrusted with this is the hon the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology. There are positive things that can be said about this, however. I suggest he discuss this matter with this hon Minister in this House.

With regard to the development of the area on a regional basis, there is certainly room for much improvement, but I really cannot give the hon member a meaningful answer about the way in which we should do this, except to say that the matter must certainly receive the necessary attention in the normal handling of regional development priorities.

Mr Chairman, I asked the hon the Minister what he thought about the privatisation of the Government’s diggings at Alexander Bay, because at the moment they mean nothing to us Coloureds.

A great deal can be said for the privatisation of an enterprise, but with all due respect I want to tell the hon member that he must be careful simply to say that things will be that much better. To reply to his question in full, I merely want to say that all Government business enterprises have to be subjected to an in-depth investigation before they are privatised. In dealing with privatisation, the interests of the staff enjoy high priority. The possibility of shares for the staff is also receiving high priority.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister in the second place whether the four farmers who live on the border between South Africa and South West Africa/Namibia in my constituency of Steinkopf will qualify for the territorial allowance the hon the Minister spoke about?

As far as I know, the territorial allowance is meant for border farmers between us and other areas where, in theory and in practice, terrorists are accommodated. To the best of my knowledge they are not accommodated on the opposite side of the Orange River. [Interjections.]

Order!

Swapo is a good long way from the Orange River. If that is a designated area at the moment, there is no reason why those farmers cannot qualify. If it is not a designated area, however, those farmers do not qualify. It costs us millions of rand to keep Swapo above the Kunene River in any case. They are not a threat above the Orange River just yet.

I now want to refer to the hon member for Border. If that hon member wants to argue about the question of interest rates on housing schemes, the own affairs budget debate is the appropriate occasion at which to do so. Earlier this evening I was very serious in discussing the discipline and responsibility that must grow with home-ownership. An interest rate of 0% is not necessarily a good measure. The principle I want to put to hon members is a very good principle that is contained in the Margo Report. This report says one must not use a system in an attempt to solve a problem. One must not use the tax system, therefore, to stimulate certain industries. Nor must one use the tax system to help poor people. Everyone must pay tax on a broad basis and the people one then identifies as needing assistance must be assisted with that tax money.

I do not agree.

If the hon member does not agree … [Interjections.] If the chief spokesman on finance in the Opposition does not agree, we must agree to disagree. If one has a more socialist approach, one uses systems to achieve things. Earlier today I told the hon member that in the end one does not end up distributing wealth; one ends up distributing poverty.

Or welfare.

What do we see today? Gorbachev is moving away from his severe socialism. Where in Africa has socialism in that form worked? I am not saying we should have a laissez-faire free-enterprise or free-market system. That is not what I am saying at all. We must have a marriage between two poles which will suit our specific circumstances. I want to agree with Mr Justice Margo that to use a system—such as interest rates of 0%, for example—as a generally applicable measure to help people is a silly way of doing things. This applies to home ownership and to things one enjoys personally in particular. After all, it is an indirect subsidy and now everyone who should not really be assisted is being assisted. In that case one should rather use a means test and help people in that way.

I want to tell the hon member for Border that I agree with him and I want to congratulate him on what I regarded as a very good philosophical explanation of breaking the cycle of poverty and the lack of progress. The hon member spoke about people who have grown up in poor conditions, who rise above this and live in better conditions enabling them to pull their children up with them, whereas people who have not had such opportunities remain caught up in the vicious circle of poverty. I think that is material which will justify very good reference at a later stage.

The hon member made an appeal for a department under a general affairs banner which should do upliftment work. I do not want to say that I do not support that, but I think it is unnecessary duplication and an illustration of our philosophical differences.

I cannot support it in principle, but if the hon member wants to involve the hon the State President’s right of determination more directly in upliftment, I want to ask him please to debate this when the hon the State President’s Vote comes up for discussion in this House shortly. I want to thank him for the positive part of his speech in which he appealed for the emphasis to fall on that which is positive and said that we should oppose the negative elements in our society as a whole.

You see, Sir, I have a problem with the constant repetition of advertisements, for example, which tell one that in these uncertain times one needs an investment that will beat inflation. That advertisement contains two negative things that are constantly being shoved down our people’s throats. Naturally the one is “uncertain times”. If someone tells one a hundred times a day that one is living in uncertain times, one will start believing it. If people constantly tell one that one is living in a high-inflation environment, one will lose one’s perspective of relativity after a while. The hon member is correct in his philosophical approach, therefore: The emphasis in what we say and do should be on what is positive, to an increasing extent, even if it is insufficient, because that is also an attitude. After all, what gives people hope? What makes life worthwhile for them? It is not only that which they can put directly into their pockets, but also the prospects they have in life. That also motivates them to make progress.

The hon member for Ravensmead made the point that inflation will not drop as long as there are separate facilities, because we are paying double. Unfortunately inflation is not such a simple concept that the sharing of facilities is going to solve the inflation problem.

If you keep on saying that, you will begin to believe it.

Order!

The hon member for Ravensmead asked …

Oom Hansie.

Yes, Oom Hansie.

Hon Oom Hansie. [Interjections.]

The hon member put a good question when he asked what became of all the money that was collected in collection boxes. I think the hon member must ask those people directly. I think Radio Good Hope should take cognizance of the hon member’s question and report to him. After all, he is a shareholder, because he put something in the box. [Interjections.] It would simply be a good business principle to reply to him.

I think that in principle the hon member put a very important point, but it is a matter that he should take up with the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development, because he is the person who allocates the welfare numbers. I do not know exactly how it works, but I know that there must be some way of reporting back so that the public can have a better idea of what the various welfare organisations do with the money.

The hon member for Daljosaphat made a very good point. I should like to support it, with one very strong qualification. Incidentally, I rather enjoyed seeing how the hon Whips were struggling to get him back into his seat. [Interjections.] He is like a bullterrier—once he has bitten, he does not let go. [Interjections.]

He was in the vineyard.

Order! What did the hon member for Schauderville say?

I said he was in the vineyard, Sir.

Order! What did the hon member mean by that? [Interjections.] Hon members must please contain themselves. What did the hon member for Schauderville mean by saying, “He was in the vineyard”?

I meant exactly what I said, Sir.

Yes, but what did the hon member mean?

Nothing at all, Sir.

Very well, then the hon member meant nothing by what he said. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Daljosaphat said: “If Margaret Thatcher could do it, so should we.” I agree with him, but there is a serious qualification, and that is: “At what price?”

Britain is a highly developed country with a large and strong security net to assure unemployed people of an existence. When any country launches the sharp kind of attack on inflation that Mrs Margaret Thatcher did, the economy is basically strangled. In the process, depending on the causes of that inflation, one often creates a relatively large amount of unemployment. If, however, it is not a developed country which has built up and collected reserves over a number of years to keep the large group of unemployed people going—that is the case with South Africa, because we do not have that ability—one picks up more problems than one ultimately solves. For this reason one must maintain a very delicate balance between anti-inflationary measures and other social problems. The struggle against inflation in South Africa is infinitely more complex than that in many other countries, because we have additional social factors which make things even more difficult.

I want to tell the hon member for Grassy Park that I was listening so attentively to his beautiful language usage, that I sometimes forgot to write down quickly enough what he was saying. I want to thank the hon member for a very constructive speech. This hon member obviously made a study of his subject and he spoke about sanctions in a very knowledgeable, and with respect, a very responsible way. Sanctions are a sensitive matter, but the hon member spoke in such a way that he did not harm South Africa’s interests in any way. I want to thank him for the perspectives he expressed and cannot but agree with him about the disadvantages to which he referred. The hon member said a very fine thing when he spoke about a self-help person. This self-help person is the person between now and the end of the century who should receive many opportunities, and whom we must help so that he can enjoy a successful existence. The hon member also said another very fine thing which I should like to draw to hon members’ attention. He said the informal sector did not fear sanctions or strikes, because people in the informal sector work for themselves and therefore their productivity is high. These were wise words, and I want to thank the hon member for them.

The hon member for Riversdal made a moving appeal for water so that certain areas can be more accessible to agriculture. That is a fair standpoint. The hon the State President has always said that it upsets him personally that that part of the Cape where the hon member lives has so much water that is not properly utilised. The challenge to the hon member is that he should debate his standpoint right up to the highest level in order to ensure that his area also receives some of the money that is allocated for water development. Between now and the end of the century we shall definitely have to do a great deal for agricultural development with regard to the utilisation of water that flows to the sea.

The hon member also referred to other important aspects. I do not know whether I understood him correctly, but in my opinion the allocation of money for agricultural purposes should not be seen as money that is being made available for the purchase of economic units. We should rather help our farmers, all farmers, to own economic units. That is the course we should take. We must not become State farmers. I experience certain problems with State farms which I shall discuss with the hon member in private. We should rather help our farmers to become sufficiently large landowners. I should like to recommend that the hon member promote this idea among his people. A development trust will not necessarily help. We must use Land Bank funds, and if certain aid schemes have to be established in certain circumstances, this must not be done by establishing a trust, but by using Land Bank money, of which one can subsidise the interest rate if one has the funds. In this way people will become landowners who will work very hard for themselves and who will plough their capital back into their land.

I also want to thank the hon member for his contribution about the savings plan for senior citizens. The hon member is a member of the Standing Committee on Finance and therefore has in-depth knowledge of the circumstances there. The hon member requested that that interest be tax-free, but would the hon member be happy if people who had R100 000, R200 000 or R300 000 were to invest R30 000 of that money tax-free? We cannot subsidise an interest rate for rich people and make it tax-free as well. A tax concession for the higher income groups is worth much more than the extra 2,5% they will earn on that investment. With all due respect, the hon member’s proposal will be to the greater advantage of the rich, and that is why that interest revenue is not tax-free. We must help the poor people in some other way and see whether we cannot perhaps increase their interest rate.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister spoke about agriculture and I want to ask him whether he agrees with hon members in this House that agriculture should be a general affair, rather than an own affair, so that funds can be administered in a better way?

Sir, I do not agree with that recommendation for various reasons.

Yes, the colour of your skin.

Sir, it has nothing to do with the colour of one’s skin.

Order! Hon members must please give the hon the Minister an opportunity to reply. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Sir, that is not what it is all about. What is at issue is that I believe the members of the Ministers’ Council in this House are in a much better position to deal with the interests of their people on a direct basis.

No, man!

Order! Who is the “man” to whom the hon member was referring? The hon member for Haarlem must please rise when I speak to him. The hon member said, “No, man”. The hon member must please refer to the Minister as the hon the Minister.

I did not say anything. What must I say now?

Order! The hon member must obey me or withdraw from the Chamber.

What must I say?

Order! I order the hon member for Haarlem, having disregarded the authority of the Chair, to withdraw from the Chamber for the remainder of the day’s sitting. The hon the Minister may proceed. [Whereupon the hon member withdrew.]

In my opinion the hon member for Northern Cape was putting a question rather than making a statement. He said that privatisation and deregulation would definitely be to the detriment of the rural areas. With all due respect, Sir, I cannot agree with this. In fact, I think the opposite may be true in many respects. I therefore want to leave the hon member with the idea that in my opinion it cannot be proved at this stage that that will be the case. In fact, I do not think one can even speculate about the matter. Thirdly, if one suggests that there is a possibility of the rural areas’ being detrimentally affected, this could cause the concepts of privatisation and especially deregulation to be regarded with unnecessary suspicion. I want to ask the hon member for his co-operation. When we talk about specific cases of privatisation, we can debate the requirements which he—rightly—has set, instead of meeting troubles halfway.

With reference to municipal tariffs, the hon member requested that the Minister of Finance ensure that they do not do that. Sir, the Minister of Finance has certain powers, but unfortunately not that power.

We do have an informal say over local authorities, in that we determine the growth rate of their budget in respect of both current expenditure and capital expenditure. In that respect the informal arrangement is quite effective, and that is the only way in which we can prevent their expenditure from increasing to such an extent that after a while they have to announce large tariff increases in order to finance that expenditure.

The hon member for Mamre apologised for his absence. I do not want to say too much about his speech, but I think it was an excellent speech. It was not without criticism, but if he were to repeat that speech on any international platform, even with the criticism, he would be doing well for South Africa. [Interjections.] I personally am aware that the hon member has done this numerous times in the past. That is incidental, but I do not know whether he has made this speech before. I merely want to say that this is a speech that would mean something positive for South Africa if it were taken from the shelves of any library in the world and read.

The hon member for Robertson apologised for his absence. He adopted a strong standpoint against price increases, and I associate myself fully with his alarm in this respect, but I cannot agree with him that we should apply price control. There is great disappointment, however, about the fact that too many price increases have taken place since the hon the State President’s request that the cycle of price increases and salary increases be broken. The one affects the cause of the other, and then the converse is true, and so one ends up in a vicious circle. During the course of this session—I am not saying anything new; this has been announced—interesting legislation will come before these hon members to give muscle to the Consumer Council. In terms of this legislation, we shall be able to utilise the Consumer Council and the Competition Board effectively to play a controlling part in this respect.

The hon member for Gelvandale adopted a standpoint against the evaders of GST.

†I can only say that I concur fully with what he said. We do not always have the requisite manpower to perform the task entirely to our own satisfaction, but we are certainly doing our level best. With the assistance of a large number of national servicemen, in particular as far as other branches of taxation are concerned, I think we are doing exceptionally well in respect of the collection of taxes. As far as the flood problem is concerned, the hon member should use the approach I suggested earlier, because those doors are always open.

The hon member also referred positively to the development of small businesses. I agree with him fully.

*The hon member for Wuppertal made an appeal for the upgrading of the rural areas. I can only agree with him, because that is a very great need. With regard to the question of bus commuters, certain legal aspects which he must discuss with the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs are involved. I do not know that we are paying very large amounts out of the Treasury in respect of subsidies, and I therefore think the hon member should discuss his case with the relevant Minister.

If I understood him correctly, the hon member asked whether a cost-benefit analysis had been made concerning the R200 million which we get from the carriers. I can assure him that this is not nearly what we should be taking, because an in-depth investigation was made by the National Institute for Transport and Road Research, and they came to the conclusion that this does not nearly pay for the damage done to roads by heavy vehicles.

That is a deviation from the White Paper … [Interjections.]

The hon member is welcome to discuss this with the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs, but it is simply a fact that with regard to heavy vehicles, we should have instituted that tax long ago.

It is not necessarily true that the R200 million will be transferred to the consumer just like that, because that is one area where concurrence will surely not permit a 1:1 transfer.

The hon member made a very important point about the management of taxation at Bellville. I want to request that we should rather not discuss such taxation matters across the floor of the House, because I should like to ask him to give me the particulars. I have a note here from the Commissioner of Inland Revenue—he is sitting over there—saying that if we give him proof, he will follow this up personally and in depth.

[Inaudible.]

No, a week is too long. The hon member can do so tomorrow. [Interjections.] Thank you very much.

The hon member for Diaz is correct; inflation is indeed public enemy number one. He is also correct in saying that countries with a strict monetary policy have forced their inflation rate down. That is where the problem originated. If one takes certain steps with reference to prices as well as other anti-inflationary steps, and one does not support this with a strict fiscal and monetary policy, the whole process fails as it failed in Brazil time after time. I had discussions last year with three former Ministers of Finance in Brazil, and the only thing their price and wage freezes in that country resulted in was to get rid of the Minister of Finance and the President of the Reserve Bank each time. That was the only result. Apart from that they did not effect anything, because the steps they took were not supported by a strict fiscal and monetary policy. [Interjections.] I did not intend to suggest certain plans to hon members here.

The hon member drew our attention to an alarming thing, viz the whole question of bus tariffs at George. I am in no position to react to that, but I think it would be to his advantage to discuss that matter with the relevant Ministers.

I thank the hon member for Berg River for his positive reactions. Just like all hon members who had a positive reaction towards the Budget, he had a fierce barb in the “but” with which he flayed us. Nevertheless he started off with congratulations, and I should like to thank him for that. The hon member adopted a standpoint—if I understood him correctly—opposing decentralisation. With all due respect, I want to emphasise that if we do not spend money on decentralisation, it will lead to an enormous problem in our metropolitan areas. One of the fundamental reasons for decentralisation of industries away from the PWV area, is the question of water. We already have to pump water from Lesotho to the Vaal River scheme to supply the industries and especially the people with water. It is not so much the industries, but all the people who work in the industries and the service industries which are developing around the industries, who use the water. Ultimately it will have a detrimental affect on those people’s quality of life if we cannot effect a dilution. My appeal, therefore, is that we do not assume a standpoint opposing decentralisation.

The hon member made a final point, saying that interdependence was a reality in this country of ours. I am in full agreement with him.

In conclusion I come to the hon member Mr Douw. He made a very important point about disinvestment, viz that it is the underprivileged in particular who are going to lose, and that we are also going to have an enormous loss in respect of technology. It goes further too. That means a loss in administration and entrepreneurship. Those are some of the biggest losses. Even if, as he said, it is not quite that bad, because South Africa often buys those companies at a very fair price, the disadvantages cannot be underestimated. I want to tell him that capital—I think he knows this—does not literally flow out of the country as a result of the financial rand. On the contrary, the financial rand keeps foreign capital here.

It is merely a question of a change in the owners of those assets abroad changing, and that is how the financial rand comes into being. I mention this merely for the sake of general clarity, because people often do not understand this concept.

The hon member spoke about the bare bone he had received. For the first time since the new dispensation came into operation, we had the first Second Reading debate in a House other than the House of Assembly this year. The House of Delegates had its turn first, followed by the House of Assembly. This was in reaction to representations that had come from the other two Houses. It is a very important matter.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister a question in connection with Mr Riaan Eksteen? It has come to our attention that he has been fired or dismissed or that his services have been terminated, and that he will be getting a salary for the next five years and after that his pension. My question to the hon the Minister is whether he will now freeze the amount allocated to the SABC for Mr Eksteen’s salary.

Sir, I am in no position to freeze it, because we do not give the SABC any money from the Treasury. Not a single cent is allocated to the SABC for domestic services. The SABC’s foreign services, which it operates for the sake of South Africa and not for listeners in South Africa, have always been fully financed by the State. I myself worked at the SABC for seven years …

You too?

Yes. As the Deputy Minister of Finance, I was also responsible for liaison with the SABC for 15 months, and I can give the hon member the assurance that apart from that money, no money is allocated to the SABC. If perhaps the Department of Education and Training or any of the other departments makes a contribution to finance any educational programmes, I have no knowledge of that. No money for the paying of staff salaries is allocated to the SABC. The only way in which I would be able to lay my hands on money for Mr Riaan Eksteen would be via the Commissioner of Inland Revenue in respect of Mr Eksteen’s income tax. In terms of law I may not even look at his file, because I may not even look at my own file.

The hon member Mr Douw made a few comments to which I should like to do justice. The first concerned taxation on insurers. The Margo Commission said that insurers were not paying their rightful taxation. They pay an arbitrary tax and actually they should pay tax as other companies do. We merely levied this R200 million per annum from an industry with a turnover of billions of rand, with an enormous cash flow and of which 71% of all its business is connected to pension funds which are not taxable. This was merely a first step in taxing them as we do other companies, unless we can reach an agreement with them on some other method of taxation. With all due respect, I differ considerably with the hon member. If an insurance company is asked to bear its rightful share of the tax burden, the Government is not adopting a standpoint against the positive things an insurance company does. As in other countries, however, a significant problem is developing in connection with the taxation of these institutions. I want to give the hon member an example. If a building on the opposite side of the street makes a profit of R1 million per annum, theoretically it will pay R500 000 in tax. If, however, a pension fund buys that building, we will get no tax from that building as from that day. That means that the ordinary taxpayer, John Citizen, has to pay more in tax. That is one of the reasons why the tax base has shrunk to such an extent.

I shall give hon members a second example. With reference to pensions—praiseworthy as this may be, and no matter how eager one is to encourage people to prepare for their own old age—there are three phases. During the first phase the member pays a tax-free contribution. The general public helps in the payment of his contribution. The employer makes a contribution which is tax-deductible. The public as a whole therefore helps to pay the employer’s contributions. Phase one is completely untaxable. The proceeds of the pension fund and all the investments it makes—if my figure is correct, one is dealing here with a cash flow of something in the region of R20 billion per annum—is tax-free. Phase two is also completely tax-free. In phase three the money is paid out and a person gets a large gratuity of which the larger part is tax-free. He gets a monthly gratuity. Every year we move the tax threshold up. Now there is a massive cash flow in the economy which is completely untaxable. What is the result? The result is that that tax burden rests on the individual to an even greater extent. We have to find a solution to the situation. We have merely touched on a new tax dispensation, but that has no influence on the basic contract.

It is not only tax that determines bonuses. I know of a company which was a member of an insurance company that wiped out its capital completely. More than R100 million was involved. There were more losses in transactions than only this one. Business decisions, the state of the economy, interest rates, inflation and even the exchange rate all have an indirect effect. All these things combine to affect the possibility of additional bonuses.

Mr Chairman, I want to ask the hon the Minister, if taxes are increased and insurance companies have to pay more, how this will influence the policyholders’ bonuses? Is the money going to be recovered from the policy-holder in that his bonus will be reduced if he has to pay more in tax?

The bonus section is a share in an extra, over and above the basic contract between the policyholder and the insurance company. The taxation will definitely have an influence on that eventually. There is another very important finding, however—I do not want to occupy the House with this for too long—by the Margo Commission, viz that there should be neutrality among the various savings instruments. At the moment certain building societies are experiencing extreme cash flow problems because insurance companies are swallowing up so much of the cash with their 5-year and 10-year policies. That is a fact. This cannot be classified other than as a way of taking deposits. Despite this increase, the insurance companies still receive a tax benefit in this respect, and if one does this cleverly by means of a pension fund—because the pension funds do not pay tax—that company can offer a higher interest rate than a bank can as a kind of deposit instrument. The money then leaves the banks or building societies to go to insurance companies which may invest their money only in certain things. That is a terrible dilemma. We want to act with great responsibility in tackling the situation in terms of a number of criteria.

Mr Chairman, I want to tell the hon the Minister that I have no problems with the tax increase, but does he not think that an increase of 75% is rather drastic? I also want the hon the Minister to tell me whether the Government is not dependent upon these pension funds to a great extent. I think that in terms of the law, insurance companies are compelled to invest their money in the Government, but in the private sector they could have negotiated for a higher interest rate—they invest in the PIC inter alia—and to a great extent the State is dependent upon insurance companies’ financing.

The hon member is quite correct when he says that 53% of a pension fund’s income has to be invested in State securities. That does not mean that this will always be the case, however. In addition the pension fund can invest the rest of the money in anything else. Percentage-wise this is a drastic increase, but after all it is only on 50% of its income. In other words, the pension fund is paying 70% tax on 50% of its income. It is not 70% on its income, therefore. This dispensation is still more beneficial than that of a company.

Mr Chairman, may I also ask the hon the Minister whether the insurance companies are going to get a rebate on incurred expenses?

Mr Chairman, the formula proposed by the Margo Commission was that we should calculate the income and expenditure of an insurance company in the same way as that of ordinary companies. It is not easy to do that. In England, for example, there are three different categories of business that an insurance company can be involved in, and apparently each category is taxed differently. The expenses in each of the three cases are dealt with differently. That is a very technical aspect, however, and I think we can take it further in the discussion of my Vote. I want to say quite honestly that I rather want my advisers at hand when it comes to the more delicate and more technical aspects of that complicated taxation.

I have almost finished, Mr Chairman. The hon member spoke about the minimum taxation on companies. He quoted someone who had said this was ill-considered taxation. I think that is ill-considered criticism, because we did our homework and we acted in correspondence with the recommendations of the Margo Commission, who did their homework as well. What we are dealing with here is companies that pay fat dividends, but which do not pay tax. The only thing we did was to say: Come on, friends, at this stage you must also make a contribution, because we are involved in a total tax adjustment which will have to extend over three to four years, and we are going to have big cash flow problems in the Treasury. We do not want the taxpayers to have the cash flow problems, however; we shall rather try to deal with the cash flow problems. That is one of the ways of doing so. What we are taking is not real tax, but a credit. The moment that company starts paying tax, therefore, it will get this money back.

I conclude, Sir. The hon member made a number of points about urbanisation and the quality of life. Although I obviously do not agree with all his points, I think he validated those standpoints philosophically, and I shall leave it at that.

Mr Chairman, there is something that I should like to ask the hon the Minister. We spoke about insurance companies and private companies. The hon the Minister said there were companies that pay fat dividends and pay little in tax. I should like to know whether these dividends are paid before or after tax. What I mean by that, Sir, is that I am under the impression that those dividends are paid from the amount that is left once the tax has been deducted. The tax collector gets his share first, therefore. He gets his cut before the dividend is paid out.

Mr Chairman, there are scores of circumstances in which a company can make a profit and pay it out in the form of dividends without having to pay tax. It may enjoy certain regional advantages, for example, or there may be export incentives, or perhaps something that remained of a practice that came to an end in 1984, viz tax-based trading, etc. There are numerous circumstances that can cause this to happen. It is possible in practice, therefore, and it does happen. On this basis, we budgeted for an income of R350 million. These companies which are going to pay this minimum taxation are companies which do not pay any taxes at all, but which have paid out dividends. We are basing the whole formula on the dividends they paid out last year.

That is how it works. If the hon member is interested in taking a look at the bookkeeping, I shall ask one of the specialists to explain this to him, because I cannot explain it in bookkeeping terms myself. I am merely familiar with the concept.

I have come to the end of my reply. By its very nature this debate took place over a long period of time, and unfortunately I could not reply to all the points raised by certain hon members. I think we can take them further at some later stage.

Mr Chairman, I want to ask the hon the Minister what he intends doing should the transport costs increase, because obviously the economy will have less of an opportunity to show growth then.

Sir, if the transport costs should increase for any reason, there is only one way in which we can assist commuters and that is by making a very large amount available for the subsidies of train and bus commuters. In addition there are certain regional benefits which make certain categories of transport cheaper. In general the principle is that the Government cannot continue to subsidise certain cost increases. Someone has to pay for them. The heavy subsidisation of a certain kind of transport would cause a distortion in the economy. It is much better to find levels on the basis of the true cost and that is why the Margo Commission recommended that we find a system in which we can move in the direction of people paying to an increasing extent for what a service does in fact cost. We should rather help those who cannot afford this. That is the direction in which we should be moving, but unfortunately this cannot be achieved by the mere flick of a switch.

Question agreed to and amendment dropped (Official Opposition dissenting).

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of the hon the Minister of Finance I move without notice:

Order! Any objections?

Mr Chairman, we have objections, and our objection will remain until we are told why.

Order! I will have to request the hon the Deputy Minister to give notice that the motion be moved tomorrow.

In that case the notice of motion will be placed on the Order Paper for tomorrow.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, the notice of motion as it appears on the Order Paper is to be referred to the Standing Committee on Constitutional Development and that Rule 33 be suspended is supported by this side of the House.

Mr Chairman, if I heard correctly what the hon the Minister has just said, this matter is to be referred to the Standing Committee on Constitutional Development. If the matter is to be referred, that would be the normal procedure which is required to be followed. This is what the hon the Minister has just said.

I did not say that.

Order! I would like to commend to the hon member for Reservoir Hills to be guided by the Notice of Motion as it appears on the Order Paper. The hon member will note that the request here is that it be not referred to the Standing Committee on Constitutional Development. The hon member may proceed.

As the Chair pleases. If that is the case, and in view of the fact that the purpose of the motion is to have the particular Bill debated by the House this afternoon, on that basis we will not raise any objections.

Order! I would like to advise the hon member for Reservoir Hills that we are at this stage debating this motion. The hon member may proceed to speak to the motion if he so desires.

Mr Chairman, the motion as moved by the hon the Deputy Minister stands in his name on the Order Paper.

Order! Quite true. The hon the Deputy Minister has moved the motion.

Mr Chairman, I shall not repeat what has already been said. This particular Bill is consequential upon the adoption of the report by this House yesterday. I shall content myself with saying that, for the reasons that were put forward yesterday in regard to the report that was adopted, we are unable to support this Bill and cannot do so. Not being able to do so, we would like our objections to the Bill to be recorded.

Mr Chairman, this particular amendment, as has already been said by the hon member for Reservoir Hills, is consequential to the Report on Rules and Orders which was adopted by this House yesterday. Without this amendment one could not have a joint debate and the Constitution, as it stands, would not make provision for those debates to take place. However, this is in fact an enabling amendment to the Constitution so that joint debates may take place in the House. It does not go far enough in so far as an amendment to the Constitution is concerned. I believe …

Order! I have the impression that the hon member is now speaking on the Bill. The Bill is not being debated. The motion before the House is being debated and in short, the request is that Rule 33 be suspended in respect of the Bill …

For the reasons I have stated, Mr Chairman.

…for the reasons the hon member has stated, namely that it is consequential to the report adopted yesterday. The hon member may proceed.

Therefore, Mr Chairman, in view of the standpoint adopted by us in respect of those particular rules, we have no objection to the suspension of Rule 33.

Mr Chairman, this is a very simple issue. The point is that it represents a short cut. Instead of the Bill being referred to the standing committee for consideration, this particular rule is to be suspended and the Bill is to come straight to this House instead in order for it to be fully debated. We on this side of the House lend our full support to the Bill being brought here for the matter to be fully debated and for its formal approval. We therefore have no hesitation in supporting this motion.

Mr Chairman, I think the hon member for Stanger and the hon member Mr Thaver have adequately stated the case in favour of the motion before the House and there is not much more to say, except to add that the Bill that will come before the House in terms of this motion is actually consequential. The House has already approved the report of the committee yesterday and this is merely consequential to that. The House will have an opportunity to discuss this once the Bill comes before the House.

Question agreed to.

Mr Chairman, as a result of the appeal by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, this debate on the Abolition of Development Bodies Amendment Bill was adjourned.

We have looked at the provisions of the Bill and the amendments refer to Bills 2C and 2D.

The amendments were made to comply with the requirements of the hon members of the Standing Committee on Constitutional Affairs who required these amendments to be made. The statement made by the hon member for Stanger in his contribution to the debate was that this referred to the abolition of statutory bodies, and particular concern was expressed by him regarding the Natal Development and Services Board.

When we look at the Bill itself we find that there are certain definitions, and that definitions, in terms of the development body or any other body are contained in paragraphs (c), (d) or (e). This particular amending Bill refers mainly to the Divisional Council in the Cape Province and perhaps to some other areas, and not at this stage to Natal.

There is a further provision in the amending Bill and I refer hon members to clause 1 which seeks to amend section 2(b). The proposed addition to the subsection is as follows:

Here again, it can be very clearly understood and read as referring to the Cape Province. I believe that the Abolition of Development Bodies Amendment Bill is absolutely necessary, particularly in areas in the Cape Province, because the regional services councils are being established in some of these areas and the functions of the development bodies will then be the responsibility of the regional services councils.

What about the rural councils?

Mr Chairman, even so, where there is a de facto situation and where there are rural councils, naturally they will be served by the regional services councils.

The hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture in the House of Representatives expressed his reservations in the meeting of the Standing Committee on Constitutional Affairs, and I am sure the hon member for Reservoir Hills was present when that hon Minister made those observations. He was very clear about this; in fact, his observations were more or less directed as a query. The query was answered by the chairman of the Standing Committee on Constitutional Affairs at the time. Therefore, I do not think there is need for this House to be very apathetic on this Bill. Therefore, we on this side of the House support the Abolition of Development Bodies Amendment Bill.

Mr Chairman, the era of the development boards can be regarded as an unfortunate period in the history of development of urban Blacks in South Africa. The demise of these boards will be mourned by very few, if any at all, notwithstanding the fact that the Natal Development and Services Board does a sterling job.

Firstly, I want to define what development boards are. Simon Bekker, in his book From Control to Confusion, refers to development boards, and I quote:

This is what Simon Bekker says in his book From Control to Confusion with regard to development boards.

We have to go back as far as 1923, when the administration of Black people was undertaken by different municipalities, and the subsequent enactment of Act 25 of 1945 as a consolidated Act. The frustrations experienced by persons with regard to the establishment of these boards, with particular reference to the peri-urban development board in the Transvaal, were such that some of the areas that fall under the jurisdiction of the peri-urban board have now decided that the only option left to them, much to the dislike of their communities, is autonomy.

One such area is an area situated 35 kilometres south of Johannesburg called Ennerdale, with a population of about 32 000. In a paper delivered some time last year, the chairman of the management committee of that particular area gives a classical example as to how this development board has frustrated progress in the area and what it has done.

He says here, and I quote:

Ennerdale, because of the frustrations experienced by the peri-urban board, has opted for autonomy for that particular area, and has advocated autonomy openly. My personal opinion is that I am opposed to autonomy.

Likewise, we have a section of Lenasia which is administered by the Transvaal Peri-urban Board. That area is also subject to frustration. Whilst we are abolishing the development board which I wholly support, I would like the hon the Deputy Minister to take very, very serious notice of the personnel of the present peri-urban board that exists. It is all very well for us to abolish it merely in terms of paper, but the administrative structure still exists there. Those officials will unilaterally take decisions. Even if people do not want certain resolutions to be implemented, those officials will simply implement them.

As far as I know, there are 43 local affairs committees that fall under the jurisdiction of the peri-urban board. The respects and wishes of these committees ought to be carried out, not at the whims and fancies of any official that may still remain in the administrative structure. With these few words, I also wish to support the abolition of these particular bodies.

Mr Chairman, unfortunately the hon member for Lenasia South discussed this Bill in respect of matters contained in a Bill that has already been passed through this House, [Interjections.] The foundation of this entire Bill rests firmly and squarely in respect of this particular section that I wish to read.

Order! I regret having to interrupt the hon member, but if my memory serves me correctly, the hon member has already spoken on this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I rise merely to emphasise one point that has not been emphasised as yet. I do agree with the hon the Minister of the Budget that with the exit of the Development and Services Board, it is logical to find a replacement. I think a logical replacement for the Development and Services Board in the present context of Government administration, is the RSCs.

We have been told that this would presently apply to the Cape Province. We take note of this, but in doing so I want to emphasise—and I think this has already been pointed out in certain quarters—that the employees of the Development and Services Boards should not be left in limbo, to the extent that they will become unemployed. I think they can be absorbed into the administration of the regional system. I think this is important. Of course, this should be based on merit. I am not saying that a person who does not meet the requirements of the new system, should be taken in. However, this should be determined on the basis of need, merit and with due consideration to those people who have served on these committees.

I would also like to point out that the Development and Services Board in Natal—I am not au fait with what is happening in the Free State and Transvaal—are in a very precarious position. I can talk about this, because a part of my constituency is serviced by the Development and Services Board. In view of the fact that they are not certain about their future, the service is far from being satisfactory. I would like to inform the Government via the hon the Minister that nothing must be done to undermine this remnant of the old Development and Services Board, because it has come about to take care of those peri-urban areas which do not get services from the local authorities.

Another thing is that although there is the token representation of people of colour on the RSCs, we want to give the RSCs, the correct image in the community and I think this is an important matter. I think the opportunity must be created in the system—even though this cannot happen immediately—that people from all the groups should be fully represented.

Mr Chairman, I want to follow up what the hon member for Cavendish said. Although it is not indicated in the Bill under discussion I think we must place on record that the Development and Services Board serves a very useful purpose in the Natal areas, and I think it will do so for a long time to come. There are many rural areas in Natal that do not fall under local authorities and many of the local authorities in the Natal areas are reluctant to take up the areas adjacent to them that have not been developed. The reason for this is that they feel they do not have the funds to create the necessary facilities and most of the important community requirements such as roads, water etc.

Although this Bill goes as far as 1990 we have had a cloud of uncertainty hanging over our heads since June 1986, but this has been now extended till 1990. However, I believe the cloud is still hanging there and nobody knows what will happen. I believe some kind of assurance should be given to the Development and Services Board because after all they are rendering a most useful service and they are there not at their own choice but because they are required to do so. They provide the services that we require and if they should vanish it will cause a very large vacuum.

I therefore appeal to the hon the Deputy Minister to give us some assurance in his reply, or perhaps he can give some indication that the Development and Services Board will be continued so that it can carry out the much needed work in that area. Otherwise the hon the Deputy Minister must please tell us what the alternatives are. We support this Bill but at the same time we think it is very important that the people in the rural areas should obtain this information.

Mr Chairman, I would like to thank hon members for their support of this Bill which is to a great extent a consequential amendment to the original Bill in terms of the practices of the past two years since the original Bill came into being, as well as the developments that followed thereafter eg the scrapping of the development boards and other similar institutions.

I want to refer in particular to clause 1 which is before the House at the moment. I will not refer to the amendments on the Order Paper. The committee will discuss these at a later stage. Clause 1 only refers to the question of the date concerning the divisional councils. In this regard I would like to refer to what my colleague the hon the Minister of the Budget as well as the hon member for Marianhill had just said in connection with the date mentioned in clause 1.

The date of 30 June 1990 in clause 1 refers only to the divisional councils and not the Natal Development and Services Board. I would like to confirm to the hon member for Mariannhill in a reply to his request in this regard …

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Deputy Minister a question? Whilst I appreciate that the fixed date does not refer to Natal, will the hon the Deputy Minister indicate whether the Natal Development and Services Board will remain permanently or will it be dissolved as well at some stage or another?

Mr Chairman, I was on the point of replying to the hon member for Mariannhill but it is just as well that the hon member for Stanger has also raised this. The Natal Development and Services Board will remain until it is replaced by the RSC’s when they come into effect. We do not know on what date this is going to happen and for that reason its existence is not limited in terms of time. That is why it is not included in clause 1 with regard to the fixed date of 30 June 1990. The date in clause 1 only refers to the divisional councils in the Cape Province and not to the Development and Services Boards. I should like to confirm this for the sake of the hon members who raised this point.

To return to the point raised by the hon member for Stanger, let me say that it will be taken over some time in the future once the RSC’s come into existence in Natal.

Mr Chairman, could the hon the Deputy Minister tell us whether, in the event that the Development and Services Board comes up for abolition, the hon the Minister will introduce a further amending Bill in respect of such an abolition?

Mr Chairman, I do not think it is necessary at all as this has already been provided for in the original Bill of 1986 and once the RSC comes into existence it will naturally take place, so no other additional Bill is necessary for that purpose. That is my reply.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Deputy Minister misunderstood my question. In the event that the Development and Services Board comes up for abolition will the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning introduce a further amending Bill for its abolition?

Mr Chairman, I think I understood the hon member correctly in the first instance and my reply was clear. This has already been provided for in the principal Act. The date has just not been fixed because the RSC’s are not yet in existence.

I should like to return to arguments referred to earlier on in the debate on this Bill. The hon member Mr M Thaver spoke on this Bill last week and he raised some very valuable arguments in respect of the Bill which I should like to refer to. He referred to the fact that the own affairs Ministers would not have any responsibility in terms of the transfer of the assets for the responsibilities as provided for in the amendments that are going to be discussed in a committee. However, hon members will notice that in terms of the amendment this point in particular has been provided for in the sense that own affairs Ministers will have to be consulted once it has been decided that certain assets or responsibilities are going to be transferred to them. That is an additional amendment that was brought forward by the standing committee and we shall debate that in the Committee Stage.

It is also necessary to mention—although we have concluded this already—the question of the Development and Services Board and the transfer of these services.

As far as the points raised by the hon member for Stanger are concerned, I note that he said this is really an entrenchment and that this Bill provides for an entrenchment of local government as an own affair.

Of course, I should like to argue that is not true. The point the hon member has made is that this provides for …

In terms of the own affairs concept.

Correct. … an entrenchment of own affairs and the responsibilities thereof in terms of the responsibility of the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

At least you are honest.

If one looks at the Constitution of the country, in the first instance, this is not being entrenched in terms of this Bill. It is, of course, entrenched in the Constitution of the country.

I did not write the Constitution.

That may be true, but the point is that this Bill does not provide for any new principle in that regard; it is already there in the Constitution. Thus it is not relevant to argue that point again in terms of this Bill. This Bill is in fact consequential to the Constitution as far as that is concerned. I think it is necessary to make that clear. In that regard, this is of course not a new principle that it being introduced in terms of this Bill. This Bill merely gives effect to the Constitution as far as that is concerned.

Mr Chairman, will the hon the Deputy Minister agree that this Bill in fact reinforces the principle of own affairs in the Constitution?

It is consequential, Mr Chairman; it is not a reinforcement. It is already there; the Constitution provides for it, and unless we change the Constitution, every Bill has got to make provision for the same thing as far as that is concerned.

This is not a new principle or a reinforcement or whatever; that is already there. It is the Constitution that provides for it and if the hon member wishes to take up that point then he will have to argue about an amendment of the Constitution and not about our current subject matter in terms of this Bill that is at present before this House.

The hon member for Stanger also raised a point about the personnel, and I should like to agree with him in that regard. We have to take good care of the personnel and that in particular is why some of the amendments are before the committee. We shall be discussing them later during the committee stage and I shall come to that at that stage.

As far as the hon member for Reservoir Hills is concerned—he is not in the House at the moment but I should just like to point this out—he raised the question about the amendments, and in doing so referred to clause 4 of the Bill. At present there is no clause 4 before this House. At present we have only two clauses before the House, and once we have approved the principle—in other words the Bill before this House—we will proceed to the committee stage and discuss the further clauses that have been provided for in amendments on the Order Paper. Therefore I am not going to react further to that at this stage.

The hon member for Lenasia Central has made mention of development boards as such and the work that they have done. He made certain additional remarks in that regard. I just wish to point out that all 13 development boards have already been abolished, and their functions taken over by other institutions. Be they the provincial administrations or the RSCs, these functions have already been taken over and in that regard I think that those functions have been adequately transferred and have been taken good care of in the mean time. I do not think we need take some of those arguments further at this stage; that is not necessary.

As far as the work of the peri-urban board is concerned, I should like to point out that as regards certain local authorities and the work presently being done by the peri-urban board, those services will be transferred to the own affairs administrations. In certain cases where those local authorities are not presently operative, those services or the provision of such services and the responsibilities in terms thereof will be transferred to the own affairs administrations.

Therefore I do not think that the hon members’ remarks in that regard are of much concern. The responsibilities are being transferred.

Mr Chairman, is the hon the Deputy Minister aware that the House of Representatives is totally opposed to autonomy and that by transferring the functions of the areas under the jurisdiction of the Peri-urban Board to the House of Representatives a particular area which was designated as autonomous—I am referring to Allandale—would not be given autonomy?

If that is the situation, the responsibilities will in any case be transferred. If I am correct, it has been agreed upon that it will be transferred to the Ministry of Local Government in the House of Representatives, which will have to take care of those responsibilities in that regard. That is the point that I have referred to.

There is autonomy in disguise by delegated powers, with the assigned functions of borrowing etc. It is autonomy by a different name.

With its consequences.

I think we can argue that point at a later stage, but I do not think it is part of the present debate.

I say this to help my hon colleague on the other side.

If the hon member thinks that he is helping him, so be it. However, I am not going to argue the point any further at this stage.

The hon member for Cavendish has also referred to the question of the personnel. I have already stated that I think it is very necessary that we should take good care of the personnel involved. Thousands of people were actually involved in the original abolition process and I think that in most cases the transfer has been given careful attention. That is actually why further amendments are going to be discussed during the committee stage.

I have already referred to the hon member for Mariannhill.

Agreed to (Official Opposition and Mr J V Iyman dissenting).

Bill read a second time.

Motion for House to go into Committee

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Committee Stage

New clauses to follow clause 1:

Mr Chairman, I move the following amendment as printed in the name of the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning on the Order Paper:

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

1. (2)
   1. (a) The Minister may, subject to such conditions as he may determine, by notice in the Gazette transfer the assets, liabilities, rights, duties and obligations referred to in subsection (1) (a) or any part thereof from the Administrator in which they so vest to such public authority or public authorities as he may deem fit, with effect from a date mentioned in the notice.
   2. (b) The assets, liabilities, rights, duties and obligations of any development body abolished in terms of section 2 (2) or any part thereof shall as from the date of such abolition, pass to such public authority or public authorities and subject to such conditions as the Minister may determine by notice in the Gazette.
2. (3) The Minister shall exercise the powers conferred upon him by subsection (2) with the concurrence of the Minister of Finance, and, where a transfer of assets, liabilities, rights, duties and obligations to a Minister entrusted with own affairs takes place, with the concurrence of the relevant Minister entrusted with own affairs.”.

Amendment of section 4 of Act 75 of 1986

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

1. (a) by the insertion after subsection (10) of the following subsection:

1. (b) For the purposes of this subsection ‘Administrator’ means an Administrator as defined in section 1 of the Regional Services Councils Act, 1985 (Act No. 109 of 1985), acting—
   1. (i) after consultation with—
      1. (aa) the person concerned;
      2. (bb) the public authority in the service of which the person concerned is;
      3. (cc) any other body which or person whom he deems necessary;
   2. (ii) on the recommendation of the Commission for Administration if the public authority in the service of which it is intended to place such person is a Minister or an Administrator.”; and
2. (b) by the substitution for subsection (11) of the following subsection:

Amendment of section 5 of Act 75 of 1986

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

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

Amendment of section 6 of Act 75 of 1986

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

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

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

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

7A.

1. (1) A public authority may in writing authorize—
   1. (a) any person in his service; or
   2. (b) a committee of persons designated by that public authority,
      to exercise or perform in general or in a particular case or in cases of a particular nature, any power, duty or function conferred or imposed on that public authority by or under this Act.
2. (2) A public authority may, notwithstanding the provisions of any other law but subject to directives of the State President, in writing authorize another public authority to exercise or perform in general or in a particular case or in cases of a particular nature, on behalf of the first-mentioned public authority, any power, duty or function conferred or imposed on such first-mentioned public authority by or under this Act.

Elections for development bodies

7B.

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

Construction of certain proclamation

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

Agreed to (Official Opposition and Mr J V Iyman dissenting).

On Clause 2:

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to (Official Opposition and Mr J V Iyman dissenting).

New clause to follow clause 7:

Mr Chairman, I move the motion printed in the name of the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning on the Order Paper, as follows:

Agreed to (Official Opposition and Mr J V Iyman dissenting).

Title:

Mr Chairman, I move the amendment printed in the name of the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning on the Order Paper:

Agreed to (Official Opposition and Mr J V Iyman dissenting).

Mr Chairman, on behalf of this side of the House …

And some of us!

I said: “On this side of the House.” However, also on behalf of some hon members on the other side, I want to express my appreciation to the hon the Deputy Minister for introducing the Committee Stage in this House. I believe that all the debate that has centred around the Bill in question has been fully exhausted and therefore we on this side of the House approve the Third Reading of the Bill together with the amendments as they appear on the Order Paper of 28 March.

Order! I want to inform the hon the Minister that we are dealing with the amendments.

Mr Chairman, I have in a previous debate raised the various difficulties that we have had with the Bill for the reasons that we have given. Without wishing to take up the time of hon members in repeating those reasons, we on this side of the House would like our objection to it to be recorded.

Title agreed to (Official Opposition and Mr J V Iyman dissenting).

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Third Reading

Mr Chairman, I move, subject to Standing Order No 52:

Mr Chairman, we on this side of the House support the Third Reading of the Abolition of Development Bodies Amendment Bill.

Mr Chairman, we on this side of the House do not wish to belabour the points that we raised during the Second Reading debate pertaining to this Bill. For the reasons we stated during the Second Reading debate we on this side of the House have difficulty in supporting this Bill. In fact, I think we should take this opportunity to advise some hon members of this House that whilst they view the word “autonomy” as the only inference from a racially structured local authority, they should be very wary of accepting delegated powers, and wherever they have the opportunity to direct and influence their members in the local affairs committees, they should warn them against the dangers of the acceptance of delegated powers.

I would like to quote here that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council himself indicated during the debate the other day that those who go for delegated powers would be doing this at their peril. It will affect the community and have far-reaching consequences, and put an unnecessary burden on the poor dormitory areas of the people of colour. If those group areas are administered by LAC members and management committee members who assume delegated powers to govern those areas under their authority, one will have tremendous difficulties. I believe indeed that it will result in further conflict at the township levels, which will spill over to our communities.

Mr Chairman, I feel terribly sorry for the hon member for Stanger, because he misunderstands the entire content of this Bill. It concerns the intention of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning to abolish most of these statutory bodies, particularly the development boards.

I think that in an earlier Bill we dealt with the question of the abolition of boards such as the peri-urban boards and other boards which were largely responsible for administering certain Black areas. This Bill deals particularly with the abolition of some of the management committees which exist in the Cape Province, mainly so that some of these areas will be administered by the regional services councils, while most of them have been badly neglected under the management committees. I do not support the concept of autonomous areas for non-White communities …

Mr Chairman, I would like to ask the hon member a question. He is basing his argument on the fact that certain development bodies were inefficient and negligent, and therefore they must be abolished. In the same vein, the Durban City Council is grossly negligent. Must it also be abolished?

Mr Chairman, I am afraid that the question raised by the hon member has nothing to do with the provisions of this Bill.

I do not support the idea of autonomous Indian areas or other areas along ethnic lines. However, when it comes to the abolition of certain statutory boards which are not trying to provide adequate services for various communities, I agree that the areas should fall under an umbrella body like the regional services councils, so that the community will be able to receive the best attention.

Then you have got bigger salaries.

Mr Chairman, I am not concerned about salaries. I am concerned about the services which the community will receive from bodies like the regional services councils.

If the hon member for Stanger reads section 1(b), he will fully understand that this Bill deals particularly with the question of the abolition of management committees. After the abolition of the management committees, those areas will fall under the purview of the regional services councils. That being so, we in this House feel that the regional services councils are very important organisations, and I believe that the non-White community will receive the best attention as far as services are concerned. Therefore we have the greatest pleasure in supporting the Third Reading.

Mr Chairman, before I direct my attention to the Bill, I would like to respond to the previous speaker, the hon member Mr Thaver. He referred to section 1 of this Bill, where he said that it is the primary aim of this Bill to abolish management committees.

I wish to quote from subsection (b) of Clause 1. It reads, and I quote:

Is the hon member suffering from confusion? [Interjections.]

Sir, I take that with a grain of salt. If anybody is confused, it is the hon member Mr Thaver.

Sir, I want the hon member Mr Thaver to withdraw that remark. I do not think it is in keeping with the dignity of an hon member of Parliament to make such a remark.

I just want to make this point: If anybody in this House is confused, it is the hon member Mr Thaver. He does not know his a’s from his b’s, and he does not know his b’s from his c’s. The hon member said the primary aim of this Bill is the abolition of management committees! Who is confused now?

Unfortunately I missed the Second Reading of this Bill. The hon member said the RSC is a very important organisation. I would like to advise the hon member that the RSC is one of the various organisations that impinges …

Order! I would like to remind the hon member that the Second Reading of this Bill has already been passed. The Committee Stage has passed, and the hon member is now rediscussing the entire Bill. We are busy with the Third Reading.

Mr Chairman, I merely responded to the hon member Mr Thaver. He said the RSCs would replace the Development and Services Boards. I am merely responding to him. I think the RSCs are the most dangerous organisations ever to be instituted in this country. I do not see the need to abolish development bodies. I coughed up so much for the Cape Divisional Councils or the peri-urban bodies of the Transvaal. However, I want to talk about the development bodies in Natal which administers a number of local authorities within its purview which, in total surface area exceeds all local authorities put together in Natal.

Mr Chairman, is the hon member for Camperdown aware of the fact that that Bill has nothing to do with the Natal Development and Services Board?

I am quite aware of that. I am just drawing an inference about the services of development bodies. I know the DSBs in Natal are doing excellent work.

Order! I want to request hon members to maintain silence so that I can hear the hon member for Camperdown.

The inference is this: My contention is that it is not necessary to abolish development bodies. The DSBs in Natal are carrying out a very good service to people. I doubt if any regional services council can replace that service. Would it be wrong to retain the Development and Services Boards, or whatever they are called in different parts of the country, and give them the powers which the regional services councils enjoy? I think they will do a better service than the regional services councils which the hon member Mr Thaver referred to as important bodies.

I therefore cannot support this Bill, and I oppose it in total.

Mr Chairman, with reference to what the hon member for Stanger said during the Third Reading debate on the delegation of powers one can of course argue that that has already been provided for in the principal Act and that it is not necessary to come back to that. [Interjections.] I think the hon member Mr Thaver was correct when he referred the hon member for Stanger to the fact that that would probably be taking this Bill too far if the hon member wants to argue that point in terms of this Bill.

The principle of this Bill which has been approved in the Second Reading, as will the amendments that have been agreed upon, deals with the fact that we actually have to make practical provision for the transfer to other institutions of the assets, personnel, powers and duties of the development bodies that were abolished or will be abolished in future. That is all that this Bill before the House deals with. It does not create new institutions in any way—it only deals with the practical situation in order to make the best possible provision for what is necessary.

In conclusion I want to argue that I think this is a very necessary amendment in that it deals with practical requests that came up over the past two years. It also makes provision for requests that will definitely come up in future with regard to the transfer of the assets, personnel, duties and rights concerned. There is therefore no point in arguing that it creates new principles, a new delegation of power or new authorities. For that reason I think this is a very necessary Bill.

As far as the arguments of the hon member for Camperdown are concerned with regard to the Development and Services Board, I think we have already pointed out in the Second Reading debate that the Development and Services Board of Natal will remain until its functions are taken over or at least until the RSCs come into being in Natal. I am not quite clear whether the hon member is saying that the present Development Services Board is able to provide better services than the RSCs will be able to do in future. The composition of the RSCs is practically the same but they are constituted on a broader basis than the Development Services Board is at the moment. I pointed out to the hon member during a debate on another Bill last week …

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Deputy Minister whether he will deny or accept that the composition of the Development Services Board is of a non-racial nature, regardless of the people serving on it, while the RSCs will be by and large ethnically based councils?

I pointed out to the hon member in another debate last week that the Development and Services Board is a body appointed by the Administrator—it is therefore not an elected body.

But it is serving the purpose!

It is serving the purpose in the same way that the RSCs will serve the purpose and we already have practical experience that the RSCs in other parts of the country are serving all the people concerned.

However, my argument is that the RSCs are at least being constituted on an elected basis in the sense that the people they represent have had the opportunity of electing people to local authorities and the local authorities appoint those representatives to the RSC’s, whereas in the case of the Development and Services Board the total membership is appointed by the Administrator. Therefore, if it is a point of democracy that the hon member is debating, I should like to argue that in the case of the RSCs we have a better alternative. At least the composition in terms of racial groups, where it is applicable, is going to be the same and I would argue that the RSC’s will be able to provide better services to the communities because those members who are represented on the RSC’s will come from institutions by the people at the local government level.

I think it is adequate to say that the RSC’s, when it comes to the point where they are instituted in Natal, will be able to provide at least the same, or better, services to the communities involved than the Development Services Board. For that reason I do not think that the hon member has a good argument.

I should once again like to thank the hon member Mr M Thaver for his support, also in the Third Reading debate on this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I rise merely on a point of explanation.

When I referred to the question of autonomy I was not referring specifically to the provisions of the Bill perse. I was responding to a comment and a statement made by the hon member for Lenasia Central when he indicated that by transfer of power from this Bill to an own affairs Minister, Ennerdale could be prevented from obtaining autonomy.

The point I was making was that whilst that maybe so, the question of delegated powers that are being implemented in the Transvaal is another form of autonomy.

Question agreed to (the Official Opposition and Mr J V Iyman dissenting).

Mr Chairman, colleagues in the Ministers’ Council and hon members, it gives me great pleasure to present my second budget speech in this House. During the current financial year my department has made significant progress in its aims to provide better health and welfare services to the Indian community. In spite of the financial constraints and other restrictions on which I will elaborate later in my speech, the objectives of the department have nevertheless been met through the dedicated efforts of all my staff.

The policy objective spelt out by my predecessor two years ago on regionalisation of services is being pursued and we are making progress along these lines. Regional Welfare Boards and local committees are in the process of being appointed. A comprehensive approach to health and welfare matters is being achieved by more effective teamwork.

Following the Press release by the Minister of Health Services and Welfare, Administration: House of Representatives announcing an increase in the pensions of R12 per month from July, there has been a lot of speculation regarding our position ie that of the Administration: House of Delegates. I do not wish to comment on the merits of the decision by my colleague at the House of Representatives.

I wish to indicate that the Ministers’ Council, Administration: House of Delegates has already set itself the objective to obtain parity in pensions. We have had to face the reality of the present financial situation that the State finds itself in.

Since the introduction of the tricameral system, we have increased pensions by slightly more than 62%. The question we are faced with is: Parity now, at what price? Within the parameters laid down by Treasury, we have to accommodate all the aspirations of our people and not just focus on pensions.

In view of the country’s present financial situation and the measures introduced to control inflation, should we increase pensions, it would be at the expense of our other services that we have planned for our community. We wish to point out that there are other projects aimed at improving the quality of life for our communities with a greater priority than pensions.

As hon members will learn, we have made provision in our budget for a wide variety of services. To mention a few—we are providing funds for rehabilitation of the disabled, the drug and alcohol abusers as well as educational programmes aimed at their prevention, multi-purpose health and welfare community centres are being built and the provision of adequate clinic and hospital facilities for all our people are needed. All of this costs money. A further drain on our resources has been caused by the flood disasters of recent times.

I wish to assure our public that the Administration: House of Delegates will continue to fight to improve the lot of our people. I must emphasise that we act in a responsible and disciplined manner, particularly in view of the times in which we find ourselves. It would be premature, at present, to make any predictions on what progress we can make in regard to the issue of parity, as we will continue to make representations for additional funds.

Regarding the question of the total number of beneficiaries receiving pensions, it has increased by 4 906 since the inception of the tricameral system. If we wish to move towards parity with Whites, the percentage of the population that is dependent on social assistance from the State must decrease and also move to a parity with that of Whites. We have to develop a greater degree of acceptance of responsibility amongst our people for becoming financially independent.

That, Mr Chairman, is a hard reality that we have to face if we wish to contribute to the well-being of all citizens of South Africa. There is no place for parochial or sectoral interests when the economic survival of the country is at stake.

I will now deal with the various sections within the department:-

PSYCHIATRIC SERVICES

17 clinics in Natal and 5 in the Transvaal currently provide a full-time psychiatric service to the Indian community. In addition, psychiatric services presently being provided by the Department of National Health and Population Development in Durban are shortly to be taken over by my department. Services are also being planned for the Ladysmith, Umzinto and Marburg areas. Clinic services in Stanger have been increased from one day a month to three days a week.

Negotiations for the establishment of a home at Verulam for psychiatrically ill patients are currently being finalised. This home, with hostel facilities for 30 to 40 persons, will fill the void for those mentally ill patients who find it difficult to adapt, on discharge from a mental institution, to their domestic environment. It will also make it possible to treat patients timeously, thus avoiding the stigma attached to their being admitted to a mental hospital like Fort Napier.

In order to utilise, fully and cost-effectively, expensive facilities available to the Administration: House of Delegates, the psychiatric division has commenced a pilot scheme with the cooperation of the Department of Education and Culture at the Chatsworth Pre-vocational school. This scheme for the training of disabled patients is already proving to be a great success.

CARE OF THE AGED AND FAMILY CARE

My department has continued with the domiciliary nursing service whereby the nursing staff are making their services available even to the aged in their own homes where the circumstances warrant it. A total of 2114 home visits were made during the year and in view of the success being achieved it is intended to expand this service to the community.

With the appointment of a physiotherapist and a nutritionist the level of patient care during clinic sessions has been enhanced.

DENTISTRY

The number of clinics has been increased to 8 with the take-over by my department of the clinic in the Newcastle Provincial Hospital and the establishment of a new clinic in Orient Hills, Isipingo. As soon as the Lenasia South Hospital is commissioned by the Transvaal Provincial Administration, a dental facility will also be established there.

PHOENIX COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE

As hon members are no doubt all aware, on 6 September 1987 I had the honour to officially receive from Mr Volker, member of the Natal Provincial Executive, the key of the Phoenix Community Health Centre. This was the first institution taken over from the Natal Provincial Administration by the House of Delegates. Hon members may remember that in my Budget Speech last year I indicated that a take-over of facilities will only occur if we are sure that we will be able to render a better service to our community. In the case of the Phoenix Community Health Centre, which was taken over with effect from 1 September 1987, I would like to mention that the take-over was a timeous one, as had this not occurred, the services at the centre might have drastically deteriorated as the funds allocated by the Natal Provincial Administration for the financial year were seriously depleted. This, inevitably, would have necessitated a cut-back in expenditure for medicines etc. My department provided an additional R11 000, thus ensuring that the quality of service would be maintained and/or improved.

In addition to the existing services, physiotherapy and speech therapy services have been introduced, which fulfil a long-standing need for patients who previously had to be referred or transported to the R K Khan Hospital, about 40 km away.

Having referred to the R K Khan Hospital I would like to add that, because of pressure exerted by the Administration: House of Delegates, the Natal Provincial Administration agreed to erect an extension for primary health care and also a paediatric outpatients facility. These additional facilities are in the process of completion and will be commissioned shortly. A facility for psychiatric services will also be available at this new centre.

HEALTH AND WELFARE COMMUNITY CENTRE

In terms of the policy of the Ministers’ Council to take its services to the community, plans are already well under way to establish health and welfare community centres throughout the Republic.

The following services will be provided at these centres:

1. (A) Health Services
   1. (a) Psychiatric; (b) dental; (c) primary health care; (d) environmental hygiene; (e) District Surgeon services; (f) preventative and promotive services for instance-infant and maternal care, immunisation, family planning, health education and care of the aged.
2. (B) Social Welfare Services
   1. (a) Statutory services (adult and juvenile offenders); (b) family and child care; (c) care of the aged; (d) correctional services; (e) services with regard to the physically and mentally handicapped; (f) services with regard to the alcoholic and drug dependent; (g) material aid; and (h) community work and development.

In view of the fact that land is already available, the first two such centres will be established at Phoenix and Actonville in the Transvaal. In the meanwhile the acquisition of land in other areas where a need for such centres exists, is being pursued vigorously.

OCCUPATIONAL REHABILITATION CENTRES

The Administration: House of Delegates and my department in particular have taken the lead in South Africa in establishing occupational rehabilitation centres. These centres are specifically required for the continued training and rehabilitation of disabled children leaving special schools who have acquired certain skills and who have been unable to obtain employment in the open labour market or sheltered workshops. They will also serve for the retraining of people who, as a result of accident or illness, are unable to continue working in their normal field of employment.

In addition, these centres will provide the necessary facilities for the proper assessment of such persons as to the direction they should follow to enable them to become independent members of the community. My department is actively engaged in a project to provide greater employment possibilities so that the disabled person can find employment once he or she has been assessed and trained in the centres.

WELFARE As indicated earlier, my department is conscious of the need to implement the policy of the Ministers’ Council to take its services to the community, in the community. The Welfare directorate has currently established the following regional and sub-regional offices:

Chatsworth, Phoenix, Verulam, Pietermaritzburg, Durban, Stanger and Ladysmith.

An office is also to be established at Umzinto which, it is hoped, will be in operation by 1 June 1988.

Transvaal

Offices have been established at Johannesburg, with sub-offices at Lenasia, Benoni and Laudium. With the co-operation of the Department of Education and Culture, arrangements have also been made to provide a service from the secondary school at Palmridge.

Cape Province

The Cape has offices at Cape Town with suboffices at Cravenby, Rylands, Port Elizabeth and East London.

With the ongoing process of decentralisation, my department’s services are becoming more easily accessible to the community served which have been notably absent in the past.

With the co-operation of private initiative based on partnership, my department is endeavouring to meet the needs of the community to the very best of its ability. Existing gaps in service delivery are being assessed with a view to addressing any shortcomings and continually effecting improvements.

Mutual agreement has been reached between my department and the Department of Education and Culture with regard to the introduction of school social workers. It is hoped to appoint the first four school social workers in Phoenix shortly in order to address the problems of juvenile delinquency and crime and the increase in the use of alcohol and drugs among school-going children.

The integration of social casework, group work, community work and research is being encouraged since this approach had been found to be the most effective way in which social work services can be delivered for the benefit of the community.

With the acute shortage of social workers in the department over the years, community work and development have been totally neglected resulting in anti-State organisations infiltrating the community and propagating their own ideologies. Sadly, it is necessary to mention the constraints applied to this process of development by the curtailment of public expenditure and the restriction on staff employed by the Commission for Administration.

REGIONAL WELFARE BOARDS

As promised in my first budget speech last year, the establishment of separate regional welfare boards in the Transvaal and the Cape of Good Hope has now become a reality. The required notices have already appeared in the Government Gazette and the respective boards effectively became operational on 1 March 1988.

The establishment of these boards will allow the community in provinces other than Natal to identify their own welfare requirements and goals.

PRIVATE WELFARE ORGANISATIONS

The new method of subsidisation of social workers in private welfare organisations will have, as previously stated, far-reaching implications for a more effective service delivery. It moves away from case loads and casework towards programmes which incorporate an integrated approach, including development and prevention of social evils. The final date for the inception of the new method of subsidisation has been set for 1 April 1989. Private welfare organisations are to be assisted with the change-over.

PLACES OF SAFETY

My department’s new Place of Safety—Greenfields—situated at Dalton, has been completed and was officially opened on 23 January 1988. The first children were moved in on 15 December 1987 and are able to take advantage of all the facilities available there. The staff establishment includes social workers, a clinical psychologist, nurses, an occupational therapist, a medical officer, care officers and administration and general assistants. This effectively gives implementation to the recommendation of the De Meyer Commission’s report on the Committee of Inquiry into Certain Aspects of Child Care (1982), ensuring maximum assessment, care and guidance, so much needed by the children in their traumatic lives.

The Greenfields Place of Safety also provides additional accommodation and will obviously prevent overcrowding at the Valley View Place of Safety, which occurred at times in the past.

The existing Valley View Place of Safety is to be repaired and renovated, pending the erection of a new Place of Safety there. The new Place of Safety already appears on my department’s major works schedule. Accommodation requirements in this regard have been submitted to the Department of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture, which is due to proceed with the design of the institution. It is anticipated that the erection thereof will commence in the first half of 1989.

REHABILITATION CENTRE FOR ALCOHOLICS AND DRUG DEPENDANTS

The proposed rehabilitation centre at Newlands West is nearing completion and it is expected that the first residents will be enrolled in August 1988. This centre, which incorporates all the facilities needed for the rehabilitation of alcoholics and drug dependants, will be the first such centre for the Indian population. This project is the culmination of years of endeavour on the part of the former South African Indian Council, in the first instance, and subsequently the Administration: House of Delegates. Not only will it be the first rehabilitation centre for the Indian community, but it will also be one of the most modern in the Republic.

DISASTER INTERVENTION

Twice during the past year my department and its personnel were involved in rendering essential and integral services to affected persons in flood-devastated areas. The floods in late September 1987 affected the whole of Natal and those in February 1988, as far as my department’s assistance was concerned, were concentrated on Ladysmith. A great measure of success was achieved through the co-ordinated efforts of my department together with local civil defence organisations, the South African Defence Force, the South African Police, the Red Cross Society and other welfare organisations, church groups and individuals. My department’s role in these traumatic times has largely been a supportive one, where amongst others it was responsible for the provision of emergency supplies such as food, bedding, temporary accommodation and the rendering of social and medical services, where necessary.

In certain cases where families had lost everything, my department took the additional responsibility for the payment of rent in respect of alternative accommodation. An amount in excess of R250 000 was spent.

LEGISLATION

The new Child Care Act, 1983, Act No 74 of 1983, became effective on 1 February 1987. Various problems and shortcomings were manifest and my department, in collaboration with the Departments of Health Services and Welfare of the other Administrations, has addressed these with a view to resolving the issues.

DISABILITY PENSIONS

As in the case of my predecessors, I too stand accused of being the Minister responsible for the non-award or cancellation of disability pensions. At this juncture I would like to take the opportunity of explaining to hon members the process involved in the award of this social pension.

As determined by the definition in the Social Pensions Act, 1973, Act No 37 of 1973, of a person who qualifies for a disability pension, such person must be, and I quote:

This, by its very nature, implies that the decision as to whether a person is fit or unfit for work, is purely a medical one. Unfortunately I cannot interfere in this medical professional field.

In the past year numerous representations have been made to me personally to intervene in these decisions and, on investigation by officials of my department, it was obvious that income in the family was inadequate due largely to the inability of the breadwinner to find employment. I have consequently instructed officials of my department that where an applicant has been found medically fit for work, but is unable to find employment and that his socio-economic conditions are such that he needs support, my department will assist such families through the various social relief schemes available. This, inter alia, includes the provision of foodstuff and the payment of rent.

As mentioned earlier in my speech, the department is to provide occupational rehabilitation centres for the proper assessment and training of disabled persons. It is anticipated that in the future, applicants for disability pensions can be correctly assessed in regard to the degree of their residual vocational abilities, so that they can then receive the necessary training with a view to being placed in the labour market, be it sheltered, protective or open.

It is also considered necessary that whilst at the centre for training, such an applicant can receive a pension until such time as he is placed in the labour market. I am sure that my department is moving in the right direction and that the fruits of this scheme will provide members of the Indian community with job prospects and the resultant satisfaction of self-dependency. In other words, we are helping people to help themselves.

I might just add that despite the apparent fact that the award of pensions has been restricted by the constraints of the law, the number of beneficiaries receiving pensions has actually increased by 1 288 since I became Minister of Health Services and Welfare and by 4 906 since the inception of the tricameral system.

FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL IMPLICATIONS

I have highlighted some of the achievements of my department which have been attained over the past year despite difficult times. I attribute this to the total dedication on the part of the personnel of my department.

However, I would now like to touch on factors which are still preventing my department from reaching its goal of an optimum service delivery to the community in regard to health and welfare services. I do this, not to criticise or complain, but to inform hon members about the constraints under which we have to operate.

Health and welfare services are of such importance that in general it is regarded as an “own affair” in most parts of the world. The World Health Organisation lays great stress on the need to promote community development in the management of health and welfare matters and population and development.

To provide for the stability and the future development of Southern Africa, the perception of own affairs needs to be enhanced. The new constitution has created the opportunity for people to express their needs and to play a meaningful role in the allocation of resources.

The Administration: House of Delegates, as with the other administrations, must be seen to be meeting the expectations of their community. This, of course, has been achieved to some extent. However, the restriction of funding during the period of development of the administration’s functions is proving to be extremely detrimental to the evolutionary concept of the Government. The lack of sufficient personnel and infrastructure to cope with the challenges of the community is proving to be an increasing embarrassment to the administration and my department, in particular.

The new Constitution with its concept of own affairs has made it possible for my department to identify the backlog in health and welfare services to the community, some of which I will spell out shortly.

To rectify these shortcomings it is essential that funds be provided for the necessary manpower requirements in order that the problems can be addressed. Representations by my colleague, the hon the Minister of the Budget, House of Delegates, to the hon the Minister of Finance during 1987 to obtain an allocation spread over 2 years to allow for a proper infrastructure to provide the essential services to the community did not bring any joy. It would appear that it is not generally appreciated that a backlog exists in this regard. To curtail the development of a service before it has been established is to cater for disaster, as without funds, the Administration: House of Delegates cannot provide its community with the services in accordance to its needs. Yet the acceptance of the own affairs concept and the credibility of the Administration: House of Delegates depend unequivocally on the achievements of this Administration.

I would also like to point out that amongst the recommendations of the State President’s Committee on National Priorities, it is stated, inter alia, that:

1. (1) Primary health care funding should be given greater priority, and that
2. (2) the Population Development Programme is of vital importance.

It is ironic that funds cannot be allocated to this Administration to execute these important programmes.

Notwithstanding the lack of funds and essential infrastructures, my department has, as previously stated, developed a ten-year plan geared to eradicate the existing backlog and to ensure that the community receives the benefit of a proper health and welfare service in the areas which is the responsibility of own affairs administrations.

Health education is vital to the needs of any community but more especially a community which needs uplifting. Many members of the Indian community especially in Natal are underprivileged and need these services. Primary health care is the most important service rendering level as it is at this stage that 70% of all health problems can be addressed.

Community nursing services include school nursing services, geriatric clinics, immunisation services, genetic services, nutritional services and environmental services. My department has commenced with all these with the appointment of suitably qualified personnel ie school nurses, genetic nurses, nutritionists etc. However, these need to be extended for a satisfactory service to be provided.

Fixed and mobile peripheral clinics need to be established with their base being a community health centre. It is considered that the community health centre is of vital importance in the delivery of primary health care, as such centres will cater for family planning, combating tuberculosis, venereal diseases etc …

What about Aids?

Yes, Aids as well. I continue: … care of the aged, child care and health guidance together with a full range of curative services.

To meet the optimum needs of the Indian community it has been established that there is a need in the Republic of 37 peripheral clinics (30 in Natal, 4 in the Transvaal and 3 in the Cape), 15 small community health centres of the local authority type (13 in Natal and 1 each in the Transvaal and the Cape) and 5 large community health centres of the provincial type eg those in Phoenix and Laudium in the Transvaal. With community nursing services these clinics and centres will ensure that a continuity of cost effective care will prevail in that a patient will be referred from community nursing services to peripheral clinics to community centres and lastly to hospitals.

According to a Cabinet decision taken on 24 June 1986 the Administration: House of Delegates was to have taken over the following institutions: The R H Khan Hospital, the Northdale Hospital and the Phoenix clinics in Natal, and the Laudium Hospital, the Lenasia Clinic and the Lenasia South Hospital in the Transvaal. At present, however, only the take-over of the Phoenix Clinic has been finalised. The take-over of the Lenasia Clinic is in the process of being arranged with the Transvaal Provincial Administration. Regarding the take-over of hospitals, I can report that the Administration: House of Delegates has taken over none. As far as the building of the new Phoenix Hospital is concerned, preliminary negotiations are at present under way with the various authorities responsible.

The hospitals just mentioned should not be seen in isolation. They will always be regarded with primary health care as part of a comprehensive health care system which includes general practitioners, district surgeon services, local authorities and welfare organisations. It must be clearly understood that when all the mentioned institutions fall under the control of this Administration, it will be liable to public criticism should adequate financial provision not be made for them to function as a unit. To this end the Administration’s viewpoint is that unless the finances can be guaranteed it will not be party to such take-over. I emphatically stress that it is unacceptable that this Administration, and consequently my department, should be responsible for previous State departments and provincial administrations which were not only insensitive to the needs of the community but also failed in providing a fair distribution of resources.

I should like to add that it is not the intention of my department to develop a highly technological and professional health service for First World diseases disproportionate to the existing health problems. Large sections of our community are still susceptible to the morbidity and mortality conditions prevailing in the Third World ie measles, tuberculosis, gastro-enteritis and antenatal problems. It is considered therefore that emphasis must be on primary health care and, in particular, promotive, preventative and curative services which will be in accordance with the National Plan and Norms for Health Services Facilities.

The facilities and services which are considered an urgent necessity will be used predominantly by the Indian community. It is the policy of the Administration: House of Delegates, however, that other population groups should not be turned away when the need arises. By the same token facilities controlled by other departments or administrations should similarly be made available to the Indian community, should this be necessary. This will obviate duplication of services in areas where facilities and services currently exist.

As far as the Directorate of Welfare is concerned the situation is equally critical. The backlog which exists in social work services has built up over the years; in fact, since the take-over of this field of service by the previous Department of Indian Affairs on 1 April 1967. It was argued at that time that the Indian community was generally very stable, owing largely to the extended family system in consequence of which alcoholism, drug dependancy, marital problems, juvenile delinquency, the plight of the aged person etc, did not constitute a problem. However, already in 1964 research indicated that the traditional extended family system was in the process of breaking down. In spite of this the professional welfare section was restricted considerably in providing the necessary services.

Existing data shows that an alarming number of youths of all population groups appear in courts on charges of being in possession of dependenceproducing substances and/or abuse of such substances. For the period 1 July 1984 to 30 June 1985,2 586 children between the ages of 7 and 17 years old of all population groups were prosecuted, while 2 329 were found guilty. In respect of the age group 18 to 20 years, 6 791 were prosecuted during the same period and 6 176 were found guilty. With regard to persons over 21 years of age, 30158 were charged and 27 245 were found guilty.

The previous relatively low divorce rate among Indians is now on the increase. In 1980 the divorce rate was 3,4 per 1 000 married couples, while in 1984 the figure had risen to 4,8 per 1 000 married couples. The number of applications for divorce through Legal Aid in respect of Indians in the Durban area during 1981-82 was 193. This has increased in the year 1984-85 to 311. Hundreds of children suffer the consequences.

The abovementioned incidence of divorce is a rather conservative rate. One should take into account that because of the high cost of obtaining a divorce, it is common practice for married couples with children to merely live apart and aggravate their social circumstances even further.

Poverty, which inevitably results in personality, family and community disorganisation, has increased considerably in the last two years as a result of increased unemployment and other factors. A study undertaken by the University of Port Elizabeth has shown that the minimum household subsistence level for Indians in 1985 was R386,78 per month. During the same year almost 22% of Indians had a monthly income of less than R400.

The necessity for mothers to accept gainful employment has resulted in large numbers of children being left without adequate care and control. Stemming from this situation more and more children in their formative years are falling prey to various social vices. This is one of the factors which accounts for the large number of cases of incontrollability reported for social intervention.

For the past number of years there has been an increasing demand by the community for social work services with regard to complex problems that exist at different levels of intensity.

Our Administration has lagged in such professional service delivery and hence there is an urgent need for the situation to be remedied in the interests and welfare of the community. The fact is stressed that this Administration is heavily criticised publicly for its almost total lack of professional services despite the dedication of existing staff. The above is solely attributed to the fact that the allocation of posts is totally inadequate when viewed against the demand.

It is a poor reflection that the community at large is not receiving the benefits of a comprehensive and wholesome social work service from this Administration. This is not the case in other own affairs Departments of Welfare to the same degree.

Nothing at this stage has been achieved in the field of prevention and development. This requires tackling the situation at grass-roots level. In order to accomplish this objective, the community development (population development) programme and the introduction of social work in schools urgently needs to be implemented. Presently the House of Representatives has 30 school social workers serving 58 schools. This department has none! [Interjections.]

Shame! Why? Incompetence on the part of the Ministers’ Council!

Adequate professional manpower is therefore imperative. The other “Own Affairs” Administrations have already embarked on population development programmes and this Administration is therefore lagging. This is an embarrassment.

In recent years the Welfare Division has created a limited number of posts for social workers at psychiatric hospitals and clinics. With the Division of Health Services planning for the creation of a large number of psychiatric clinics on the basis of decentralisation, the Welfare Division will likewise have to create additional social work posts in order to ensure that the patients receive the benefits of a service based on a multi-disciplinary approach.

In order to ensure effective social work service delivery countrywide, it is imperative to decentralise social work services to the different regional and sub-regional offices that exist and to those that are being planned. Due to inadequate numbers of staff, this however, is not possible. The existing backlog is therefore multiplied at different points.

The new Child Care Act, 1983, (Act No 74 of 1983) has taken effect from 1 February 1987 and in terms of one of its provisions the Administration is expected to recommend the appointment of full-time court assistants especially in the larger centres. With its existing staff this has not been possible.

Consequently, a serious reflection is cast on this Administration. Furthermore, when the new subsidy scheme takes effect on 1 April 1989, departmental staff will be expected to conduct inspections of all welfare organisations on an annual basis with the view to evaluating their projects. The purpose of this exercise will be to establish that the subsidies are utilised for the intended welfare objectives.

In order to overcome the increased backlog and to ensure effective rendering of statutory, therapeutic, preventive and developmental services, additional posts are urgently required. Here again the current restriction on funding and the new policy of the Commission for Administration regarding the creation of posts are having a detrimental effect on the services that my department considers necessary in the field of welfare.

Therefore it is my contention that, although my Budget has been increased from R152 007 000 to R172 078 000, there is still a shortfall in funding by the central Treasury to allow my department to provide the essential services to the community.

With the co-operation of the hon the Chairman of and my colleagues in the Ministers’ Council, I pledge to do everything in my power to persuade the Treasury to provide additional funds and also the Commission for Administration to relax its current restrictions on the creation of additional posts. My department is a relatively new one, created within the framework of the new Constitution, and it needs to expand further to meet all the aspirations of the community.

Having identified the inequalities of the past, I must finally point out that my endeavours to rectify these are being seriously hampered by the restriction on funding and consequently the lack of additional personnel.

BUDGET 1988-89

For the 1988-89 financial year an amount of R172 078 000 is required to cover the expenditure on the various activities of the Department of Health Services and Welfare. This represents an increase of R20 071 000 or 13,2% over the amount voted for 1987-88.

The amount required by the department has been determined according to five programmes which serve the needs of the department. The principal objectives are defined as follows:

The amounts required under each programme are as follows:

An amount of R1 692 000 is required to conduct the overall management of the department. Provision is made for the ministerial and parliamentary staff as well as the management and administrative staff of the department. The amounts required under the various subprogrammes are as follows:

Provision is made for expenditure in respect of the management staff of the department viz the Chief Director and the Directors of Health and Social Welfare Services.

Administrative Auxiliary Services (R1 121 000)

Provision is made for personnel and administrative expenditure in respect of ministerial, parliamentary and other administrative staff at head office and for the purchase of supplies and equipment for the purpose of providing a general administrative and auxiliary service.

Programme 2: Mental Health (R2 286 000)

The amount of R2 286 000 required under this Programme covers expenditure under the various subprogrammes as follows:

The amount required under this subprogramme will show a decrease of R71 000 due mainly to the fact that the expenditure on single-care grants calculated on the basis of the actual expenditure for 1987-88 will decrease.

The following services are provided for under this subprogramme:

The extended family system in the Indian community has inherent qualities of care, concern and responsibility. For this reason the majority of the mentally ill amongst Indians are cared for at home. A nominal provision of R1 000 is therefore made for the treatment of mentally ill patients at private hospitals.

Single Care Grants

A total of 210 patients are at present in the care of their parents or guardians. As from 1 October 1987 a grant of R162 per month, representing an increase of R20 over the previous financial year, is paid to each beneficiary.

Subprogramme: Treatment of Outpatients (R1 723 000)

The amount of R1 723 000 required under this sub-programme will be used primarily for the rendering of community services to the mentally ill at departmental clinics and in the community. The treatment of patients on a community basis enables the patients to live with their families and enables them to take part in the open labour markets.

The personnel at present include two full-time specialist psychiatrists, one medical officer, six medical officers on a sessional basis, 30 nurses and six social workers. It is envisaged that a nursing services manager will be appointed during the financial year.

Departmental Clinics

There are at present 19 neuroclinics providing psychiatric services to the Indian community in operation throughout the Republic.

In addition to these clinics, it is proposed to establish further clinics at Marburg, Ladysmith, Umzinto and a further clinic at Unit 6 Chatsworth. An amount of R1 376 000 is provided for personnel and administrative expenditure as well as for the supply of medicines.

Community Psychiatric Services

An amount of R75 000 is provided for the payment of salaries of the staff who carry out home visit services in respect of patients who need intensive follow-up or patients who are not able to visit the clinics.

A further amount of R100 000 is provided for the payment of a subsidy to various homes and centres for the care of 34 profoundly handicapped children. This is 19 more than the last financial year.

Arrangements have now also been made with the Department of Education and Culture to use facilities available at the various special schools established by that department after school hours for vocational training of psychiatrically ill persons. An amount of R50 000 is required for the remuneration of part-time teachers/supervisors.

Subprogramme: Certificates: Mentally Ill

A nominal provision of R1 000 is made for the certification of mentally ill patients by private practitioners.

Programme 3: Medical Care (R10 377 000)

The amount of R10 377 000 required under this Programme covers expenditure under the various subprogrammes as follows:

Subprogramme: District Surgeon Services (R950 000)

The objective of this sub-programme is to provide curative services to indigent people, pre-employment examinations for Government employees and to perform medico-legal work. The department is responsible for District Surgeon services to the Indian community in the magisterial districts of Inanda, Chatsworth and Cape Town. The department now employs eight full-time medical officers and 10 medical officers on a sessional basis.

The major portion of the expenditure constitutes personnel expenditure.

Subprogramme: Care of the Aged (R363 000) Of the amount of R363 000, provision of R244 000 is for salaries in respect of personnel providing clinical services and health education to old aged persons.

Subprogramme: Family Care R4 190 000)

The provision of R700 000 is made for the salaries of personnel providing clinical services and health education to families. Under this subprogramme provision is also made for R3 490 000 in respect of the Phoenix Community Health Centre, which was taken over from the Natal Provincial Administration by the Administration: House of Delegates on 1 September 1987. The R3 490 000 includes the following standard items:

It should be noted that this is an increase of R775 000 over the 1987-88 budget allocated to the Natal Provincial Administration. This will ensure that the Indian community will receive the highest standard of service and that the supply of medication, etc, will not be restricted as in the past.

Subprogramme: Dental Services (R3 642 000)

An amount of R3 642 000 which represents an increase of R930 000 over the previous Budget is required to render dental services as follows:

Treatment

An amount of R973 000 is provided for the administration and running of five dental clinics in Natal and two in the Transvaal. Provision has also been made for new clinics to be established in Isipingo, Umzinto and Lenasia South. In the Cape Province one dentist has been appointed and seconded to the House of Representatives clinics in Rylands and Cravenby.

The amount of R2 311 000 is for the administration and running costs of the Oral and Dental Training Hospital of the University of Durban-Westville which, in association with the University, forms the Dental Training Centre for Indian dental therapists and oral-hygienists and a treatment centre for residents of its surrounding areas. The above amount also includes R112 000 for the personnel and administrative costs of the Dental Faculty in the process of being established.

Guidance, Prevention, Promotion and Training

An amount of R358 000 is provided primarily for salaries for personnel responsible for the organisation of the service so that effective dental health education programmes, prevention of dental diseases etc, which has been implemented, can be maintained.

Subprogramme: School Health Services

(R694 000)

An amount of R694 000 is required for personnel and administrative expenditure in respect of professional nursing staff who undertake the promotion of the health of Indian school children, so that they can attain the best possible level of physical and mental health, enabling them to achieve the maximum advantage from their school education. Children with defects are referred to the relevant authorities for assistance. Follow-up of health problems and education form an integral part of the service.

Subprogramme: Administration (R538 000)

Provision is made for meeting the costs of providing an administrative auxiliary service for the medical care programme.

Programme 4: Welfare Promotion (R156309000)

An amount of R156 309 000, which represents an increase of 9,47% over the 1987-88 financial year, is required according to the following subprogrammes:

Secretarial and Administrative Services (R4 718 000)

This subprogramme makes provision for the rendering of secretarial and administrative services to the Regional Welfare Board for Natal, and the newly established Regional Welfare Boards for the Transvaal and the Cape of Good Hope and welfare committees of Johannesburg, Cape Town and Port Elizabeth. It also makes provision for the overall administration of social welfare services.

Regional Welfare Boards and Committees (R144 000)

Provision has been made for the salaries of the secretarial assistants to the three above-mentioned boards and for the payment of expenses and allowances incurred by members of the boards and committees.

Welfare Administration (R4 574 000)

The amount of R4 574 000 provided for welfare administration includes salaries and expenditure of an administrative nature in regard to welfare services being provided to the Indian community, which includes, inter alia-.

1. (a) The administration of the Social Pensions Act, Act No 37 of 1973, which involves the processing of applications for social pensions.
2. (b) The subsidisation of old age homes in terms of the Aged Persons Act, Act No 81 of 1967.
3. (c) The administration of the Child Care Act, Act No 74 of 1983 (previously Children’s Act, Act No 33 of 1960), which includes processing of applications for maintenance grants, the subsidisation of children’s homes, the care of the children and registration of adoption of Indian children.

The personnel—administrative and professional—who are responsible for the various functions at head office and the various regional offices are as follows:

In comparison to the 1987-88 financial year, an additional 21 administrative posts and three professional posts have been filled.

Subprogramme: Care of the Aged

Old Age Pensions (R52 139 000)

The number of recipients as at 31 March 1988 was 27 032. As at 31 March 1987 there were 25 320 pensioners resulting in an increase of 1 762 pensioners. The amount required includes the additional amounts required as a result of the increase of R20 per month as from 1 October 1987. At present the maximum pension payable is R167 per month.

War Veterans’ Pensions (R696 000)

The total number of beneficiaries as at 31 March 1988 was 244. The qualifying age is 60 (male or female), but a war veteran who, due to his physical or mental disablement, is unable to tend to himself, may be awarded an attendance allowance irrespective of his age.

Proof of war service is essential and the same requirements in regard to citizenship and residence as under old age pensions are applicable. Parity with the amounts payable to Whites has been reached. The current pension payable as from 1 October 1987 is R233 per month.

Old Age Homes (R408 000)

Provision is made for the payment of subsidies to old age homes. The following old age homes are being subsidised by my department: The Aryan Benevolent Home West Sun, Chatsworth, which has 57 residents, and the Aryan Benevolent Home, Pietermaritzburg, which has 18 residents.

As from 1 April 1988 the Red Cross old age home at Malabar, Port Elizabeth, will also be subsidised. It is expected that this will be in respect of 35 residents.

The subsidy is based on the average unit cost of all the homes for the aged, less 66,6% of the average social pension or grant. On a similar basis 10 inmates are subsidised at two Coloureds old age homes, namely Gelvan Park Frail Aged Home in Port Elizabeth, and Huis Lodewyk Spies at Eersterus. It is anticipated that in the not too distant future, homes for the aged at Phoenix and Umzinto will be subsidised once applications have been received and finalised.

Service Centres (R200 000)

The department continues to subsidise the following service centres:

A subsidy calculated on 75% of the average unit cost per aged person is payable up to a maximum of R447 per annum, calculated on the average daily attendance. A further non-recurring subsidy of 75% of the actual purchase price of furniture and equipment is payable to a maximum of R200 per aged person per annum.

Subprogramme: Care of the Handicapped (R40 400 000)

Disability Pensions (R37 243 000)

The total number of beneficiaries for disability grants as at 31 March 1987 was 19 430. This figure increased to 20 029 as at 31 March 1988. At present the maximum pension being paid is R162 per month. The qualifying age for a disability pension is 16, male or female, and the pension is payable for as long as the beneficiary remains unfit for work or until he/she attains the qualifying age for an old age pension.

Blind Persons’ Pensions (R666 000)

The total number of beneficiaries as at 31 March 1987 was 299. As at 31 March 1988 the number had increased to 318. At present the maximum pension being paid is R167 per month. The qualifying age for a blind person’s pension is 19, male or female, and the applicant must be registered as a blind person.

Lepers (R1 000)

A nominal provision is made.

Medical Costs—Blind (R20 000)

A nominal provision is made.

Subsidies Blind/Deaf Students (R6 000)

A nominal provision is made.

Protective Workshops and Hostels (R1 104 000)

Provision is made for the payment of subsidies up to a maximum of R88,58 per inmate per month in respect of the undermentioned institutions:

The new rate of R88,58 came into effect on 1 April 1987. The previous maximum was R83,83 per inmate. The number of inmates also increased from 270 to 316. In addition, a nonrecurring subsidy of 75% of the total purchase price of furniture and equipment to a maximum of R350 per sub-economic disabled person per year is payable.

Homes for the Handicapped (R1 378 000)

Provision is made for the payment of subsidies to the undermentioned homes for the handicapped:

The subsidy is calculated on a unit cost based on the actual expenditure incurred but the subsidy is reduced by:

1. (a) the amount of board and lodging—662/3% of the average social pension/grant and
2. (b) any other financial assistance from the State.

Subprogramme 4: Child Welfare

Departmental Places of Safety and Detention (R805 000)

An amount of R805 000 is provided for the administration and running costs of the Valley View and the Greenfields places of safety and detention. The latter institution came into operation on 1 December 1987 and can accommodate 80 children.

Special Grants-in Aid (R75 000)

Provision is made for the payment of special grants to the management of children’s homes for the purchase of necessary equipment, renovations etc provided such expenditure is incurred for the benefit of the children.

Children’s Homes (R1 634 000)

Provision is made for the payment of subsidies to the undermentioned children’s homes on the basis of the average unit cost of all subsidised children’s homes:

The unit cost differs from year to year and is determined when the homes’ financial statements are received.

Places of Care (R24 000)

Subject to approval from the Treasury, places of care/créches can be subsidised on certain conditions. A nominal provision is made for the payment of such subsidies.

Maintenance Allowance (R43 920 000)

The total number of beneficiaries as at 31 March 1988 was 15 895 representing an increase of 888 over the figure of 14 871 as at 31 March 1987. The maximum parent’s allowance being paid is R162 per parent per month with effect from 1 October 1987. The child’s rate is R42 per child per month up to a maximum of four children per family with effect from 1 October 1987. In addition to this a special allowance of R7,50 per parent per month is payable if the beneficiary is a widow, widower, single, divorced or deserted person.

Foster Parent Allowance (R2 623 000)

A foster parent grant is payable to foster parents or guardians, irrespective of their income at the rate of R123.50 per child per month with effect from 1 October 1987.

Place of Safety Allowance (R350 000)

The allowance is paid to private institutions or places of safety for the care of children alleged to be in need of care, or children already found to be in need of care by the Children’s Court, until such time as the placing of such children has been finalised. The present allowance is R4,06 per child per day.

The following statistics reflect the department’s activities in the administration of the Child Care Act, No 74 of 1983, which replaced the Children’s Act, No 33 of 1960:

Subprogramme: General Welfare and Co-ordinating Services (R5 726 000)

Family Care Organisations

Provision is made for the payment of a 75% subsidy on the approved expenditure including salaries in respect of approved posts of social workers of registered welfare organisations which render social work services in the form of family welfare. There are currently 213 posts of social workers approved in respect of 38 welfare organisations and 10 national councils.

All subsidies have been adjusted to cover inflation and increased salaries and are the same as those paid in respect of the White population group.

Subprogramme: Rehabilitation Services

Welfare Organisations for Alcoholics and Drug Addicts (R250 000)

Provision is made for the subsidising of prevention and rehabilitation services which are rendered to alcoholics and drug dependants by welfare organisations.

The subsidies are in respect of administrative costs, rehabilitation services in private institutions or social work methods in the community, after-care services, distribution of information by information officers as well as clinic services.

Mr Chairman, I rise merely as a medical man to give the hon the Minister an opportunity to take a commercial break. [Interjections.]

Thank you, I appreciate that.

At present, a subsidy is only paid to the South African National Council for Alcoholism at the rate of 75% of their actual expenditure.

Removal of Detainees (R100 000)

Provision is made for escort fees (subsistence and transport costs) in respect of escorts who accompany children, committed by a court of law, to the Valley View Place of Safety and Detention and to the Greenfields Place of Safety.

Rehabilitation Centre at Newlands West (R840 000)

It is expected that the rehabilitation centre for alcoholics and drug dependants will open on 1 August 1988. Provision has been made for personnel costs and for the equipment of the centre. The centre will cater for 100 inmates and will be the only centre of its kind for the Indian community.

Subprogramme: Relief of Distress (R1 401 000)

Social Assistance (R1 000 000)

My department undertakes the administration of social relief (foodstuffs) to indigent Indian families subject to the conditions and principles set out in the memorandum on social relief, 1975. This is a non-statutory scheme.

Social relief is intended for persons who materially are in such dire straits that they are unable to provide for their own primary needs or those of their families. It is a temporary measure designed to tide the person and/or his family over the worst periods for their material needs and every effort is made to restore persons receiving assistance under the scheme to a position of independence, either by means of assistance under one or more of the permanent aid schemes or for example by motivating them to secure employment.

A maximum amount of R12,70 per person over 10 years of age and R9,00 per child under 10 years of age is paid on a weekly basis.

Relief Fund (R1 000)

A nominal provision is made for financial relief to persons in distress.

Social Assistance: Unemployed (R400 000)

The unemployment assistance scheme was introduced for the first time in the 1985-86 financial year. During the past financial year 2 578 families were assisted at a cost of R674 000. It is, however, expected that the economic situation will improve and the budget amount is accordingly being reduced to R400 000.

Programme 5: Associated and Supporting Services (R1 414 000)

The undermentioned services to the Indian community are included in this programme.

1. i) Prevention of nutritional diseases by collection of information and providing education and advice.
2. ii) Provision of education and guidance services.
3. iii) Provision of paramedical services to health clinics and welfare organisations.
4. iv) Rendering basic health and welfare services to the community by establishing multipurpose clinics.
5. v) Contribution to Sanitas in respect of retired personnel.

Nutrition

An amount of R150 000 is provided for the salaries of nutritionists and nutritional advisers and for their administrative costs, who undertake nutritional services in the Indian community.

Education and Guidance Services

An amount of R10 000 has been set aside to organise seminars, workshops etc with a view to educating the community in regard to health and welfare matters. In the past financial year, numerous such functions were organised and these proved to be most successful.

Paramedical Services

A definite need has been established for the provision of these services and an amount of R568 000 has been provided to establish occupational rehabilitation services which will cater for a large number of pupils who will complete their education at special schools as well as adults who have become disabled as a result of accidents etc.

Health and Welfare Community Centre

An amount of R316 000 has been provided to establish health and welfare community centres where basic services can be provided to the community. Services such as psychiatric, dental, primary health, prevention and promotion programmes, diagnostic assessment and social welfare services will be provided at a basic level.

Contribution to Sanitas Medical Aid

An amount of R370 000 has been provided to make contributions to Sanitas in respect of Indian personnel who have retired from the service and continued to belong to the Medical Aid Fund.

In conclusion I wish to place on record my sincere thanks and appreciation to the Director-General, Chief Director and all the personnel in my department for their co-operation and support.

Mr Chairman, I wish to begin by quoting an article in the Nursing News by Miss Muriel Skeet, a consultant to the World Health Organisation. I quote:

It becomes imperative that this department take cognisance of this article.

I entered this debate rather disappointed with the hon the Minister. Last year he came out very vigorously in respect of many aspects of health and welfare services. To my surprise, this time he has had so much to say about own affairs, that I wish to point out his misinterpretation of what the World Health Organisation has to say about Community health.

The hon the Minister says:

This is wrong, Mr Chairman. I disagree with him.

What rubbish, Mr Chairman!

I am very disappointed. I have a high regard for the hon the Minister, because he is a good Minister who is honest and sincere in his efforts. However, to resort to this sort of statement brings his rating right down.

I think he should change his speech writer.

Well, it would appear to me that the hon the Minister wants to propagate and promote the unacceptable and imperfect system of our present Constitution. I ask him to review his thinking in this matter and come down to basics. As we have always said, own affairs in the Department of Health Services and Welfare will never function effectively. There are a lot of anomalies in this own affairs system and we are continuously campaigning for the own affairs system, particularly in health services and welfare, to be exterminated.

From this side of the House we definitely do not support what the hon the Minister propagates, nor the manner in which he would like to see the new Constitution going ahead. I am just wondering—now that he resorts to this type of thing—whether he got a real hammering last year after what he had to say. [Interjections.]

I would like to get to the basics of the speech itself. Other speakers will no doubt cover statistical aspects. One of my main concerns at the moment lies with the service that is being rendered by the psychiatric nurses. [Interjections.] In this respect there is a sad lack of a psychiatric ward at the R K Khan Hospital. The hon the Minister states that a new wing will accommodate the psychiatric ward and I am hopeful that this new wing will come about very shortly.

Connected to that is the psychiatric nurses’ plight. These people have to undergo tremendous training.

By the hon member for Montford? [Interjections.]

They have to undergo specialised training to handle the type of patients which they have to take care of. It is therefore surprising that this aspect was brought up very effectively last year. We asked the hon the Minister to go into the matter of these psychiatric nurses not getting recruitment allowances. What did the Commission for Administration say? Because they are not employed in a State hospital, the nurses do not qualify. Yet they are qualified psychiatric nurses, handling psychiatric patients who can be difficult at times. They are exposed to the dangers of handling these patients. Bearing this in mind, I am sure the hon the Minister, who serves on the Cabinet Committee of Health Services and Welfare, comprising all the hon Ministers in the various Houses, could make representations about this matter and come up with something more tangible than merely quoting the Commission for Administration. [Interjections.] I ask the hon the Minister to arrange a meeting with the Commission for Administration. These nurses also actually take the psychiatric patients to the magistrates for certification. In the process they undergo difficulties with these patients whom they accompany.

The hon the Minister mentions old-age pensions, grants and related matters. Once again I am concerned about the disparity in pensions. In 1985 the Department of Health Services and Welfare: House of Delegates—but not the present hon Minister—told us that this discrimination would be phased out over a five-year period. Parity would then prevail.

However, the disparity is still there. It has been there for the past four years. There is a disparity of R51 in so far as the Indians and Coloureds are concerned, as opposed to the Whites. The Blacks are even worse off. Whereas the Indians and Coloureds receive R167 per month, the Blacks receive only R117 per month. [Interjections.] When will this disparity be normalised? Four years have already passed. Only one year is left and I am hopeful that, if the hon the Minister still retains that portfolio, he will introduce some sanity in this regard. He has not reduced that disparity at all. This is my argument. In four years the gap has not narrowed. It is agreed that the increment is the same for all three, but when will those figures be brought closer together? [Interjections.] Would the hon the Minister please do something about this? [Interjections.]

I know that at one stage the hon the Minister even went to the extent of telling us here that something should be done about the formulation due to an increase in the number of beneficiaries. “Regarding the total number of beneficiaries receiving pensions, this has increased by 4 906 since the inception of the tricameral system.” This is intriguing. I quote once again:

What nonsense, Mr Chairman!. The hon the Minister says that, because of the increase in the population, the grants have increased. What are we to do? Does he want to reduce the population? [Interjections.] We have not even reached the one million mark.

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

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

I thank the hon the Chief Whip of the majority party.

This sort of statement is not becoming of a Minister and as much as I appreciate his difficulties, he should not make this type of statement. [Interjections.]

Continuing on the subject of pensions, I think the time has now come for the State itself to promulgate legislation to enable employers and employees to contribute towards a pension scheme. Even domestic servants should be able to contribute towards this scheme whereby, in the twilight years of their lives, when they reached the pensionable age, they will have this sort of assistance without becoming a burden on the State. These are some of the aspects which the hon the Minister should pursue in his Cabinet Council. [Interjections.] Are we not agreed on that? He serves on the Cabinet Council and we need some feedback as to what he has done about the matter.

I think the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition brought this up last year, and the hon member for Southern Natal also brought this up, as I did. Once again I am coming forward with the same question: Has he taken this up in the Cabinet Council? That is my question.

The hon the Minister mentioned that various regional offices had been established in many areas. There is something intriguing about this.

I am given to understand that in Stanger we have a regional office which is situated in such a position that it is not easily found by people who want to visit it. The Child Welfare Society made offers to the hon the Minister for the occupation of their offices at a nominal rate. However, the department instead chose to rent the premises of an individual who is an ardent supporter of a particular political party. The rental is rather exorbitant and not market-related. [Interjections.] I think hon members of the ruling party should undertake an investigation. I believe there are certain anomalies which the hon the Minister ought to put right.

Umzinto, too.

Very well, Mr Chairman. I know statements were made from the other side to the effect that some officials of the Child Welfare Society are anti-Government and anti-House of Delegates. Fair enough, that is their prerogative. However, this particular child welfare official is not against certain bodies, because he himself serves on a local affairs committee.

That’s right, he is the chairman of the Stanger local affairs committee.

Mr Chairman, with this in mind, why do we have to pay more than is necessary to somebody who supports a particular party? [Interjections.] Here again I think the hon the Minister must cut his coat according to his cloth. [Interjections.] He is a good hon Minister, but I think he is being misguided.

We had problems regarding the allocation of funds and the lack of funds. I think the hon the Minister mentions on every page of his speech something about the lack of funds. We in Chatsworth, in particular, have serious problems with the number of vehicles provided for the social workers there. The number is very inadequate. On many occasions I have asked the regional representative to make certain investigations into cases where grants were cancelled. The reply we got is that they do not have the manpower or the vehicles to make the investigations. In some cases it takes well over three weeks before an investigation is made. I ask the hon the Minister what is being done about that?

An important aspect like vehicles for social workers, is not considered favourably. Of the few vehicles available, one of them is used regularly to transport a Minister’s children to school. [Interjections.] I have nothing against hon Ministers using State vehicles. I have no problem with that whatsoever, because that is their privilege as hon Ministers. However, when the community suffers and an hon Minister benefits at the expense of the needy, I object. [Interjections.] This is so. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, in fairness to the Ministers’ Council, I would like to ask the hon member whether he would please name the hon Minister.

Mr Chairman, I ask the Ministers’ Council to make an investigation. [Interjections.]

The hon member made a definite statement: “Minister’s children”. We want to know.

Mr Chairman, when I enquired at the office about what happened to the vehicles and why we are taking an hon Minister’s child to school and back, this is the answer I got. [Interjections.] Now hon members want me to identify which hon Minister it is. Which hon Minister stays in Chatsworth? [Interjections.] Mr Chairman, I am not being vague. I asked a direct question, namely which hon Minister stays in Chatsworth.

Mr Chairman, that is an allegation. I request the hon member to name the hon Minister he is referring to.

Mr Chairman, I rise on a point of explanation. I am prepared to let the hon member for Bayview have a copy of the rules of the hon the State President. The children of hon Ministers are allowed certain privileges.

Mr Chairman, I agree. I have no qualms about that. I am saying that the community is suffering. I have no problem with the privilege accorded to the hon Ministers. What I am saying is that by having that kind of privilege, our community is suffering. That is the point I am, making.

I now wish to point out what happened about the pension grants. The grants of a number of people have been either suspended or cancelled in Chatsworth and elsewhere. This is increasing in proportion. I must make it very clear that the hon the Minister has been very co-operative. I have made numerous representations, and there was one case about a man with one arm, which was brought to my attention. For 15 years he has been receiving a grant. However, last year his grant was cancelled. The reason given was that he was fit to find employment. What sort of employment would a man of that nature receive?

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

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

Thank you, sir. This sort of indiscriminate cancellation of grants causes our people tremendous harm and misery. I must commend the hon the Minister for having intervened. He immediately restored the grant.

Hear, hear.

He is a good man.

I agree, but he must improve on this report. If this is what he is going to give us again next year, then I am sorry to say that we will have much more in store for him.

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

Before I address myself to the report, I want to make certain concepts available to hon members of this House. These concepts went through my mind when I read this report yesterday. Allow me to say at the outset that the present health care in South Africa is inadequate. It is biased in its application and it is wrong in its approach.

A second point I wish to make quite clear, is that there is no such thing as own affairs as far as health is concerned. Throughout this report the awful stench of own affairs with regard to health facilities is prevalent. I agree with the previous speaker that this is absurd and ridiculous in the extreme. If it were not so serious, it would have been a joke.

I want to make it clear from the start that I draw no distinction between general and own affairs. However, I draw a distinction between unjust and just. When I refer to own affairs, I merely do so under the pretext of health services that are available to us Indians. Where the hon the Minister and his department are culpable and guilty, it is in their approach to the health problems of Indians.

In this country it is largely the case that those whose health is best protected also have the best curative services when something goes wrong and those with the least protection have the least provision for cure. This is an unjust situation. Certain medical problems are as common in South Africa as they are elsewhere in the world. The disease patterns of Blacks, Coloureds and Indians are similar and they are the disease patterns of poverty—this applies to the majority of us.

The big difference in South Africa is that the White minority has a European pattern of disease and the health care provided is suited to them. To merely extend the health care facilities that the Whites enjoy to the Indians, who have a different disease pattern, would be of no value and also unjust. It is like giving mealies or carrots to a man with no teeth or to give comic books to a blind man. I therefore want to repeat that where this hon Minister and his department are guilty is in their approach and their response to the problems of health services for Indians.

The hon the Minister is a nice man and a kind person but this report—I say this with all respect to the hon the Minister—is totally apologetic to the concept of own affairs. As has been said before, this report is not even secretive and it makes no pretext about the fact that it is orientated towards own affairs as is mentioned on pages 12 and 13. As has been said, this is absolute rubbish.

Community health is very different from own affairs health. We know that own affairs health is unjust, biased and based on a socio-political evil. Community health, on the other hand, looks at the needs of a particular community.

It is very difficult to define the concept “health”. It may be defined in negative terms as “not being sick”. Health can also be seen in a physical sense only. The definition of the World Health Organisation states that health “is a state of complete physical, mental and social wellbeing and not necessarily the absence of disease or infirmity.”

It is therefore of the utmost importance that health care should be available to everyone irrespective of race, colour or creed. To highlight this point I wish to quote Lanbourne in his book Modes of Health and Salvation, Secular and Christian as follows:

This really means that health care should always be available at the level at which it is needed; neither vaccinations not operating theatres, but the proper balance between the two best meets the community’s total needs.

The measurement of health of a community must be broadened. It includes not only the health of the individual but it must also include such things as the price of food, the state of the roads, the literacy rate, etc. In particular it includes a community’s ability to take decisions affecting its own future.

When one talks about communities one finds that one cannot talk of own affairs. The health needs of the community of Chatsworth for example vary from the health care needs of the community in Reservoir Hills or Isipingo or Malabar Hills.

Even in one community like Chatsworth the health care needs vary. The disease pattern in Units 6 and 9 Shallcross and Unit 10 Mobeni Heights varies from Unit 3 and Unit 5, because of poverty and socio-economic factors. Even in Unit 3 Chatsworth, Silverglen, has a different disease pattern and different health care needs than the rest of Unit 3.

Therefore, merely to put up structures emulating White facilities is a total waste of time and taxpayers’ money and is of no value.

It is for this reason that I, as a medical man, and many others who know the true meaning of community health are not impressed by the fancy figures given in this report or the building or funding of facilities merely for the sake of putting up these structures.

The Phoenix Health Centre is one of these examples. It was meant primarily as a primary health care centre and not as a curative centre. This was emphasised by the hon the Minister on page 16 of his report. The population of Phoenix is a relatively new population and in its innocence and ignorance regards the complex as a curative one. Besides dental and basic psychiatric services, which that clinic provides, I want to know what that centre does in the way of primary health care for the people of Phoenix.

The hon the Minister and his department must do their homework. They must have epidemiological surveys and studies and the various health care needs of the various communities within the Indian community must be identified. Then only can certain planning be done to meet those needs.

There is another good example of under-achievement on page 38 of the report. An amount of R316 000 has been set aside for health and welfare community centres. This is a mere pittance and a 100-fold increase would be more useful. That is where we start.

Let us get back to R K Khan Hospital; much has been said of it in the past. It is the famous—or shall I say infamous—top referral and academic hospital.

Much has been said about the overcrowding in the out-patients department and much has been said about the very poor facilities in the dispensary. However, this administration has seen fit as a window-dressing exercise to add an extension to the primary health centre around the corner of the main building.

I want to ask whether this administration knows what it is dealing with. In the first place, if this extension is merely to relieve pressure of work on the main R K Khan Hospital then this objective is not going to be achieved because this clinic will see mostly diabetics and hypertensive cases, chronic cases and also pediatric and, I think, some psychiatric patients.

Diabetics and hypertensives not only have high blood-sugar and high blood pressure, they also have other complications and sequelae of their disease that can manifest themselves anytime and anywhere.

I want to ask this House what will happen if a diabetic patient suddenly has an acute heart attack in the clinic. Is he going to be transported to the main hospital? What happens if a diabetic is seen by a doctor who decides that that patient needs X-rays? Must that patient then be transported to the main R K Khan Hospital, have his X-rays taken and then be brought back to the health centre just around the corner? Is this going to relieve the pressure of work or the load on the main hospital? Also what about the inconvenience to the patient.

Another point is that I presume the clinic—like all clinics—will stay open from 8 am to 4 pm. On the other hand the main hospital will remain open for 24 hours as all hospitals do.

What happens if a cold case of diabetes or hypertension—when I say cold I mean …

Mr Chairman, on a point of explanation: Just to try and assist the hon member—I thought he knew this already, since he served in the study group—the R K Khan Hospital is not under our jurisdiction whatsoever. I do not, therefore, know what he is talking about since it does not concern us in any way as an administration.

As I was saying, Mr Chairman, what happens if a cold case of diabetes or hypertension is seen at R K Khan Hospital at night and a diagnosis of diabetes is made. Is this patient going to be referred to the clinic the next day, which only opens at 8 o’clock? Where is this patient going to be accommodated? What will happen to the patient during the night? If that patient is not going to go home, if he decides not to stay in the hospital, is that patient in fact going to go home and come back the next day for treatment at the clinic?

This is just one of the problems to which this health services department has not given any thought. That is why I say that this Administration is merely emulating the White health services and in doing so, they are doing a bad job of it. This department should take a leaf out of the book of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and Minister of Housing. He always seems to find money and land available for housing. Therefore, the excuse that no money is available and the funds are lacking is a very poor one and is totally unacceptable to me. Whatever money is available must be used wisely, purposefully and properly.

I should like to mention just one other example of unjust and unequal distribution of funds. On page 4 of his report the hon the Minister mentioned that the clinic was handed over to him in Newcastle—it was in respect of a provincial hospital. This same hospital was updated, and this cost R21,5 million, and from inception to the time it was completed this took three years. All that money was wasted merely on an extension for a hospital that has separate facilities for Whites, Indians and Blacks. In the wards only about six Indian patients could be identified—and this in a hospital that only sees 27 000 patients a year, compared to R K Khan Hospital which sees a quarter of a million patients a year, and a total of 35 000 in-patients a year.

I want to know whether this Administration appreciates the effect that this dragging of feet and lip-service has on the doctors, nurses and patients that have to function under these conditions. The morale in the hospitals is quite low. Dissatisfaction and inefficiency will soon follow. Good attitudes, that are so necessary for good working conditions will change to bad attitudes resulting in inefficient service. Soon it will be a matter of too much, too late. By the time we receive anything useful or worthwhile, we shall no longer care. After four years of the tricameral Parliament we must ask ourselves what we have achieved so far. Other than just recently receiving a key for the Phoenix Centre, we must say that we have achieved very little. Year after the year the Budget merely makes provision for maintaining and updating existing structures and getting a few new jobs and a few more new structures.

All the comments I have made to the hon the Minister today have been bad, but I have one good comment. It pertains to the nursing staff, particularly Mrs Pillay of the School Services, who has worked under very strenuous conditions despite the lack of support and co-operation. She and her team have done an excellent and commendable job.

I am afraid I cannot say the same for our deputies, directors and doctors who drive around in subsidised cars. They are veritable Rip van Winkles. To them I can only say: “Wake up!”

No, that is unfair!

They should wake up from their slumber and do something so that we can see something that we can be proud of. There appears to be no clear cut planning, and people are suffering under the old infrastructures of the old provincial administration.

That new hospital in Verulam or Phoenix is merely a vision and is as far fetched as landing on the moon or on Mars.

Mr Chairman, will the hon member assist me in responding to the request of the people of Chatsworth for the opening of an old centre in Road 601? [Interjections.]

In conclusion I would just like to say that I would like to see that dream come true and that hospital materialise in my lifetime.

Mr Chairman, at the outset I would like to request the privilege of the halfhour.

I charge the hon the Minister with a crime; the crime committed being that he has denied 27 032 pensioners an increase at a time when inflation has soared. The hon the Minister stands accused, and the prosecution avers that should he not satisfactorily explain his actions, the hon members seated here in this Chamber, acting as jury, must most certainly return a verdict of guilty.

I know that the hon the Minister will plead not guilty in his defence. He will argue that he is ham-strung by the dictates of the hon the Minister of Finance. That is not my problem—it is his.

Has the hon the Minister been vociferous enough in making representations or has he just merely accepted the hand-out? It is the first time since the advent of the tricameral system that there has been no increase. When the hon the State President took office, nearly a decade ago as Prime Minister, considerable State spending …

Mr Chairman, I would like the hon member to tell this House and the world if it is only the Indian old-age pensioners who have been denied an increase, or does this involve the entire population of South Africa?

Mr Chairman, I did not want to reply, but I would ask in reply to that question whether the hon member is not sitting in an Indian Chamber.

You talk a lot of nonsense!

Order! The hon member may continue.

As I was saying, when the hon the State President took over a decade ago as Prime Minister, he promised to streamline the public service. We now have a bloated bureaucratic monster which is the country’s major growth industry. Every year the Government overruns its budget by astronomical amounts. But spent on whom? Not the Indians, Coloureds or Blacks, but on the have’s, in order to appease and even to coerce Whites to vote for the Government and thus ensure White political survival. I have a message in Afrikaans for the hon the State President: “Geld wat stom is, maak reg wat krom is”. [Interjections.] My apologies if some of the hon members did not understand that. If they do want an explanation they can put that in writing and I will explain it.

I have come to this conclusion, and I want the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare to deny this. Furthermore I call upon him to grant those who have to live on a mere pittance of a pension an increase which they rightfully deserve—otherwise he will stand forever accused of not even having raising a whimper.

Last year I issued an open challenge to the MEC in charge of hospitals in Natal to investigate the many malpractices, unfair dismissals of nurses, instances of nepotism and other deficiencies. [Interjections.] To date, Mr Chairman, no report has been forthcoming. At least the hon the Minister should have been apprised of the situation because are we not contributing financially to the province?

In 1986-87 Greys Hospital had 710 nurses and they attended to 114 681 patients whilst on the other hand, Northdale Hospital treated 197 684 patients with just 416 nurses.

The budget for Greys Hospital was R26 940 789 whilst Northdale was allocated R16 466 897. This borders on blatant discrimination and I forthwith call upon the hon the Minister of Health Service and Welfare to request an explanation from the Administrator.

I welcome the hon the Minister’s announcement in regard to increasing social relief food vouchers but I find it rather ludicrous that the pensioners’ attendants allowance is a mere R216 per annum, which amounts to R18 per month or R0,60 per day. The hon the Minister must explain how he expects a nurse or an attendant to live on 60 cents per day.

Is that sixteen cents?

No, sixty cents. [Interjections.]

The means test, too, is outdated. For far too long this subject matter has been addressed, to no avail. Many a promise has been made only not to be kept and in the meantime the community suffers. I pose this question to the hon the Minister: “To be or not to be?”. Does he want to be a Minister or an ex-Minister, or perhaps an axed Minister? [Interjections.]

A hatchet man!

The hon the Minister must take the rap but of course, he may blame someone else. [Interjections.]

I now wish to refer to other serious matters. My letter to the hon the Minister, dated 14 March 1988, reads as follows:

Who is the acting regional director in Pietermaritzburg—

Mr Chairman, I received a reply from the hon the Minister, and I quote part thereof:

Mr Chairman, having read the hon the Minister’s reply, I want to read part of the penultimate paragraph again. I quote:

I want to analyse this. It seems to be very contradictory. The hon the Minister does not want Mr Naidoo to jump the queue, yet he is prepared to assist in expediting the matter. How will he assist in expediting the matter if he will not allow him to jump the queue? I find this rather contradictory. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister will have the chance to reply. When he spoke, I did not interject.

The acting regional director is a social worker, and she is not au fait with the administrative workings of this department. She does not even refer Mr Naidoo to any department, but merely marks him present. This is humiliating.

As I said, I wrote back to the hon the Minister …

Mr Chairman, I would like to ask the hon member whether he is or is not on the hon the Minister’s committee. If he is, as I am to understand, why did he not take up this issue with the hon Minister at the time?

Mr Chairman, I am under time constraints.

I wrote back to the hon the Minister. I quote from the letter:

By this I meant the following paragraph, and I quote:

To date I have not received a reply. I now rest my case sine die. If the hon the Minister attacks me in his defence, I must caution him that I still have other startling revelations to make. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: When one reflects on the hon member’s last sentence, it is obvious that he is threatening the hon the Minister. That is nothing less than a threat.

Sir, I shall treat that with the contempt it deserves. I want hon members to understand that I do not run with the hares and hunt with the hounds.

Mr Chairman, I have only a few minutes at my disposal. However, rather than going into the details of the report and the hon the Minister’s functions, I would like to sacrifice these few minutes by responding to the previous speaker.

That hon member is serving on the Health study group, together with me and other hon members of this House. There in the study group it always seemed as if he had lost his tongue. The hon member never uttered a word. He agreed with the hon the Minister’s suggestions. He would never have come out with something like this of his own accord, unlike other hon members who serve on the study group. Today it seems as if he had some courage.

I know which instance he is referring to. One day I was in Pietermaritzburg and I had to stand in a queue with other people. There were eight people before me and two or three behind me. Suddenly a gentlemen walked in with two ladies. He did not even care to knock at the superintendent’s office. He simply walked in. He said: “I am a LAC member. I am entitled to privileges.” I, as a member of Parliament, did not demand those privileges. [Interjections.] That is the case that this hon member is referring to. If every public officer walks into a public servant’s office without an appointment and without courtesy, must the hon the Minister now protect him?

The hon member is trying to put up an individual case. He cannot dispute it. I know that particular person. I can bear testimony, because that happened in my presence. What does the hon member have to say now?

No, this cannot be defended.

Why are you protecting his Minister?

No, I am a protective person. I will give credit where credit is due, but that hon member’s attack against the hon the Minister’s functions is unwarranted and totally uncalled for, because he keeps his mouth zipped up in the standing committee. He had no right to come here and take up half an hour of this debate.

Mr Chairman, is the hon member prepared to take a question?

No, I am not taking any questions. I have only three minutes left.

Contrary to previous speakers, I must commend the hon the Minister. I wish to quote from page 2 of the hon the Minister’s Budget Speech. I refer hon members to paragraph 4, where the hon the Minister refers to the increase in the pensioners’ population. That is true. Some hon members said they wanted the hon the Minister to reduce the population. He is not asking that the general population be reduced. The hon the Minister says in his Budget Speech, Vote 4, page 2, and I quote:

I interpreted it like this: We read that more than 4 000 people apply for these grants. Their number should be reduced. The hon the Minister, through this suggestion, is giving an answer here. We have to develop a greater degree of acceptance of responsibility amongst our people for becoming financially independent. That explains a lot. I commend the hon the Minister for his courage to speak out on this issue.

On page two of the hon the Ministers introduction to his Budget Speech he says:

I want to refer the hon member for Allandale to those words because he is not concerned about the economic situation of the country. He says that 27 500 people did not have a pension increase but the entire cross-section of the country did not have an increase. The Blacks were also denied an increase but they will not die. They still get something on which to survive because their pensions have not been suspended. Hon members must not, at the cost of the suffering of the economy, make unreasonable demands because they are unscrupulous. I object to that attitude.

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

Mr Chairman, I have said that I have no time for questions as I only have a few minutes left.

I must congratulate the hon the Minister and his department again. His department was the first within the three Houses to establish occupational training centres. It was the first to establish professional training of disabled, retarded and handicapped children. That was a noble deed and one must take cognisance of it. I will accept that hon members bombard the hon the Minister for his wrong doings but he should also be congratulated on the good that has been done. This has been of great benefit to the community. I could also criticise unreasonably certain parts of the hon the Ministers’ presentation of his Budget Vote but one has to be reasonable.

I now come to the heading “Disaster Intervention” on page 10. I must thank the hon the Minister in public today for the assistance that he rendered during the September and October floods in Natal. I phoned him at home on a Saturday night at the witching hour because I had a problem with stranded people. He immediately started to work on the problem. There were people stranded in Cliffdale and in other places and they could not reach the shops, but he and his department supplied food and clothing to the Marad family for four consecutive days. There were many similar cases all over the country. I want to thank the hon the Minister for that. It must have taken up a great deal of the hon the Minister’s time and for that reason I am prepared to overlook a few shortcomings. He worked on the disaster issue right up to March this year. It is impossible to serve two masters at the same time so it was inevitable that one aspect of his job would be neglected, but the most important fact is that the emergency situation was dealt with.

I would also like to compliment the hon the Minister on the rehabilitation centre for drunkards. I am sorry, I should have said alcoholics. [Interjections.] It is commendable that preventative and curative measures are now taken to rehabilitate people who will not in future depend on the State for social pensions.

Mr Chairman, I also want to congratulate the hon the Minister. Usually this does not come from the Opposition side but facts are facts and I can see that there has been considerable improvement insofar as the social and welfare section of this department is concerned. I am overjoyed that the hon the Minister has given prominence and expediency to the rehabilitation of alcoholics and drug addicts.

I am sure that with rehabilitation of those people who will be going into this new programme the families will thank the hon the Minister for having thought of these unfortunate people in our midst.

I want to dwell on certain aspects of social welfare which are not mentioned here. Firstly, I refer in particular to cases—where there is no breadwinner and which fall in the category of grants—known as maintenance grantees. Usually these are the mostly—forgotten people in our society. They are the ones who have to face the world without a breadwinner, without a father and without any moral or financial support. They are entirely dependent on the maintenance grants that they receive.

A very disturbing aspect of this is that there are many young widows who are productive and are capable of being employed on a full-time or part-time basis.

Productive! [Interjections.]

I do not mean productive in the genetic sense. I mean productive in the sense that they are able to contribute to the general production of our society.

However, what happens? Certain regulations preclude these widows from working and do not allow them to supplement their maintenance grant. When it is discovered by the health or welfare inspectors that they are working either full-time or part-time and if is reported, their grant is suspended. The hon the Minister will know about this as I sent a case from Phoenix to him this morning.

What really happens is that in their plight and their helplessness they find other avenues—usually immoral or illegal—to supplement that meagre grant they receive. For example, they may deal in Mandrax, drugs or alcohol. I pity these people. They are not openly defying the law; it is their economic and financial position and their helplessness that force them to do illegal business.

I want to appeal to the hon the Minister that the regulations governing the maintenance grants be amended to allow the grantees to find work with a view to bettering their economic position. This is one aspect that we shall have to look into.

Secondly, there are cases where the grantees are helpless financially. There are promising students and scholars in those families who are stopped from attending school or college and are forced to work. There are many cases where there are brilliant students and scholars who are forced to eke out a living simply because of this regulation that prevents the mother from working either full-time or part-time. Taking into account the spirit of the speech made by the hon the State President last year and the question of deregulation, I am asking the hon the Minister to see whether there are ways and means of circumventing this regulation so that the plight of the widows and their families is addressed.

Mr Chairman, I wish to compliment the hon the Minister on the fine Budget speech produced by him. It is quite a lengthy one. I am also told by the former Minister of Health Services and Welfare that the present hon Minister is doing a very good job, and he should know. [Interjections.]

I think the hon member has something against our two hon members for Pietermaritzburg.

Mr Chairman, will the hon member take a question?

No, Sir.

Order! The hon member says he will not take a question. The hon member may proceed.

I wish to discuss school feeding schemes. These have not been introduced, and we have been bringing this matter up in this Chamber for about two or three years now. Owing to inflation and the high cost of living the poor parent cannot afford potatoes at R18 per pocket and tomatoes and onions between R7 and R8 a pocket. I therefore feel that instead of using millions of rands to bring sportsmen here from overseas, we should devote that money to this deserving cause. After all, if a car has no fuel it will not move, and likewise, if the children do no have food in the morning they cannot work at school.

We shall ask the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare for that.

I am merely bringing this to the notice of our hon Minister. Another point is that I noticed that elsewhere they have mobile clinics for the blind people as well as for the aged. I do not, however, see a mobile clinic in Pietermaritzburg suburbs. I would like the hon the Minister to take note of that because according to yesterday’s newspaper reports the aged have been allowed R10 530 000, and that is to render preventive, promotive and rehabilitative services to the aged in the community. The object of the service is for the aged person to function independently in his or her social and cultural spheres in their own community.

I would like the Indian community, too, to have a slice of the cake.

Furthermore, when parcels and blankets were given to the flood victims I understood that in the Black community, when the chiefs got the blankets they did not hand them out free of charge; they were sold at R2 to R3 each. This has nothing to do with the Indian community, but I do want to bring to the notice of hon members how the Blacks suffered.

I wish to raise another point relating to health services, and more specifically dental and medical services to school children. I know that there are nurses going about the schools checking on this; however, I speak not only from a dental but also from a health point of view. I do not think these nurses are checking on the health of these pupils; they only check for dental cases.

Much has been said about pensions, but I want to say something in respect of the emergency grant that is given to people who are awaiting a grant in cash. I know of a family with one child—the father is in hospital and the mother is at home—and they receive groceries to the value of R38 for two weeks. How can they survive? I think that this is also a matter for the hon the Minister to look into. R38 for a family for two weeks! I do not think that is a sum that will cater for the needs of the poor community.

The last thing I want to bring to the notice of the hon the Minister is that he must contribute an input into the building of low-cost homes, since the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and the hon the Leader of the House, as well as my colleague, the hon member Mr P C Nadasen and I went to some of the homes in Northdale…

Mr Chairman, the hon member referred to an hon member by his name.

I beg your pardon, the hon member for Allandale. I said earlier that in future, when the houses are built, they should have toilet and other facilities inside the houses, because it is no use the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council saying that those houses were built 30 years ago. He saw the handicapped men there that are suffering, in that they have to go through the front door to the toilet and bathroom at the back.

Imagine! They are handicapped men who can hardly walk. For future reference the hon the Minister should take this into account when houses are built.

Make more doors. They should have a back door.

I think so. The people who live in these low-cost homes are given pensions which do not suffice. There is no parity with the Whites, nor with the Coloureds. If they are to give the Coloured pensioners R12 a month extra, we will not have parity with the Coloureds. If the hon the Minister of Finance will allow that, then he should also allow us to give our people something extra.

Mr Chairman, I appreciate the fact that the hands of the hon members of the Ministers’ Council can only reach that far when the call is made to the Central Government for additional funds to meet essential services. What really concerns us most is that when a request is made for such essential services and support is not forthcoming, this disturbs us all. We are not here to blame the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare in this House. He has certain limitations within which he has to dispense finances in the most reasonable way possible. However, there are certain deficiencies in certain sections of the Department of Health Services and Welfare which need to be highlighted. We feel that we are duty-bound to bring this to the notice of this House. Whether or not it is heard by Central Government is another issue. I would like to refer in particular to pensions and disability grants. By pensions I mean hand-outs from the Government to those people who cannot survive. The disability grants are for people who are not in a position to work and who have no other means of survival. I want to make an earnest appeal to the hon the Minister and his department. In recent times I have witnessed several cases where people who were recipients of disability grants were subjected to having their grants cut. When reapplications were made they had to go through very rigid tests and in many cases they were called upon to go to specialists for a specialist’s report. I do not know why in recent times this state of affairs should prevail. I come to the conclusion that the idea is to reduce the expenses and to curtail losses. If this is so, I think it is done in very poor taste by the department.

Recently, during the Easter recess, three or four people in the Unit 2 complex came to me with problems. A person with a deformed arm and a deformed leg cannot work, yet his disability grant has been cut. There is no other means of survival and he is now asked to go and work. I think this is a terrible plight. Those of us who do not come into contact with these cases, do not feel the pinch. However, I do come across them and it hurts me very much.

In another case the wife was an established asthmatic patient and the husband had gone through several operations. He was told that his disability grant was stopped. He had to go to work and he made regular calls to the Department of Manpower, registering his unemployment. Now in the Budget Speech of the hon the Minister I read that services are rendered to those people who have had their disability grants cut, in order to assist them.

This is not even forthcoming, although their offices have been informed. I do not know whether this has, in fact, been put into practice or whether it merely has paper value. I want to seriously ask the hon the Minister and his departmental heads to look into this issue. It is a burning issue. This is a bread and butter issue that we are fighting for in this House. This is our own affair. When we were not in charge of this matter then we, as community leaders, were deeply concerned about how the White Government was dealing with it. Today, now that we are controlling it, let us open our eyes and see whether we can serve those people for whom our hearts wept. As I have pointed out, this is one method of collecting revenue to subsidise other services. These are also essential but a man’s bread and butter are more essential than providing other services that could be provided on a different level. I am making this earnest appeal to the hon the Minister and his departmental heads to look into this. They may not be aware of it because they do not come into contact with it directly in so far as these people are concerned. It is the report that counts.

I also want to say with regard to hospital cases, such as those at the R K Khan Hospital, that I do not think those medical officers have any reason to issue any certificates deliberately. They work according to the records. If it is an old, established hypertensive case or a diabetic case, or a case of such a nature that it warrants classification as a disability case, they submit their report honestly. However, that, too, has to undergo rigid scrutiny. I do now know whether those district surgeons who now control the assessment of disability grantees are given instructions to be even more rigid because they are now employed by the House of Delegates. If this is so … [Interjections.] I am sorry, I am merely trying to present a case. If this is so, let us think about addressing this situation because we are facing problems within our own areas. This is the appeal I am making.

I now want to turn to the question of pensioners. As from 1 April I think all of us have become deeply concerned about the R2 levy that has been imposed at provincial hospitals. Here again, there has been no increase in social pensions this year other than the R60 bonus which, I take it, will be paid out some time during May. A pensioner or a grantee now has to be subjected to a R2 levy. Where else must he go if he does not go to a provincial hospital for his services? It is obvious that if a person is disabled or a pensioner is old, it is because his health has failed him. He needs this type of service and so he is forced to go to Government hospitals, where he is subjected to a R2 levy for every visit he makes. I submit that if he makes five visits per month and those five visits are warranted, he will now think twice about visiting the hospital and this will cause his health to deteriorate. Are we here to allow such a situation to exist? I know that the Government has requested that the provincial authorities should think seriously about increasing their services by 20% during the year. They have increased them by 10% but surely there are other services that could have subsidised this particular one.

Furthermore, when a person, according to his particular tariff, earns under R200—I am not talking about disability grantees and pensioners but about any person earning less than R200—that is not a living wage and he cannot survive on that unless he has another source of income. One of these could be selling dagga, or running a shebeen. These two activities are illegal and a person engaging in such activities is subject to harassment by the police. Be that as it may, Sir, a person earning less than R200 has to pay R2. However, a person earning R210 to R450 pays R6. Where is the logic in that? What is the difference between R200 and R210 when one has to pay R2 in the one instance as opposed to R6 in the other?

Here again, Sir, I think that those people who serve as our representatives on the provincial administration need to be pulled apart because they have not played the game. I would very strongly suggest that representations be made by this House through the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and the rest of his Ministers, to the province requesting them to exempt these people from the R2 levy because this in itself is being sorely felt by these people.

This is also the case with the question of the R2 on the wage level between R200 and R450. On R450 it is R6. This used to be R3 and has now gone up to R6. That, too, is very telling and I think it needs to be addressed. I make an earnest appeal for some representation to be made to province. It is not the Whites who earn R200; it is the Blacks and the Indians. What about those Blacks who are receiving R54 or R60 in pension? They also need medical services. Are we here to allow them to just die, without any facilities? I think it will be a sad state of affairs if we overlook this important issue. [Time expired.]

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.