Mr Chairman, firstly I should like to deal with a few matters in the form of statements. If time permits, I shall then deal with the contributions of individual hon members who participated in the debate.

I want to thank hon members on this side of the House cordially for their support and their positive contributions. I also want to thank hon members on the opposite side for the level at which we have been able to conduct this debate so far. I think it has been in accordance with the best that Parliament owes this country.

In the first place, Mr Chairman, I want to deal with what I consider to be one of the central points—not the only one, but nevertheless one of the central points—in our debates in South Africa today, and that is the future of South Africa in the constitutional sphere.

The Government has regularly been accused of lacking clarity on the constitutional future of this country. In a changing, developing country, a country in which people are living, it is not possible simply to delineate a future and to say precisely what it will be, because circumstances change by the day; people change and there are reactions to action that has been taken. That is why it is a difficult task for a government, no matter what government it may be, simply to say that it knows everything about the future.

What is nevertheless interesting is that not one of those who accuse the Government of not being in the know have a plan themselves. Not one of those who reproach the Government for not knowing everything have a plan themselves, except of course for a whole lot of cliches, superficialities and slogans. [Interjections.]

Order!

I was not talking to those hon members, and I do not know why they are so touchy. [Interjections.] I was making a general statement.

There is only one group of people who know precisely what they want to do with this country, and it is those who are driven by foreign influences and whose objective it is to subject this country to an alien form of dictatorship. They know precisely what they want to do with this country. They want to destroy it. They first want to destroy it, and in the chaos they then want to establish a dictatorship which, with its tyranny and its cruelty, will continue to play the same game which is being played elsewhere in Southern Africa.

We who believe in democratic government and the broadening of such government, where that is in any way possible, must see to it that a meaningful debate on the future takes place. It is our duty to do so. In this connection it is not only we who are present in this Parliament who have that duty; those who convey what we say here also have an obligation in this regard.

I have here in my hand a very interesting document, published by the Hillsdale College, Michigan. The document appeared under the heading “Can democracy defend itself?” The person who wrote the article was Armand De Borchgrave, an internationally renowned journalist of exceptional calibre. I do not think anyone can doubt his status. He is no friend of this Government; he is critical of this Government. I am not therefore quoting him as a friend of this Government, but rather because of his international position. In this document he writes:

He went on to refer to the time when he entered this profession:

Furthermore he referred to the liberalism in the world:

In this article—I present it to hon members for their consideration—a person who knows what he is talking about is providing comment of such a high standard that all of us in this country should take note of it—not only those of us on this Committee, but also those who interpret what happens in this Chamber and those who suppress it.

There are a few fundamental matters in regard to which there should be no lack of clarity and which everyone in this country must accept as realities.

Firstly there is a civilisation in our country which has been built up over generations. It is borne and maintained by those who, together with the Whites, of whom the Afrikaners form an important part, believe in certain value systems, as the hon member for Sundays River explained very well here yesterday. Those principles and value systems may, under no circumstances, be jeopardised. Those value systems are effectively spelt out in the Preamble to our Constitution. If they collapse, South Africa collapses. Then there is chaos, which is to everyone’s detriment, as has already happened in some neighbouring countries in Southern Africa. Nothing which the international community can fabricate and propagate can halt the downward slide of those countries on the course they have embarked upon. This Government is committed, without qualification, to the maintenance of these civilised values in so far as it is humanly and politically possible to do so.

We believe that the Afrikaner and other White communities in South Africa are not, in the general sense of the word, a problem. There are problems in those communities, it is true, but we believe, generally speaking, that the Afrikaner and the other White communities are not problems, but form part of the solution involving relationships. Without us those issues cannot be dealt with. There are people who think they can do it without us, but there is not one place in Southern Africa where it has yet been proved that this can be done.

Equally, the existence and the spiritual assets of all the other population communities must be recognised and respected. This is the Christian standpoint. It is the Christian standpoint that one must be prepared to grant others what one claims for oneself. They, too, must form part of South Africa’s planning for the future.

Consequently I want to build up the future—if it is in any way possible—not on hatred, but on appreciation and mutual respect in our country of diversities. In each one of us, because we are human, there is sometimes a tendency to give way more to the hatred in ourselves than to our positive feelings. Hatred for or prejudice against others is not a prerequisite, however, for demonstrating love for what is my own.

Since I, as Head of the Government, systematically took reform further—I do not think it can be doubted, not even by my bitterest enemies—our consideration throughout has been not only to preserve these value systems, but also how to have others share in the privileges and advantages of a developing South Africa. We were guided by these considerations.

For decades now the constitutional position of the various Black communities in what is today South Africa has been one of the main topics in our political discussions. Surely that is an historical fact. It is no coincidence. The structure of our population, and almost three centuries of colonial history, have had a direct influence on this situation. Now is not the time to deal with this matter, except to mention it.

Since 1910 every government of South Africa has been grappling with these problems. Each of them sought solutions in the light of the wisdom and the reality prevailing at that particular stage. To accuse former governments of mala fides is objectionable. Our leaders who have led this country since 1910 as heads of government, were all honourable men. However much one may have disagreed with them, they were not people who would have acted in bad faith towards other people. In the process a tremendous amount of progress was made. Inevitably mistakes were also made. All of us make mistakes. If we did not make mistakes we would be in the life hereafter, and I have not yet seen any angels in this House!

Since 1948 it has been the task and responsibility of this party and its Government to deal with the challenges. I have had experience of this for the past 10 years. In the process, rights have been extended to millions of people who did not have them before. When the National Party Government came to power in 1948, Black people, with the exception of a few thousand, had no political rights in this country. Surely that is a fact. The world can rant and rave as much as it likes, but it remains a fact that the systems which were responsible for the government of South Africa prior to 1948 did not grant the Black people any political rights.

There are four states which have developed to the point of independence and which today form part of a successful relationship of multilateral co-operation with South Africa. This co-operation takes place, inter alia, on ministerial and departmental level. The Development Bank of Southern Africa, which came into existence in my time under the direction of this Government, plays a tremendously important part in this. Nor is it any use saying well, yes, they are what they are, because four independent states are a fact. The bank’s fixed and expected obligations in respect of loans raised for development projects amounted to R5 875 million on 31 March this year, and this represents 1 047 different projects. Some of these will perhaps be less successful than others, but the fact remains that in four independent states 1 047 projects, undertaken by a bank which this Government helped to create, are today the collective responsibility of five states.

Consequently I say that if a people in South Africa wishes to become independent, it is still an ideal—also of this party—to allow it to do so, without our forcing it to do so. That does not mean to say, however, that we will not ask questions, impose conditions or ask for assurances out of a sense of responsibility.

The recognition of the independence of such states will be advocated by reasonable people from other countries, and this is already happening. Visiting leaders from other states come to this country to see those states which have become independent, and upon their departure they say it is time the world recognised these states, or at least some of them.

No one in his right mind wants to or can undo this fact, except the revolutionary elements that do not mind what takes their place, apart from power, because that is all the revolutionary forces are interested in.

Secondly it is an indisputable fact that there are also six self-governing territories. This situation, too, cannot simply be reversed, not by this side of the Committee, not by the Official Opposition and not by any other constitutionally-minded party in this Committee or in the country as a whole. They will have no desire to do away with these self-governing territories.

That is why there is legislation before Parliament which seeks to grant more full-fledged rights and greater autonomy to these regional governments. The relevant Bill was drawn up after close consultation with the leaders concerned. Regular talks and consultations take place with these leaders.

Thirdly, as far as the respective Black communities outside the self-governing territories are concerned, we believe that provision must also be made for their political participation in the Republic. That is why provision has already been made for full-fledged, autonomous local governments for these communities.

The large-scale provision of housing, training and social reform are taking place here on a scale the world is not told about.

That is why I quoted what De Borchgrave said, because if there is one point on which South Africa is being grievously wronged, it is the fact that the extent to which plans for social upliftment and development are in progress in this country, plans which bring hope to the lives of millions of people, are being suppressed. Nothing is said about it. It is being drowned out by the slogans and the perceptions that are being created about this country.

Through these authorities they are also participating fully in regional services councils which are in the process of being established. There is common ground between every White, Black and Coloured community in South Africa to which joint consideration must be given. I want to mention a few aspects, and this is something a child could understand, if I may put it that way. Surely it is correct that the provision of water and electricity, transport and health services and numerous other things are matters communities must discuss with one another. Surely means and mechanisms must then exist to make that discussion possible. Surely we cannot stand and shout at one another from across the street. Failing to give these regional services councils a proper chance is not a sensible attitude, which can only be to the enormous detriment of South Africa.

On provincial level they are represented, together with all other population communities, in the provincial executive committees. Recently I made it my job to hold talks, not only with administrators but also with members of those executive committees, to ask them for their views on this kind of co-operation. From everyone—White, Coloured and Black—I received one answer, namely that it was worthwhile. Surely these things did not exist before; surely this is part of reform; surely this is part of development; surely it is part or progress. Without it these deliberations could not take place.

There is increasing insistence, on the part of Black communities, on institutions outside the self-governing territories which afford them participation in governmental processes. It is important for the Government, too, that progress be made with the constitutional development of these communities. For that, however, an attitude of co-operation is of primary importance.

Recently I received many letters from Black people from various urban areas of South Africa in which they thanked me because we, as a Government, were ensuring that they were given an opportunity to live normal lives so that they could improve their circumstances by means of consultation.

How can these regional institutions come about? They can come about, inter alia, by means of elected regional institutions which offer these communities a say over own affairs that affect them.

Since a representative basis must, in any event, be found for these communities to participate in discussions, these institutions can also serve as a basis for their participation in a formal body for consultation. Leaders must be elected in their own way and for themselves. This Government cannot elect the leaders. The communities must elect their own leaders.

The relevant draft legislation is being considered and will be formulated in consultation with the Black communities concerned and submitted to Parliament. Then we can discuss it on merit. What is more, where community interests call for this, further structures will also have to be created and developed to effect deliberation and decision-making on the basis of consensus. Particulars in this regard ought to be worked out in the proposed National Council—which is at present under consideration, although quite probably not in its final form.

The Government is proceeding with deliberations. It is not true that we have stopped deliberating and it is not true that there is no consultation. Today there is deliberation over the largest and widest possible area, something which did not previously manifest itself in this country. In this connection I have received various invitations from leaders of Black communities on various levels of government. These invitations will be followed up in the near future and I have already complied with some. In the meantime regular consultation between Ministers and some of these leaders is taking place, at departmental level as well.

Whatever steps we agree to, it is clear that we in South Africa are, through evolution, developing a system which contains elements of various models. Co-operation with the independent TB VC states is taking place according to confederal principles. Everyone who knows something about this knows that some of those principles are already in operation. In addition the system of self-governing territories has contained strong federal elements from the start. The same applies to the 1983 Constitution, in terms of which there is a division of powers between own and general affairs. It is no use ridiculing this, because the principle of own and collective affairs exist today in many countries of the world. It exists in Britain, although in a different form. It exists in Belgium, Switzerland and in many other countries of the world. In this way we have, for a long time, been developing a unique system which contains elements of these various models. For example, it embodies the possibility of a future development process by means of which all peace-loving leaders of our various population communities can be involved in matters of common concern based on a South African principle—which will have the European Parliament as an example—without interference with, or the destruction of, the national character of members of the co-operating communities. I foresee this as being possible, but then we must be able to work on it. We must then get more people to work on it. We must then get more people to make plans in a positive way.

From conversations with Black leaders it has become clear to me that they are favourably disposed to the principle of dialogue. In fact, I think that most Black leaders in South Africa are favourably disposed to dialogue. That is why those who are not in favour of this flee the country, because they cannot stand it here.

They must receive the protection of the bullyboys abroad. Consequently they support the principle of such a council, but they do not like the name “National Council”. Some leaders ask why the word “Indaba” cannot be used. One of them, a well-known Black leader who died recently, said to me shortly before his death: “Call it the Great Indaba.” I see there are hon members here who are smiling cynically at this, but their friends in the outside world and across the border do not like it; that is why they are smiling cynically.

At you!

Hon members can hear that Aunty is with us again! [Interjections.] I thought about this and consulted my colleagues. We think this suggestion deserves serious consideration and we are prepared to consider it in our discussions. The Government is not bound by any specific name, form, composition or functions for such a body. The Government is bound by the concept of a forum for consultation. I hope Parliament will proceed to give attention to the legislation which makes provision for a formal forum for such consultation. I want to emphasise that the proposed legislation is not a prescriptive step. The council will be a formal forum within the framework of which the Government wishes to pursue its politics of consultation.

Because it will lead to duplication of the advisory function of the President’s Council, this means that attention will, in due course, also have to be given to the present form and functions of the President’s Council.

This brings me to the President’s Council. The President’s Council is a body which has already played a valuable role in the Republic of South Africa and has produced numerous reports of importance which will still be made use of in future. Its term of office expires together with that of the present Parliament.

There is a feeling among some leaders of Black communities that they can make a contribution in the President’s Council. When the term of the President’s council has expired, its composition and functions ought to be revised in order to consider this.

Personally I have always been of the opinion—my colleagues know that—that the President’s Council should be organised in such a way that it will be a part-time council in which provision must be made for the activities of other councils such as the Economic Advisory Council, the National Manpower Commission and other part-time councils, in order to prevent duplication. We do not have the officials to serve all these councils, but if we could succeed in incorporating all these various facets into a reorganised President’s Council and could constitute the council in such a way that we did not, in the first place, ask whether a possible member was White or Coloured, but rather what expertise he was able to place at the disposal of that council, we would have solved one of our major problems in relations politics. We have already succeeded, to a great extent, in doing this in the President’s Council, and it is working well.

Such a newly-constituted body will be able to continue its work in various spheres by means of committees. If such a change occurs a smaller body will, of course, have to be created to take over the decision-making function of the President’s Council.

Furthermore I want to point out that we in South Africa cannot afford to try to draw up a final constitution. This is not something which can be disposed of quickly in this country. For example, it did not happen in the USA—it took them generations. It did not happen in Switzerland either, a country of highly civilised peoples—it took them centuries to complete their constitution.

I spoke to experts in the constitutional sphere from abroad, and from their councils I received the following advice: “Govern yourself into a new dispensation. Do not try to create it overnight”. It is in fact necessary for South Africa to give constant attention to an improved constitutional dispensation. By means of mutual understanding and co-operation we must govern ourselves into such a dispensation. The leftist-radical elements in this country, together with the ANC, want to throw everything overboard, but they will create chaos in that vacuum.

Although we are irrevocably committed to consultation and co-operation on this basis, this may not lead to the destruction of the self-determination of cultural groups and communities. Minority rights must always be taken into account. Even in the Soviet Union there are demands to this effect which are becoming stronger by the day. That is why provision must be made for the protection of groups in ways other than by mere paper guarantees, and in this system I am advocating we will have a future for our minority groups without paper guarantees.

Tell us how, Sir.

If the process of deliberation leads to drastic constitutional adjustments, I shall carry out my undertaking to consult the voters in a constitutional way, and I shall accept the outcome. If the White voters reject my the course I am adopting, it is their responsibility. The other groups in this country will have to be consulted in the same way by their leaders, and if they choose the path of confrontation, it is their responsibility. Leaders of the other groups and communities involved inevitably have the same right to consult their people too.

There is also another question we must reflect on. When the offices of State President and Prime Minister were united under the present dispensation, it was done with the best of intentions. In many respects it worked well. It has been my experience, however, that there are certain problems attached to this. In my opinion the State President must concern himself primarily with matters of broad national interest and policy. The State President is inundated with representations from individuals and organisations to intervene in day-to-day matters. For example, it happens for the most part that the office of the State President receives between 5 000 and 6 000 letters per week. In addition he is expected to conduct hundreds of interviews each year with individuals and organisations, over and above his other official duties and administrative work that he still has to do.

The State President ought to concern himself mainly with matters such as population relations, macro-economic policy, the determining of financial priorities, security and foreign affairs, as well as ceremonial occasions and functions that have arisen out of conventions. The day-to-day administration under Cabinet Ministers can then preferably proceed under the chairmanship of a Prime Minister, appointed by the State President. On occasion the State President himself must be able to preside, but normally he ought to preside over more general meetings of leaders of the respective communities with a view to deliberating on policy.

It will immediately be asked how this State President is going to be elected. I think the present electoral college, with a minor change, can make provision for that. I am in favour of Black leaders—recognised Black leaders—participating in that electoral college. Then the State President also becomes their State President. As many of them have already told me: “You are our State President. Make it possible for us to show it to you in effect.” Nevertheless it is not right that we tell them he is their State President, while they have played no part in his election.

Can they choose a Black? [Interjections.]

Listen to that, Sir! Now it is being asked: “Can they choose a Black?” That is the parrot-cry that is now being raised! [Interjections.] That is possible at the moment. It is possible at the moment that a non-White can be elected.

And a Black? [Interjections.]

In terms of a Constitution which was not opposed by those hon members, and which they voted in favour of as long ago as 1977, that is possible today. [Interjections.]

Order!

Pik, you have won! [Interjections.]

Order!

Furthermore it is my standpoint that until a satisfactory basis is found, on which that election must take place, the existing arrangement will have to continue to exist so as to preserve order. In the process attention can also be given to the constitution of the executive authority, inter alia in order to afford the State President greater scope for appointing people from outside Parliament to the executive authority. People can, for example, be brought in to help the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid and the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning—including people from other population groups. [Interjections.]

Look at them laughing now! Something is really tickling their fancy! [Interjections.]

We think they are beyond help! [Interjections.]

In the way I have now set out, we shall continue with what we began and with what we think is right. [Interjections.] However we are not being allowed to do so unhindered. Langenhoven was right when he said: “If you cannot help me, do not hinder me.” [Interjections.] Many of our so-called friends and many others arrogate to themselves the right to interfere and prescribe. Yet at the same time they say we must solve our own problems. “No, we do not want to interfere in your internal affairs. Sure, you must solve your own problems.” Then I ask them: “But why do you pressurise us then?” Why impose sanctions? Why all the hypocritical uproar abroad if we must now solve our own problems? We have succeeded in doing so for 300 years and more, and we have made great strides. Why should we now accept the dictates of the outside world?

The greater the progress we have made in recent years with reform, on the basis of friendly consultation, power-sharing, the division and devolution of power, the greater have been the forces unleashed to destroy it. They do not want us to succeed, and the other crowd that oppose us do so because they want to use our politics to conceal their own wretchedness.

Excessive, even impossible, demands have been made. This has led to sharp reactions; even to radicalism, which has taken up the time of this Government. It prevents us from giving attention to the important matters.

These excessive demands are not only being made at home. In the outside world pressure-groups are being unleashed on South Africa. In this way attempts are being made to prevent our Republic from calmly and quietly working out its own future course.

They are not succeeding. They hurt us, yes. They wound us. It reminds me of what someone wrote to me this week. He is a very good South African. He says he is a big-game hunter, and he knows buffalo, which are very interesting animals. One must never wound a buffalo, for then it is at its most dangerous. That man says he would like us to tell the outside world that there are a great many of that kind in South Africa—do not wound us!

The Afrikaans word “apartheid” has, through misrepresentation and spiteful propaganda, been spread all over the globe as a term of abuse. Disgusting perceptions have been created all over the world to depict our country and its stable population in a bad light. We have all been presented as barbarians in this country who trample on people’s rights and treat them unjustly. In this process the Afrikaner has, in many respects, been unreasonably slandered.

†I have on various occasions told the international community that if by apartheid is meant political domination by any one community of any other; the exclusion of any community from the political decision-making process; injustice in the opportunities available to any community; and racial discrimination and impairment of human dignity, the South African Government shares in the rejection of such a concept. [Interjections.]

’Contrary to the pattern of history, we are gradually rectifying these things. My erstwhile leader, Dr Malan, in his first inaugural speech—that was when he became Prime Minister—attached to the word “apartheid” a meaning which is not admitted today in the perceptions the world wishes to attach to it. He said it was not suppression, but the creation of opportunities for other people. [Interjections.]

The position that the Black, Coloured and Indian people occupy in South Africa today is one they have come to occupy over 40 years under the guidance of this Government, one in which communities have a better standard of living than people anywhere else in Africa. Surely that is true, and most of them admit it. Those who do not want to admit it, are either in exile or sheltering under the wing of liberals, shouting abuse. [Interjections.]

Order!

However, the same international brotherhood of persecutors apply their unfair discrimination day after day against people in South Africa who are responsible for the progress and development of this country.

Never have so few people been responsible for such a gigantic task as those who built this country into a strong regional power of Good Hope.

Á la Churchill.

Yes, the hon member is quite right: Á la Churchill.

*I am appealing for calm in this country, for the restoration of equilibrium, for the recognition of one another’s rights. If we want to live at peace with one another in this beautiful country of ours, it is time we began to reflect on what binds us together and not emphasise only our differences. After all, our country’s motto is “Unity is Strength”.

There are so many things that bind us together: Faith in Almighty God, who is worshipped by the vast majority of people in South Africa; our common love for our fatherland; the striving for greater prosperity, for the improvement of everyone’s level of education and of living conditions of people; our search for a way in which anyone can share in a free and peaceful, democratically-based society; our joint striving to solve our problems in a peaceful way without outside interference; our striving to allow South Africa to play its rightful part in the community of nations.

Let us reflect on how much South Africa and each one of its inhabitants can benefit if we reach out our hands to one another in co-operation and in good neighbourliness on the basis of these values. The Government intends to play its part in communicating and developing these common values and aspirations.

I make an appeal to all peace-loving and patriotic citizens and leaders of our country to support us in this endeavour. Co-operation on this basis can lead to South Africa developing even further into a strong regional power, stronger than it is today, to the benefit and prosperity, not only of itself, but of all countries on this subcontinent.

This beautiful country, with its wealth of diversity, deserves less negative propaganda. South Africa deserves more patriotism. That is the first matter I want to discuss.

The second was raised by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, and followed up in such a spiteful way by the hon member for Sea Point.

†I am referring to the question of the Church and the State.

*I thank the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition for having dealt with this matter in a responsible way and as an authority in this field. He is an ex-minister. I think his thesis dealt with this point. We can therefore listen to him when he discusses this matter of relations.

†I now wish to turn to recent developments in the relations between the State and certain church leaders. I wish to make it very clear that the Government is not in confrontation with the churches and does not wish to be so. On various occasions I have told church leaders what I am telling hon members here this afternoon. I have met with many church leaders of all denominations. For many reasons, I would personally prefer such a confrontation not to take place, but it so happens that a few church leaders go out of their way to seek confrontation with the Government, and then try to create the impression that there is a Church-State confrontation in South Africa.

On 15 April 1982 here in Parliament I stated the position of the Government and the NP with regard to these matters. I still adhere to that, but I wish to raise a few additional issues today.

South Africa is a country in which freedom of belief and worship is recognised in the preamble to the Constitution as a national goal and is protected as a precious possession. In South Africa, and also as far as the Government is concerned, the Church enjoys high esteem. The Christian principles which are proclaimed by the Church are regarded as the foundation stones of the whole community.

The Government wishes to govern on the basis of these principles and listens gladly to the voice of the Church when it exercises its prophetic calling in a true and correct way.

I went out of my way to invite church leaders to co-operate with me. I regularly receive deputations from various churches in my office, not only from my own church, but from many other denominations. May I remind hon members that while I was Minister of Defence, I personally took the lead to create opportunities for well known denominations—over one hundred of them—to do their work in the armed forces of South Africa.

In exercising their prophetic task outside the religious sphere, however, the churches must recognise certain limitations. Where theologians do not have sufficient information outside their own field of knowledge, they should guard against declarations on subjects about which they do not always possess adequate knowledge.

It is also difficult for the State to react when the various churches adopt a confusion of contradictory standpoints. It is certainly not the task of the State to decide who is right or wrong. They should accordingly try to speak with one voice if they wish the State to react.

The Government is also aware that certain members of the clergy deliberately pursue a path of confrontation. I am speaking of certain members of the clergy, and not of the churches as such. Especially during the past year, a conscious and planned strategy has been followed to implement what has already been proposed in the Kairos document. That is that confrontation with and resistance to the Government are the only Biblical options for churches in South Africa in their relationship with the State.

Under the auspices of the World Council of Churches, and the South African Council of Churches in particular, financed by the World Council of Churches, it has been alleged that the Government is illegitimate. Some of the church leaders encourage members to work for the downfall of the Government and for the transfer of power to the ANC. As a result, the violence of terrorist organisations, such as the ANC, has been justified in various church forums during the past year.

Actions aimed at deliberately challenging the authority of the State, and contravening the laws of the land, are propagated and initiated with a view to cheap publicity. We had experience of that with an attempted march on Parliament, whereas they had the alternative just to get in touch with me telephonically, make an appointment and hand over their petition.

Here and abroad they wage propaganda campaigns based on misrepresentation and falsehood. They even advocate sanctions against their own countries, as happened a few days ago. They take the lead in isolating the Republic of South Africa in the economic and other fields, without caring in the least about the detrimental results to thousands of people who cannot afford it.

They accordingly play into the hands of the ANC, which openly proclaims and propagates the same approach with regard to the revolutionary role of the Church. Members of the Church are thus taken in tow by a few radical clergy and certain academics who are attempting to force liberation theology on the churches from above. There is a vast difference between liberation theology and what we as Christians believe in! Some of them even attended funerals under a flag displaying the hammer and sickle. They are often people who themselves do not have to answer for their positions to church members.

It is obviously unacceptable to any Government that church leaders approve and encourage by implication revolutionary violence in the name of Christianity. This kind of phenomenon troubles me as a Christian.

It is also noteworthy that these radical church leaders try to create the impression that they represent the majority of Christians in our country.

This is not true. The member churches of the SA Council of Churches represent a minority of Christians in South Africa. Furthermore, the supporters of liberation theology in turn constitute a very small minority in those churches. Every day we find more and more evidence of this.

I therefore appeal to responsible church leaders and theologians to adopt a clear and responsible approach. If these trends amount to a misuse of the Bible and of religion in general, they must be unmasked as such.

I wish to repeat that the Government does not seek confrontation with the church. There are certain church leaders, however, who go out of their way to provoke the Government into taking steps. I urgently appeal to them to abandon this kind of attitude and not to misuse their positions.

I do not expect church leaders to agree with me on everything. The Government is also not intolerant of criticism, and attaches importance to the voice of the church. Then, however, the church in South Africa should play a responsible, constructive and conciliatory role.

I accordingly repeat my appeal to churches to support me in this regard and not to allow themselves to be misused by forces of destruction.

*I am not a theologian, but I grew up in a Christian home, subsequently spent my whole life in a Christian atmosphere and still find myself in the company of prominent church leaders.

Recently I put a question to one of the leaders who, from time to time, makes things difficult for me. I put it to him in writing, and subsequently submitted it in writing to theologian friends of mine and asked them about it. This afternoon I want to repeat it here with all due respect, because I should not like to see it being demeaned to the level of a political issue.

We as Christians know that Christ spent 33 years of his life on this earth of ours. Of those 33 years we know about three. Of the rest we know nothing, or very little. I asked this bishop—I subsequently asked other church leaders—to mention to me one instance, during those three years, in which Christ was active in public life, in which He led a demonstration against the State. I asked him to mention one example to me of where Christ preached violence against the State, or one example in his life, as Redeemer, in which He challenged the power of the State, or encouraged people to do so.

The answer I received from the bishop was that Christ did so when He said that the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. I then told him that his theology was rather erroneously based and that he did not know what he was talking about. When Christ said that, He was speaking to his Church and His fellow-believers. In the face of that he had to remain silent. Subsequently I put this question to leading theologians in South Africa, and they could not give me a reply, because it is a fact—Christ is not a man of violence. To use the Church of Christ to encourage terrorist violence, is sacrilege. Therefore I appeal to our Churches, for the sake of what we have built up in this sphere in South Africa, to come to their senses and to preserve what is such a fine attribute of this country, namely the freedom of religion, the heritage of our Huguenot forbears.

Before I come to hon members, there is another matter I want to discuss. Hon members will have to bear with me; I listened to them for a long time yesterday. The matter I want to discuss is the reaction of the private sector to the Government’s recent economic initiatives.

At the opening of Parliament on 5 February this year, important policy guide-lines in the economic sphere were laid down. In particular it was indicated that the Government wanted to bring Government spending down to within affordable limits and wanted, at the same time, to make an important contribution to curbing inflation. In pursuing both these objectives, and in the knowledge that both these objectives require on-going strategies and campaigns, it was decided, inter alia, not to grant employees of the State general salary and wage increases this year. It was not an easy decision to take.

Because it is unfair that State employees alone should make the sacrifices necessary to limit inflation to the benefit of everyone, I held discussions on several occasions with members of the Economic Advisory Council, representatives of organised trade and industry, professional groups, consumer organisations, agriculture, womens’ organisations, employees’ organisations within the State, staff associations, trade unions and the media. I personally attended as many of these talks as possible. I also wrote to more than 500 leading businessmen, who were not present at the aforementioned talks. The purpose of the talks and the letters was to ask for the support of the private sector in the struggle against inflation. The specific request made was for discipline in wage, salary and price increases.

Quite a lot of time has elapsed since the Opening Address, and I must admit that the reaction of the private sector has thus far been disappointing. I did receive a number of letters from businessmen who supported the economic initiatives whole-heartedly, but I conclude from the general media that the private sector, in general, has been granting increases of 15% to 16%.

I also found it strange to receive a letter—this was in reply to one of my letters—from a leading businessman in which he declared his whole-hearted support for the struggle against inflation, only to read in the financial Press that he had granted salary increases of up to 28%.

Despite the positive letters received from businessmen—there are some of them who co-operated wholeheartedly—the question that involuntarily comes to mind is whether this was all mere lip-service.

Apart from the letters received from businessmen, the public also expressed their support for the struggle against inflation. In most of these letters from members of the public, serious doubt was expressed about the real willingness of the private sector to co-operate.

A clear and tangible quid pro quo from the private sector, in exchange for the sacrifice made, inter alia, by public servants not receiving general salary increases this year, is called for. I listened to the staff associations and spent hours with them. What struck me was how eloquent were their pleas for the less-affluent among them. I knew they had a case, and I told them so. To my disappointment it is becoming clearer to me by the day that this quid pro quo is not going to materialise by way of efforts at persuasion or voluntary teamwork. Other mechanisms will have to be considered in order to help combat inflation.

In the proposed Action Plan for the Combating of Inflation by the Economic Advisory Council it is recommended, inter alia, that competition be promoted and that the position of the consumer in the price-determining process be strengthened. Consequently the Government has decided that legislation will be introduced as soon as possible, during the present session of Parliament, which will substantially strengthen the competitive position of the consumer and offer him more protection. [Interjections.] The Government subscribes to an economic system based on private enterprise and effective competition. In such an economic system the consumer is, in the first place, protected against exploitation by the existence of competitive markets. To help the role of competition and further strengthen the position of the consumer, the proposed legislation will make rapid and effective action possible against those engaging in harmful business practices.

The draft legislation will establish a business practices committee that will be in a position to investigate harmful business practices. It will also be possible to investigate extraordinary price increases, and it will be possible for action to be taken. Institutions such as the Consumer Council will, of course, be represented on the Business Practices Committee.

Our striving for the greatest possible growth rate, with price stability, compels this Government to seek untiringly for ways of promoting this, and considering the extent to which the contribution by the private sector has fallen short, the Government has no choice but to take the lead itself.

Hear, hear!

A number of the hon members raised certain matters, and I want to deal with these quickly. I think I have dealt adequately with matters the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition raised. I also dealt with the matters raised by the hon member for Innesdal, and I think the two of us are now ad idem.

Is FW satisfied?

Yes, he is satisfied; otherwise he would not be sitting in my Cabinet.

Is he not going before the executive committee anymore?

Possibly he will, but the hon member for Overvaal should have been before an executive committee long ago. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Bellville referred correctly to the peaceful solutions we need among leaders who associate peacefully with one another.

The hon member for Sea Point, as he is inclined to do, administered what I shall call a large number of pinpricks. The older he gets, the more his speeches incline to this. He makes little statements and sees how many people he can prick in the process. In reality it no longer makes any difference, because the hon member himself is in trouble with that kind of policy. He is getting weaker all the time. The hon member’s party is sapping his strength all the time.

Answer my questions.

I shall answer the hon member’s questions.

[Inaudible.]

The hon member said we had a lack of confidence about where we were going. Surely that is not true! The lack of confidence is on that side! [Interjections.] Hon members need only look at the composition of this Parliament. The hon member is in a minority of minorities. [Interjections.]

He says we are isolated, but surely that is not true, because we are trading With Africa and large parts of the world. Our trade is expanding, in spite of the sanctions his friends are promoting. After all, Archbishop Tutu is the hon member’s friend. Does he want to deny it today? If the hon member were to tell me that he rejected Archbishop Tutu, I would welcome it, for then he would be on the right path.

You know I reject sanctions. You know that we have done more …

I am talking about the hon member’s friends. They preach sanctions, and the hon member knows it. Surely he knows that the people with whom he keeps company preach sanctions. [Interjections.] The hon member condones their protest marches. Has he ever stood up in public—I challenge him not to come forward with trivialities again, but to do it in this House—and say that he rejects Tutu’s sanctions campaign against South Africa? [Interjections.]

Order!

I would welcome it, but the hon member must not come and tell me we are isolated when our country is under attack from the devil himself.

Why do you think Mrs Thatcher is …

The hon member must not call in the help of Mrs Thatcher. She has her own problems. [Interjections.]

He referred to the revolutionary climate. I asked him yesterday whether this revolutionary climate to which he referred existed only in South Africa.

Does that make it good?

Does it exist only in South Africa, or does it exist at various crisis points all over the globe where an orchestrated international terrorism campaign is seeking to undermine stability? Why does the hon member not see these things in their correct perspective? Why does he blame the Government?

It is after all your fault.

The hon member imagines that if they came to power the ANC would call a halt. That is what that clever hon member says. Of course the ANC would then call a halt, because it would have got what it wanted. [Interjections.] That is what the argument amounts to. [Interjections.]

Order!

I want to quote to the hon member for Sea Point from yesterday’s Daily Telegraph what…

Mr Reads.

… Thabo Mbeki said. No, the other friend of the hon members, Thabo Mbeki, said the following:

He went on to say:

This is a clear admission of their failures. They came against the Government and the facilities it created to keep South Africa stable. Yet the hon member does not utter a single word of support. All he does is drag us through the mud. I think he ought to be ashamed of himself, and his party ought to deal with him. [Interjections.]

I associate myself with the hon member for Uitenhage who quite correctly pointed out the many weak arguments the hon member for Sea Point raised.

This is the level on which a State President ought to be.

That hon member need not talk at all.

Incredible!

He is a political babbler. He is an absolute babbler of whom we take very little notice. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Green Point must contain himself.

Oh, let him carry on, Mr Chairman. Be lenient with him. [Interjections.]

The hon member for George thanked me. I appreciate it and I wish him everything of the best in that fine constituency. Doe zoo voort!

The hon member for Randburg gave us a lecture here on “the way of apartheid”. I said here to my colleagues: “But where was that dear friend of ours all those years? Did he not listen to what was happening among us, or did he sit there thinking about something else, because his analysis of what happened was so far removed from the facts that one could only pity him?”

However, I do not want to leave it at that. I have an axe to grind with that hon member. The hon member for Randburg has always been accepted as a very decent fellow, and I have always considered him to be one, but last week in a debate in this House, which I was unfortunately unable to attend, he made certain allegations. I am quoting from Hansard of 12 April what he said, referring to the SABC:

That is what the hon member alleged in this House. Now the hon member must understand me well. The question now is: What was the hon member insinuating?

As this Committee already knows, the board of the SABC made a full statement on this specific allegation. If the hon member also has other information at his disposal, he must ask for the appointment of a select committee that can investigate the matter. If the hon member is not prepared to do that, this Committee knows what to think of his remarks. With reference to this matter, and with reference to observations on the SABC made in this debate, I now want to deal with the matter.

As Head of Government there is, apart from the SABC, hardly a subject imaginable on which I do not receive representations from time to time from interest groups, individuals and organisations. I do not disapprove of this; it is a good thing. It enables me to keep in touch with what the public thinks. Sometimes matters are involved in regard to which there is dissatisfaction. Sometimes it is proposals people are putting forward. Sometimes there are merely kind words. The procedure I usually adopt in the case of representations is to bring them to the attention of the Minister concerned. Depending on the seriousness of the matter, I also raise it in the Cabinet, or if it can be dealt with departmentally, then it is done departmentally.

During the past few years I have received reams of memorandums and letters about the SABC. Sometimes I have forwarded them to the board—the old board as well as the new board.

In the case of smaller matters, matters of detail, I refer them to the Director General and his management. Sometimes I send them to my colleague responsible for the SABC, depending on whether I consider them to be important or not. During the past 10 years I have never held a meeting, official or unofficial, with the board of the SABC. I did meet them on a few social occasions; exactly as other hon members have also done. It is also true that the chairman and individual members of the board have had contact with me in the normal course of events—on an informal basis.

The appointment of consultants to institute an inquiry was initiated and taken exclusively by the board of the SABC. I was approached with a request to meet the consultants. However, I declined. I also think that was the right thing to do. What is, in fact, true is that Mr Eksteen, shortly after he became head, paid me a visit at his own request and asked me for my standpoints on broadcasting in South Africa.

With reference to that conversation, Mr Eksteen requested that the top management of the SABC should also have an opportunity to talk to me. Besides, I have all the dates in question, because I have learnt by now to keep a record of everything that happens in my office. There are too many people who lie. In that conversation I stated the following standpoints to Mr Eksteen and his top management. I am going to repeat them today, because I want them to be made public.

Firstly I said that the NP was the governing party in this country. It had the right, just as others do, to have its standpoints conveyed properly to the public. [Interjections.] Is there anything wrong with that? I added that I did not expect them to have to make party-propaganda for the NP. [Interjections.]

You cannot be serious! [Interjections.]

I am telling you now what I told them! [Interjections.] What I did expect, I told them, was that South Africa should be presented in a positive way, that the fine things in South Africa should receive preference and that the results we achieve in making this country stronger and more prosperous should be given a proper place in the broadcasts of the SABC. Is there anything wrong with that?

Secondly I said that the SABC should maintain standards which would not give offence to responsible viewers and listeners. I said I was opposed to too much violence on television. Not only did I say that to him; I also said it here in Parliament. The hon member for Randburg can testify to that. Is there anything wrong with that?

Thirdly I told him that I expected the SABC to accept its responsibility, at all times, in the struggle against revolutionary elements, and that the security of South Africa should be the highest priority. I have adhered consistently to these standpoints. Is there anything wrong with that? I also stated the standpoint that the arts and the domestic film industry should be actively promoted. Is there anything wrong with that?

The misunderstanding which arose last year between the SABC and myself … No, it is too much of a generalisation to say that it was between the SABC and myself. It was not between the SABC and myself. The misunderstanding which arose concerned a statement which I had issued after a certain person had left the Cabinet. The SABC’s reporting on this matter was onesided, and certain important aspects were not brought to the fore. I thereupon telephoned Mr Eksteen, objected in the strongest terms and asked for the matter to be rectified. This request was complied with.

Subsequently, starting the next day, the matter was blown up in the daily newspapers. I now want to ask the following question: I did not give them the information concerning the conversation, I did not give the daily newspapers the information on the conversation with Mr Eksteen; then who did? From whom did they get the information?

The board of the SABC consists of honourable and respected persons. In my opinion it is not right to make their task more difficult with speculative reports and suggestions.

Finally, in this regard, I just want to say that I have here the list of the names of the members of the board of the SABC. Hon members can find it in the annual report of the SABC. Surely this is not a party-political board. It is as representative a board in South Africa as one can possibly hope to find.

Is there one CP member?

Well, I do not know whether there are any CP members who know something about SABC affairs. [Interjections.]

Order!

We did not compile the board on a party basis, and that is the point.

It is mere coincidence that we are not represented on it.

We compiled the board on the basis of expertise, on the basis of people who have knowledge of finance. Practical businessmen of repute serve on that board. We compiled the board on the basis of people who understand literature and art. The head of one of our Black universities is one of the members of that board. There are leading non-Whites on the board. I say it is disgraceful that innuendos are now being made that this board will allow itself to be led by considerations other than the best interests of the SABC and the task entrusted to it.

I ask the hon member again, if he has other information—he mentioned the name Tuynhuys, and Tuynhuys is my office—to ask for the appointment of a select committee. If he does not have anything he can submit as evidence, he must, like the man he always was, rise to his feet here and comply with his tenets of decency by saying that he was wrong.

I have almost reached the end of my speech. The hon member for Sundays River was correct in speaking about the systems of value—I thank him for doing so—which we must maintain.

The hon member for Edenvale discussed the security management system and the onslaught on South Africa, and I thank her for doing so.

The hon member for Pietersburg wanted to choose a captain, but he struggled to get that captain chosen, because first of all he referred to me and then to his own captain, and he quoted and quoted. While I was listening to him I wondered whether I should not tell him something Langenhoven once said: “If you have nothing to say, do not say it.” [Interjections.] Oh well, he knows I like him. [Interjections.] He is rather fond of me too. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Bethlehem dealt correctly with the illusory images which are floating around and which people chase after. We in South Africa must stop chasing illusory images, because there are splendid illusory images all of us can conjure up for ourselves, but tomorrow we are confronted by the realities of this country, and we must deal with those realities in faith and idealism.

The hon member for Vryheid dealt correctly with the economy which must be broadened and deepened.

The hon member for Yeoville, who let us know that he could not be present here today, referred to “law and order, security and uncertainty”. He then ended with the “blood, sweat and tears” of Churchill. Oh well, Churchill was successful, but we really cannot get anywhere with blood, sweat and tears. We need teamwork, and to the extent to which the hon member has contributed his teamwork here, I thank him. I just want to tell him, however, that he must not grow pessimistic, because it is not necessary.

The hon member for Turffontein dealt correctly with the parrot-cry of apartheid which just cannot seem to end. I have been apprehensive of that word throughout my entire life, and I am not only saying so today; I have said so to great leaders in the past. As a young man I had the courage to go to Dr Malan and to say that the word apartheid was still going to get us into trouble, because people would not understand it, even though South Africans did.

As a young man I warned against it many times. When I became Deputy Minister of the Interior and of Coloured Affairs I tried to steer away from it, and I used other terms to try to explain our co-existence. Apartheid became a term of abuse, not because it meant, in substance, an annihilation of human rights, but because it lent itself to our enemies who spitefully wanted to get at us with that word.

The hon member for Brits spoke about the urge for freedom, and I am pleased my speech at the monument inspired him. [Interjections.] He should read it again. I tell myself that my people brought freedom to South Africa. The first flicker, the first flame, of freedom lit in South Africa was lit by his people and mine, Sir, but if we believe in freedom, we cannot keep freedom to ourselves only. Then we must also make freedom possible for other people. [Interjections.] Then we must treat freedom in such a way that other people respect us and would like to take our freedom as an example. Then we must not deny other people when they strive for self-respect and freedom.

I do not want to repeat the speech of the hon the Minister of Manpower, who cannot be here today. It was an outstanding speech. I think he spoke a little longer than the time allotted to him, but it was a good thing! [Interjections.]

The hon member for Nelspruit expertly discussed privatisation and deregulation.

The hon member for Green Point—oh never mind! [Interjections.]

The hon member for Stellenbosch stated correctly here, on behalf of the young people, whose feelings he can interpret, that we must not create myths and, in that way, engender unrealistic expectations.

The hon member for Hillbrow spoke about a well-balanced course, and raised the issue of residential areas. On 5 October last year I made a statement in this Chamber. All I want to tell him this afternoon is that during the present session he will witness the Government coming forward with measures to give effect to the standpoint I explained here on 5 October. He must just be patient. For the moment I shall let that suffice.

Mr Chairman, the entire first three quarters of the hon the State President’s speech was actually ineffectual and uninformative, being simply a rehashing of matters we hear about all the time and all know about. His speech as a whole made no contribution to solving the actual problems facing us in South Africa. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon the State President’s speech reminded me of the way he walks—left, right, left, right. At one stage I hoped that right would win. It seemed as if separate development was being reinstated, but ultimately the left triumphed. [Interjections.]

In regard to a few aspects he mentioned, for example minority rights, which is a particularly important matter, the hon the State President simply avoided the issue by saying that we would get to that at a later stage. That is not good enough. As far as the hon the State President’s remarks about the SABC are concerned, I am not going to leave the matter at that. I am afraid we are still going to debate this SABC issue for a long time to come.

As far as the Blacks are concerned, the hon the State President said that he now wanted to introduce Blacks into the electoral college and into the President’s Council. The CP rejects that with every means at its disposal! That is going to lead to much greater discord amongst the Whites of South Africa. It clashes fundamentally with the NP’s past history. Can the hon the State President tell me whether the Blacks have accepted this? Are the Blacks going to accept these methods? Is this not simply a mechanism for giving in to Mr Hendrickse in order to delay an election? [Interjections.]

The discussion of this Budget Vote of the hon the State President does not only cover events of the past year. As far as I am concerned, this is an opportunity to examine the progress made by the hon the State President during his first decade in office—the first ten years. I want to know what history will one day pinpoint as the outstanding characteristics of the first ten years of the hon the State President’s term of office.

I want to suggest three characteristics. The first outstanding characteristic of the hon the State President’s first ten years is one of a colossal lack of political credibility. Proof of that is legion. [Interjections.] The hon the State President had hardly taken over the reins of Government when he did a major political somersault. He fundamentally changed traditional NP policy. It is not a sin to change. What is unforgivable, however, is the way in which the NP changed its fundamental policy, ie changing but initially hiding the changes from the voters with a view to deceiving them.

Then came the referendum. No one can doubt today that the referendum was conducted on an apartheid basis and that the fundamental change that was already in evidence was hidden. So the deceit continued. As far as the NP’s reform is concerned, this is a classic example of deceit and of a lack of political credibility.

In his speech today the hon the State President said a few things about apartheid. Even earlier he had said: “We have outgrown the outdated concept of apartheid.” Thus was created a mechanism for deceit to make it possible, for the sake of convenience, to practice duplicity. One audience is told that statement means that all apartheid has been abolished. That is what one hears abroad. Another audience is told that only the “outdated” portion has been abolished. That is how the deceit continues. There are now two kinds of apartheid—the “cowboy-apartheid” and the “crook-apartheid”. The Government is the cowboy of apartheid and all other people implementing apartheid are the crooks.

I want to know from the hon the State President what the NP’s policy is, in essence, if not apartheid? The NP’s policy is nothing if not institutionalised racism, because on what basis does the NP distinguish between individuals in South Africa? On a racial basis! There is race-classification legislation. On what basis does the Government distinguish between political structures? One finds it here where we are sitting; the tricameral Parliament is based on race. Separate residential areas, separate schools and separate voters rolls are based on race. As far as the Government is concerned, apartheid lives. No, apartheid lives; apartheid is dead! That is flagrant political deceit. I could mention numerous other examples of that political deceitfulness and lack of credibility.

Once the hon the State President rejected powersharing with every means at his disposal. Now it is his policy. At one stage he said that Genl Botha was correct in saying that people of colour should not sit in this Parliament. Now they are here. At one stage he rejected consociation as being a model for conflict. Now he is structuring his tricameral Parliament on that model. At one stage he said that a tricameral Parliament was not NP policy. Now it is his policy. At one stage he fought for the preservation of the Immorality Act and the Prohibition of Mixed Marriage Act, etc; today he rejects that. At one stage he said he would not release political prisoners unless they renounced violence, but then he released Mr Mbeki.

Hon members should go abroad; then they would hear authoritative spokesmen telling them frankly that foreigners no longer believe South Africa. Do hon members know why? They say the Government has lied to them too often. That is reflected …

Order! The hon member must withdraw the word “lie”.

Sir, who is the Government? The Government spoke an untruth.

Order! The word “lie” is, in itself, unparliamentary.

I withdraw the word “lie”. They say that the Cabinet and the Government have told them too many untruths.

Here I have a cutting from Business Day of 12 April, under the heading: “Pretoria has now ceased to be believable”. It is stated that our foreign representatives drive round overseas in cars with BL number-plates, BL standing for “Bloody Liars”. That is how our credibility overseas has declined. When one assesses the hon the State President’s first ten years, one can come to no other conclusion but that it is characterised by a colossal lack of political credibility.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May I have your ruling on the words “bloody liars”. I believe that to be unparliamentary language. [Interjections.]

The hon member is wasting my time. It is stated in this article.

Order! The hon member was quoting. I also feel unhappy about that, but since the hon member was quoting, I believe …

Mr Chairman, may I address you on that question? Those words are not contained in the newspaper report. The hon member himself used them and I therefore want to say that that is not something he was quoting.

Order! The hon member for Overvaal may continue.

Sir, it is clear, even if the words are not there. [Interjections.] Read it for yourself! It is stated here:

I now want to tell hon members that I do not believe one single Cabinet member, no matter what he tells me.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May I now ask you for your ruling?

Order! If the hon member for Overvaal is telling me that that is not a quotation, he must withdraw the words.

Sir, if it is not stated here, I withdraw it. [Interjections.]

The second characteristic is that the hon the State President has become a man who is totally without a vision. He is totally without any vision, and today he once more proved that with the few things he has done in South Africa he has no solution to the country’s problems.

Thirdly, in these ten years the hon the State President has become the person who affected the great split in White unity, in Afrikaner unity. By doing a political somersault, without acknowledging it openly, the hon the State President has split his people asunder. That is why the people reject him today. That is why they ridicule him and make jokes about him. When he did that, the hon the State President unleashed the tiger in Afrikanerdom, that tiger being the right-wing element. That right-wing tiger is going to devour the hon the State President and his party. [Interjections.]

Today the people reject the hon the State President because he has appointed Black MECs and because he wants to appoint Black people to the Cabinet to govern us. The people reject the hon the State President today because he gave 23 Indians the right to veto the mighty Afrikaner people in its entirety.

I am now telling hon members that he has become an outcast amongst his own people. When the hon the State President’s position is assessed after the first ten years, there will be three labels hung around his neck, that of man with a colossal lack of political credibility, that of a man with a lack of vision and that of a man who split the Afrikaner. When the scales are activated, on the Afrikaner scale there will be the following: “Mené, mené, tekél, ufarsín: By the Afrikaner people you were weighed and found wanting.” The hon the State President can do the Afrikaner people one more favour, and that is to resign and disappear from public life. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, with his normal impetuosity this afternoon the hon member for Overvaal carried on here, saying amongst other things that he no longer believed any Cabinet Minister, that the Government prevaricated and deceived people. Perhaps the time has now come for the hon member to tell us, some time or other, why the executive committee in his constituency took him to court and why his whole executive resigned. Why is he again leaving Overvaal and running to another constituency?

It is probably time for him to tell us why that happened. After all, he previously high-tailed it out of Jeppe, and now he is again in the process of taking to his heels in Overvaal—I hear he now wants to stand for election in Vereeniging. It seems to me, however, that he is going to encounter a few problems in Vereeniging, because there are quite a few people who want to stand for election there. [Interjections.] I do not know whether he is going to manage it there.

What is so comical about that hon member and other supporters of the right-wing radical party is that when one walks into their living-rooms they are very quick to tell one, with great erudition, of all the beach problems, the redistribution of income, power-sharing, etc. When one then asks them what partition means, they say that they are not actually politicians, that they do not want to say a great deal about that now. They leave that to the politicians. That party has a problem with its policy of partition. I have here a letter which appeared in the Patriot of 1 April 1988, a letter from a certain Mr De Kock of Makokskraal. He asks:

Die groot probleem by baie (mense) is die miljoene Swartes wat nie aan ’n nasionale staat gekoppel is nie. Waar gaan die KP met hulle heen indien ons die bewind oorneem?

Not all supporters of that party are stupid. Some of them are going to start asking questions at some or other stage. What is quite beyond my comprehension is that they have not yet started asking themselves those questions in their caucus. Last year they were instructed by their congress to examine this policy of partition and to tell their people what it meant. As yet nothing has happened. Here there is a voter, and he says he is a member of the CP, and what he says is that they should now start looking at what this policy of partition means.

The hon member for Lichtenburg made a speech in Pretoria in which he said, amongst other things, that the right-wing radical party “sal alle staatsubsidies vir Swart vervoer en huisvesting afskaf’. These people now want to engage in a large-scale relocation of Black people. I understand that they wish to do so at the rate of hundreds of busloads per day over a period of 15 years. Thus they now want to move the Black people back to the homelands in order to obtain White majority occupation in this so-called White South Africa. For that purpose they would abolish State subsidies for Black transport. Do hon members expect the Black people to pay their own bus fares when they are being moved back to the homelands? Has anyone ever heard of anything so ridiculous? Their people are getting to know them, however. While he was still in the Cabinet, the hon member for Lichtenburg was the one who shot down in flames the whole concept of linking up with the homelands. Today his leader is selling that policy to people in South Africa. Who of them knows what independent state will govern Soweto when the linking process is in operation? No, Sir, that party has a problem. Only half of that party’s supporters believe in their policy; the other half say it cannot work. How often does each one of us come into contact with supporters of that party who say that their policy is not working? They are people, however, who are driven by their hatred of the NP, hatred which is greater than their love of their own party. The day will come when that party will smash into smithereens like a pumpkin falling from a trailer onto a tarred road. That is what will happen.

I want to devote my time, however, to the theme of the Great Trek, 1988—the commemoration of the Great Trek which took place 150 years ago. The question one asks oneself is whether the Afrikaner is still trekking. Has the Afrikaner stopped trekking? Has he stopped? Is he trekking back to where he came from? Are they still fighting amongst themselves about whether they should trek to Natal or to the Transvaal, or whether they should remain in the Free State? The question is what form of transport they are using if they are still trekking today. Are they still using the ox-wagon? As an Afrikaner who fervently loves his people, I am going to try to answer some of these questions. I want to say at once, however, that I do not deify the Afrikaner people. The point I am making is that the Afrikaner wants to trek further. There are new horizons to which he is trekking. There are still ideals he wants to achieve. There are still challenges.

The Afrikaner is still trekking on the road that leads to justice. He is seeking greater prosperity and political justice in his country. He is not merely salving his conscience, but is directing his efforts at also giving other people a place in the sun in South Africa. That is, in point of fact, what he is striving for. The Afrikaner knows that without greater prosperity and more political rights for other people his own prosperity, which he has built up over the years by dint of hard work, and his own political rights for which he has waged a long struggle, hang in the balance. If one examines the economic ideals of the Afrikaner, I would say that one of the major challenges still facing him is to establish a greater degree of entrepreneurship in the ranks of his own people. During the depression years, under the auspices of the Reddingsdaadbond, entrepreneurship was specifically what the Afrikaner tried to establish. Young Afrikaner boys and girls were encouraged to qualify themselves and to venture into the field of entrepreneurship. Rembrandt, Sanlam and Volkskas are proof of Afrikaner entrepreneurship.

Notwithstanding the hard work, the truth of the matter is that today the Afrikaner controls only 30% of the economic activity in South Africa. In this field there is still a major challenge. With the NP’s policy of privatisation and deregulation we are also presenting young Afrikaans men and women, who have the courage to begin their own undertakings, with the opportunity and challenge to do so. We should like to see more of us embracing private initiative, extending further the prosperity of this country and utilising the opportunities that exist.

The Afrikaner is also there to increase his own level of prosperity, but he knows that he cannot do so at the expense of others. Nor does he want to do it at the expense of others. He is not, however, going to allow the prosperity he has built up over the years to be taken away from him either in order to satisfy the socialistic concept advocating a redistribution of prosperity. As he would encourage his own people to make use of the opportunities, he will also encourage other people of other race groups in this country to take the opportunity and to elevate themselves to greater levels of prosperity in this country.

Constitutionally, of course, the ideal is to nurture and further sustain the freedom he ultimately obtained in 1961 with the advent of the Republic. He knows that he will not be able to maintain that political freedom of his if he has to do so at the cost of the political freedom of others. He will not be able to maintain his political freedom if he does not also grant full-fledged political rights to other people in this country who do not yet have these rights.

The Afrikaner has reached the stage in which he finds himself in a tight corner in regard to partition. Partition has only supplied half of the answers. Other mechanisms have to be created to establish a democracy of consensus in this country. The Afrikaner knows that people without political rights are a danger to one’s own political rights. I believe that in the future, and soon too, we shall have to place on the table other ideas about mechanisms whereby a democracy of consensus can be extended further in this country.

We have very gratefully taken note of the hon the State President’s announcement this afternoon. He has already made giant strides in this connection. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I have no intention of replying to the hon member for Odendaalsrus. He was making a very ethnic speech and I leave it to the CP to reply to him.

I just want to say one or two things about a couple of speeches that were made yesterday before returning to the hon the State President’s speech. We were all watching anxiously while the hon member for Innesdal was making his speech. I, in particular, was interested in the expression on the hon the State President’s face.

I am glad to say that at the end of the day we can all say that the message sent to the hon member for Innesdal was: “Come home, our Albert, all is forgiven.” We are very pleased about that because we thought he made a good speech. It would have been too bad if he had lost his position as a result of it.

The hon member for Uitenhage made an interesting speech yesterday in which he first of all tried to denigrate the excellent speech made by the hon leader of the PFP by referring to articles by an English journalist in The Spectator in which—if I did not misunderstand him—the journalist claimed that South Africa had the rule of law and a free Press. If he was serious in writing that, he surely must have wondered how this was possible with the stringent censorship laws which apply in this country and the fact that we have thousands of people detained without trial.

The hon member for Uitenhage consoled himself with other countries’ racism. Of course it is perfectly true that there is racism in practically every other country in the world, but he must realise—that what makes South Africa the pariah of the Western World—the outcast—what causes all the trouble, is the fact that our racism is entrenched on the Statute Book. That is what makes South Africa the pariah.

I want to now turn to the hon the State President. I am glad he has entered the debate, because having this debate without him was very much like having Hamlet without the Prince. Yet I have to say that I found what he had to say very disappointing indeed. He did not tackle any of the basic issues that concern us in this country although he gave us some sort of sketch of the political participation for Blacks that he is hoping to evolve over the next weeks, months or years, who knows. He told us that one cannot lay down any rules for political development or for the National Party’s policy. They have only had 40 years in which to evolve their policy. In the past 10 years they have been removing some of the foundation-stones of that policy, but they have left many others in place.

What happened to your qualified franchise policy?

I personally do not believe there is going to be very much future in extending membership of the President’s Council to Blacks, because to the best of my knowledge, there is no intention of turning the President’s Council into a legislative body. Therefore one can hardly say that that is Black participation in the political process.

For the rest the hon the State President devoted himself largely to trying to persuade the House that although they were unsuccessful in persuading the voters of Standerton, Schweizer-Reneke or Randfontein of it, the NP had a proud record. He has not done very well here either. I do not think that anybody on this side of this House was remotely persuaded or that a large number of the electorate outside have been persuaded that the NP has a proud record.

How many votes did you get in Randfontein?

I want to turn now to the very important issue of sanctions and disinvestment that was raised by the hon the State President. He had the gall—I use that word advisedly—to accuse the PFP …

[Inaudible.]

He spoke in the negative, but the implication of what he said was that we supported Archbishop Tutu in his campaign for sanctions overseas.

No, I did not.

Well, I shall have a look at Hansard. Unless my own ears and those of my colleagues deceived us, there is no doubt that he challenged the hon the Leader of the PFP to stand up in this House and repudiate Archbishop Tutu and his campaign for sanctions.

We have been doing that all the time.

We have done nothing but repudiate sanctions constantly—ever since 10 years ago when they were first mooted.

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

You may indeed. Only do not call me “tannie” because I shall call you “omie”! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, seeing that we are on “oom” and “tannie” terms, may I ask the hon member whether she is prepared to tell this House this afternoon that she totally rejects Bishop Tutu’s advocacy of sanctions of a few days ago?

Yes.

Yes. The answer is yes. I do no know why there is any doubt about that.

[Inaudible.]

We do reject them but the hon the State President should not try to drive a wedge between us and the Church, for goodness’ sake! Let him solve his own problems there.

I just want the hon the State President to know that we certainly not only reject, for very good reasons, the campaign that Archbishop Tutu has been waging for sanctions, but we also object to anybody else who is waging a campaign in favour of sanctions.

Hear, hear!

I want to tell the hon the State President, if he does not know this already …

Thank you.

… not at all; you are welcome—anytime! … that the hon leader of the PFP and I sent a reasoned argument to the subcommittees of the Congressional committees in the United States two or three weeks ago, arguing against sanctions. Now what on earth does he think we did that for if we support Archbishop Tutu’s campaign or anybody else’s?

Did he send evidence?

Let us not refer specifically to Archbishop Tutu; it applies to everybody who favours sanctions.

I have just returned from the USA where I spent two weeks and spoke at one large school and four universities, two of which had student bodies of more than 30 000, against sanctions, disinvestment and divestment, and I have been doing it for ten years. So, why …

Say thank you!

He did say thank you. Let me tell hon members that it is not an easy thing to do these days, and I challenge those hon members opposite to set themselves up to do that task. Let them go overseas and try to get themselves an audience on campuses in the United States to talk against sanctions and disinvestment. I want to tell the hon members on that side that they will not even get a hearing, but let them try. Let them have the guts to try, and I do not believe a single one of them has done it. Hands up anybody who has done it? Not one, Sir! Not a single one of them has done it, not even the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs. What he does is to send a message via our representative at the UN to tell them “to do their damnedest”. Oh, clever, so clever! I have news for him—they are taking his advice! I want to tell him that I got a hearing at every university where I spoke.

Including Wits?

They heard me out because I happen to have the reputation of being antiapartheid. That is the only reason. However, they were not very happy about it, and I was asked hostile questions, mainly from Black South African exiles. As I say, however, I challenge members opposite, any one of them, to go overseas and do the same thing. I do not want to hear any more nonsense about this party’s attitude towards sanctions and disinvestment from the hon the State President or anybody else.

The United States is taking the advice of the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs. They are doing their damnedest. There are 28 Bills in the pipeline in Congress right now, in this presidential election year, with every chance of being passed partly because there is political expediency—let me say that right away. Every single candidate has Black constituents and he does not dare to say that he is against sanctions because he realises he will be called a racist. It is a very simplistic argument, but there is moral outrage too, and we should not in any way underrate that. There is genuine moral outrage about what happens in this country, and whether it happens in other countries or not is irrelevant. South Africa has become the issue, Sir, and it has become the issue—as I say—because we entrench race discrimination on the Statute Book. Every foolish thing that this Government does, is ammunition for a pro-sanctions movement—actions like banning 17 organisations, plus 1, restricting 17 individuals, restricting Cosatu, and turning watercannon on clerics.

Order! I regret to interrupt, but the hon member’s time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I am rising merely to afford the hon member the opportunity of completing her speech.

I thank the hon Whip.

There are 28 Bills, most of them extending the provisions of the U.S. Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act which was passed in October 1986. Five of them are extremely severe.

One other has already been passed by Congress—the Rangel Bill, which imposes double taxation on companies doing business in South Africa. Of the five other important Bills, one has already been passed through the two committees but will now of course have to be considered by the US House of Representatives and Senate. That is the Dellums Bill. The Dellums Bill lays down that every single American company or corporation doing business in or with South Africa must withdraw within six months. Now, some might say: “Good! We can pick up those businesses at bargain basement prices.” That has been done in some cases, and there are some instant South African millionaires as a result.

I want to point out, however, there are two very serious consequences if the remaining 148 American companies have to withdraw from this country. The first is that capital which should be used for new projects to provide employment for the 400 000 young Blacks that come on to the labour market every year, will now have been used on existing projects. It is not available for growth. It is not available for expansion. And that is the most elementary economic fact, which people who sit there gloating over the fact that South African entrepreneurs can pick up these companies at bargain basement prices, often overlook—a very serious consequence indeed, Sir!

The other consequence here which is extremely harmful is that it is likely, but not of course definite, that the South African companies that take over those businesses from American corporations will either reduce or maybe cancel altogether the very extensive social responsibility programmes that those companies were carrying out. I do not know how many hon members know that American companies have spent more than $230 million over the past eight years on social responsibility programmes—training projects for employers, scholarships for employees’ children, housing for employees, legal aid, health clinics, recreational facilities etc. All these things are likely either to be reduced materially or may even be scrapped altogether. The most verkrampte hon member in this Committee might perhaps not care that those social responsibility programmes will help to defuse the anger in the townships but if an employee knows his child is getting a scholarship to attend school or a university, and if he knows he is being helped to buy a house, it is likely that his anger is going to be defused. When those programmes are cut, however, the anger flares up again. I believe those to be serious consequences for this country, Sir.

There are also other US Bills coming up. Dellum’s is only one. There is an important one, the Wise Bill, which is going to make all oil and petroleum companies operating in this country withdraw entirely. I see this pamphlet, “Proud Record of the NP”, which did not influence the voters of Standerton or Schweizer-Reneke or anywhere else, states that South Africa has offset a well-planned oil boycott. This, Sir, is more than a well-planned one. This is mandatory. It is a mandatory boycott, and I can tell the hon the State President that it is very likely the Wise Bill is also going to be passed.

Then there is also the Gray Bill. (Obviously of course all these Bills are named after the Congressman who introduced the Bill.) That Bill prohibits any US intelligence or military co-operation with South Africa. The Leland Bill will prohibit investment in the United States of South African capital. The investor of course brings back the profits. There is also the Cranston Bill, which will prohibit the export of US high technology to South Africa. This Bill, I believe, is one of the most important of all.

Armscor is a success, Sir, and South Africa has done a very good job there, but there was no cost factor involved. The sky was the limit. It did not matter what it cost to develop. High technology is a very expensive thing to copy, to imitate or to initiate, and without high technology from other countries our own industry is going to be crippled. Hon members should know that. They may say we will get it from Japan or from West Germany. The United States has another weapon. That is a threatened boycott of every country that takes up the South African market which is being given up by America, a threatened boycott, Sir.

If Japan does not give up its trade with South Africa, Japanese goods will not be allowed into the United States. [Interjections.]

Let them try!

Yes, they are going to try. The hon member for Umlazi must also not start this nonsense of “Do your damnedest” because I want to tell you, Sir, that they are doing their damnedest and they will do their damnedest and then, when there is massive unemployment in this country, that hon member and his party are going to suffer for it and so are we. That is one of the major reasons why we are opposed to sanctions and disinvestment and not because we support this rotten Government. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, there is one particular aspect I want to deal with that was raised by the hon member for Houghton. I certainly agree with her when she talks about the danger of isolation as far as our country is concerned. This is an issue which I am sorry has not yet been dealt with in the hon the State President’s reply but hopefully that will still be done. I too view with some concern the fact that there does appear to be a tendency to taunt our friends and to challenge them to adopt certain stances, and this to my mind is certainly not the most sensible approach towards maintaining good relationships with any overseas country.

Something else that worries me is the fact that we in South Africa are not succeeding in getting our message through in the countries where we have diplomatic representation. I want, therefore, to appeal to the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs to ensure that new strategies are adopted to enable us to meet this increasing challenge.

I also find it necessary to comment very briefly on some of the statements made by the hon the State President earlier today. A statement I wish to refer in particular to is the one dealing with the resignation of the Director-General of the SABC, Mr Riaan Eksteen.

I want to say that I believe the public in general will heave a sigh of relief that the long-standing dispute between the SABC Board and Mr Eksteen has now been settled, irrespective of one’s view on the terms of that settlement. The whole Eksteen affair has been most unpleasant, and the manner in which it has been handled has done little to enhance the image of either the former Director-General or the Chairman of the SABC Board. I do not think we need be under any illusions in regard to the implications of Mr Eksteen’s dismissal, and the extent of his golden handshake will obviously be the subject of further comment in this House.

I want to commend the hon the Minister of Information, Broadcasting Services and the Film Industry who is undergoing a very severe initiation period as a member of the Cabinet for the refreshing precedent that he set by appearing before the TV cameras last night and the manner in which he subjected himself to questioning by a panel that included two independent members of the Press. What a change for viewers not to have to witness another wishy-washy interview such as those that have been seen in the past! I can only say to that hon Minister: Well done! May your example set the pattern for future TV interviews involving other Cabinet Ministers.

I wish to return to the main thrust of my speech by referring to a disturbing trend that is becoming more and more evident in the present tricameral system. I want to direct my attention here to what I can best describe as confrontation politics which is a factor that appears to be creeping into the tricameral Parliament to an increasing degree One is aware that the successful functioning of any parliament is dependent upon the commitment of the members of that parliament to work within the confines of its constitution. While I appreciate the fact that there are members of this Parliament who oppose the present tricameral system I must point out that by virtue of their participation in it an obligation rests on them, irrespective of the Chamber to which they belong, to ensure that the terms and the spirit of the present Constitution are adhered to and respected.

I wish to make it clear that my comments are not aimed at the natural function of Parliament or the role that opposition politics plays in a multiparty system, but a highly undesirable situation arises when components of this tricameral Parliament embark on strategies which tend to undermine the spirit of the Constitution and this establishment.

I refer, of course, to the growing trend whereby unrelated preconditions are set as a basis for the acceptance or rejection of legislation and other Parliamentary matters. When this happens, the whole function of the constitutional process is weakened. This is a highly undesirable development, and I would appeal to the hon the State President to ensure that relations between the Government and the other two Houses are maintained at a high level in order to give effect to a smoother functioning of the present system.

At the same time, it is essential that hon members of this House acquire a greater appreciation of the problems with which members of Parliament in the other Chambers have to contend. One accepts that at the best of times, the tricameral system is complicated, and I would remind hon members that the NRP’s support for the tricameral system in the 1983 referendum, while recognising its deficiencies, was based on the fact that it was a step in the right direction. I want to make it clear that I have no reason to change those views today, beyond expressing regret that we have not advanced further with regard to finding an acceptable formula for including non-homeland Blacks in the decision-making process of government.

I merely want to add that it is easy to condemn the present system, and one hears much criticism in this regard. I would therefore call on those who do so to give an indication as to what constitutional form of government they would put in its place.

I also want to turn my attention to and say my piece about another matter to which the hon the State President referred in his speech, and that is the so-called confrontation between the State and the Church. We all note with alarm the tensions that have been building up between Government and Archbishop Tutu in particular over recent weeks. The lessons of history record many tragic events arising from confrontation between Church and State, and I can do no better than to endorse the observation made by the hon member for Sea Point that the time had come to “cool it”. I appeal to the hon the State President to do all he can on his part to smooth out differences.

However, as an Anglican I also have the right to question Archbishop Tutu as to what his motives are in calling for the imposition of sanctions upon and divestment from South Africa. Here in this Committee, I call upon Archbishop Tutu—I repeat, I do so as an Anglican—to spell out clearly what he wants to achieve or, for that matter, destroy, in his quest to encourage the imposition of these measures. Is it his intention to destroy the economy? Is he intent upon fanning the flames of revolution by creating a situation in which unemployment assumes such proportions that it becomes unmanageable and leads to revolution? This is precisely what could happen if the Western World were to heed the pleas of this venerable gentleman. All Anglicans, Black and White, have a right to know exactly what Archbishop Tutu has in mind in this regard.

Mr Chairman, it is obvious why, despite the fact that he is the only member of his party in this House, the hon member for Mooi River is generally held in high esteem on all sides of the House. He pulls no punches when he criticises, but he always does so in a positive spirit, and he delivers his contribution in such a way that one cannot really take exception to it.

Not so the hon member for Houghton. For a moment the hon member made us think that she had had a change of heart …

You must be crazy!

… when she quite unequivocally repudiated Archbishop Tutu’s stance on sanctions.

Everybody in the PFP repudiates sanctions.

Then, however, she spoilt it all by claiming credit for going to the United States and elsewhere and fighting sanctions.

You should try it!

Obviously, that is only the ordinary duty of every loyal South African.

Why don’t you do it then?

Order!

She then has the gall to berate the Government for the fact that it invited the Security Council to do its damnedest.

Yes!

Why did the Government extend such an invitation to the Security Council? It followed upon an action on the part of the South African security forces in which an ANC terrorist clearing house was taken out in Botswana. The chief of operations of the terrorist organisation in Botswana was in fact neutralised in that particular action. [Interjections.]

If the hon member for Houghton arrogates special consideration because of her loyalty to South Africa, she should go the whole hog; she should applaud the fact that the security forces tackled the terrorist organisation which is one of the main threats of this country. [Interjections.]

The recent murder of Mrs Dulcie September in the Paris office of the ANC and the attempted murder of Mr Albie Sachs, the ANC leader in Maputo, stressed the lengths to which this ANC organisation will go, along with our other enemies, to undermine our country’s credibility …

It may be your hit squad too!

… despite every indication that these two attacks may well be the result of internal activist tensions.

Or your hit squad.

Despite the denials of complicity on the part of the South African Government—no matter what the hon member for Houghton said, any participation on the part of South Africa has been denied—and despite the fact that the highly efficient French police investigation pointed away from South Africa, this unwarranted smear campaign shows no sign of abating. The familiar old cry of destabilisation was immediately seized upon, using these assassination attempts to whip up international hatred against South Africa.

Hon members all know that it is in the very nature of Marxism to resort to violent means to eliminate unwanted elements, even among themselves, and to replace them in this way. Moreover, no one has paused to ask himself what earthly motives South Africa could have had to attack administrative personnel of the ANC, using methods which are not only unusual but, in the case of the Maputo attack, were not even particularly effective. All the known facts point to an internal purge in the ANC, or that these attacks were part of the struggle between the ANC and the PAC.

That does not imply that we deny our use of cross-border reprisals against both ANC and Swapo terrorist bases. That has been part of the way in which the South African security forces protect their own territory and the safety of our people. The ANC is waging an undeclared war upon us and we regard it as our undeniable right to strike back whenever our security interests demand it. I said here last week that the views of the ANC and other organisations may be noteworthy, but the fact of the matter is that that organisation has chosen to state its case through the barrel of a gun. We, on our part, will reply in kind. They cannot have it both ways. They cannot expect to be invited to the conference table while keeping the door to violence open. I fully support the Government in its rejection of negotiations with a warring terrorist organisation.

I want to come back to the question of reprisals across the border. We do not apologise for that because we maintain that we have every such right to such reprisals. Those neighbours of ours who use the destabilisation charge, know very well that they have no case. Our cross-border reprisals, be they in Botswana, Maputo, Lesotho or wherever, have never been directed against the citizens of that country.

Also, they have invariably been carried out with pin-point accuracy, and South Africa has never tried to escape its responsibility for such action. Any accusations of destabilisation by those countries are absolutely groundless.

Secondly, our neighbours know that South Africa desires peace in the subcontinent and that we have been unceasing in our efforts to persuade them to conclude non-aggression pacts with us. To be exact, the very aim of these hot pursuit operations is to stamp out terrorism and to promote peace in Southern Africa—a peace that will surely benefit our neighbours and their trade with us as much as it will benefit us.

The lamentable truth is that there does not exist a supranational body in the world which is capable of fulfilling and willing to fulfil the role of arbiter in the States’ quest for fairness and justice. That is what the UNO was established for. That was the vision of the founding fathers of that organisation, of which South Africa’s Field Marshall Smuts was one. Instead, the UNO and its agencies have chosen to become apologists for terrorism and the agents of terrorism, and the world has had to learn to rely increasingly on the principle of self-help. Just look at the world around us. We see that the principle of self-help is being applied universally.

The territorial waters of the Gulf States are being invaded every day by American warships, deployed in the protection of the perceived interests of the USA. So we have seen in these past days the terrible retribution that is wreaked upon those countries which attack American warships thousands of miles away from the mainland of America.

The United States is a leader nation of the Western world, and is engaged in daily battle in almost all the countries of Central America, so much so that they are even trying to oust some of their leaders. America, or, for that matter Israel, which is also active throughout the Middle East, has no God-given right to protect their interests, while other countries are being denied that right.

American action in respect of Libya must surely give our neighbours who complain of destabilisation food for thought. Ever since Col Gadaffi seized power in 1969, relations with the United States have deteriorated, mainly because the young ruler of Libya took Arab terrorist movements under his protection. Even under President Carter limitations were placed on diplomatic relations between Libya and the United States. President Reagan especially, however, did not hesitate to act decisively against Gadaffi. In May 1981 the embassy in Washington was closed. Trade curbs were imposed, 2 000 American citizens had to leave Libya, and the importation of oil from Libya was terminated, just to mention some of the steps taken against Libya.

All these steps were taken to show American resolve not only to combat international terrorism but also to underscore the Reagan doctrine that countries which aid and abet terrorists are themselves guilty of terrorism. If the leading country of the Free World takes such steps against terrorism, even when their own territory is not being violated, how much greater justification is there not for us to act against terrorist bases, and indeed against the countries which harbour them and allow terrorism to be exported to us?

Unlike America we do not aim reprisals against these host countries, because unlike America we have powerful reasons to desire peace in the subcontinent. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to participate in this debate. I want to thank the hon the State President for one aspect that he broached, and that is that we should also have respect for our opponents. I have said in this House in the past that it is important to me that it be recognised—even if we do disagree with one another—that everyone in this House has a bona fide viewpoint in which he believes and which he believes is a way in which to solve the problems we are faced with.

On the strength of what the hon the State President said, I also want to thank the hon member for Houghton today for having opposed sanctions abroad. We appreciate it, as we appreciate it from every South African who does so. Having said that—I have also praised the hon the State President in this connection—I only hope the newspapers will not report tomorrow that those two hon members and I are bedfellows! [Interjections.]

I should like to refer to another aspect. The hon member for Umlazi referred to the Defence Force, and I want to assure the Defence Force and the hon the State President, as the head of the Defence Force, that they will never need to wonder where the CP stands. They will not have to look over their shoulder; the CP will stand by them in the struggle against terrorism in this country.

As far as the dismissal of Mr Riaan Eksteen is concerned, I want to state a few problems I have in this connection. Yesterday evening it was stated that Mr Eksteen had relinquished his post because, since he had been permanently appointed, he could not be dismissed. As a result a certain settlement had to be reached.

Any person who does not do his work properly is in breach of contract and can be dismissed, even if he has a permanent appointment. From this information I must therefore conclude that there were no juridical grounds for Mr Eksteen’s dismissal. If he had not done his job, or had not done it properly, he was in breach of contract and the board was entitled to dismiss him. So if there were no legal grounds for his dismissal, because he had done his job properly, one wonders why he was dismissed.

Further questions then arise. If he had to relinquish his post or had to be dismissed, why was he paid the R0,5 million, or whatever the amount was? The hon the Minister could not furnish us with the figures. I do not blame him; I do not think he was appointed as Minister of Finance to have to work with figures, but that applies equally to Mr Eksteen. So when we ask why Mr Eksteen was dismissed, quite a few questions arise, for example why he had to relinquish his post. Why was he forced to relinquish his post?

There are other problems that crop up in this regard. A report in this morning’s Die Burger stated that Mr Eksteen had offered to remain silent and that the offer had been accepted. I think the hon the Minister must tell us what Mr Eksteen had to keep silent about and why he offered to do so. What was accepted? Why must licence-holders and the taxpayers pay Mr Eksteen R500 000 plus a pension to keep quiet? Why must we pay him to keep something from us? What must he keep from us? We want to know what is going on. I think the public is entitled to know, because it is from their money that that payment is being made. [Interjections.]

One can also go back and ask this question: Why was Mr Eksteen appointed at the time? Surely he was appointed on merit—I must accept that he was not appointed for political reasons—because at the time efforts were made to find someone to do the specific job. He had to be an information expert. He had to be a propagandist. He had to be a diplomat who could put South Africa’s case to countries abroad and locally, even if it might have been necessary for him to convey certain political views. That does not bother me. I am merely saying that those were the desired qualities.

I am sure that if one of the conditions had been that he should be a financial expert, the hon the Minister who appointed him at the time would rather have considered the Deputy Minister of Finance, the hon member for Waterkloof, or someone like that. After all, he is suitable for such a post because he is an expert in that field. This man, however, was appointed as an expert in the information field, as someone who could convey South Africa’s message.

The question is whether he failed in that regard. For what other purpose was he appointed, if not for that purpose? If he failed in that regard, I want to ask what message he failed to convey.

We hear the CP also being blamed because the NP’s message is not getting through to the people. As if we own Beeld and Die Burger, and as if we control TV and radio!

Perhaps he did too good a job of conveying the message by giving the hon the Leader of the House an opportunity to participate in a debate on television! [Interjections.] That was perhaps the reason why he brought the wrong image, or the true image, home to the voters. Perhaps he had to be strung up because of that!

The question is why this R500 000 is being paid to him if there were grounds for his dismissal or if he had not done his work or was in breach of contract?

The hon the State President told us this afternoon that he had stated certain requirements to the Director General which he thought the SABC should comply with. I want to tell the hon the State President that we agree with all those requirements, except for an ever so slight disagreement with him about the one concerning NP policy. We say that the SABC should also convey CP policy.

I nevertheless think that the hon the State President’s request is a reasonable one, because we do not want to see all that robbery and violence and things like that on television either. There are also certain other things we do not want to see, things which are forced down our throats by way of advertisements, for example the mixed society psychosis which is being created. We do not like that either.

Oh, you are stupid!

An hon member is saying I am stupid. Mr Chairman, you are probably aware of this, and it seems he is permitted to say that when it applies to a CP member. Is that the kind of respect shown to hon members on this side of the Committee, the respect for which the hon the State President made an appeal?

I want to ask that the public be informed about the precise reason why Mr Eksteen had to be dismissed. Had he refused to comply with the hon the State President’s requests? Because last year, in the debate, we were told that violence was being scaled-down on TV. The then hon Minister in the Office of the State President entrusted with Administration and Broadcasting Services told us at the time that this request was being complied with, that there was co-operation and that we were being given better TV—if I may put it in those terms. We should like answers to these questions. We want to know what Mr Eksteen has to remain silent about. Why was this, according to Die Burger, incorporated in the agreement? [Interjections.] What must he keep silent about? [Interjections.]

Order!

I also want to come back to one aspect for which we are blamed with monotonous repetition, like a record stuck in a groove, and that is the question of White domination. In this Committee, on behalf of my party, I want to say that the CP does not advocate White domination over any other people!

And the AWB?

We do not advocate White domination over any other people, and we shall not associate ourselves with anyone who wants to do so. But we do not, however, allow any other people to have supremacy over us either! We also want to be free in this country, and we are entitled to that. That is the policy we advocate and that is what we on this side of the Committee are endeavouring to achieve. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Bethal confined himself mainly to a matter to which the hon the State President has already given an adequate reply. The hon member for Bethal’s contribution therefore requires no reaction from me.

For a meaningful debate between this side of the Committee and the Official Opposition it is essential to obtain clarity and unanimity about the concepts and terminology we are making use of. Recent debates have been marred by an apparent confusion of concepts and terminology on the part of hon members of the Official Opposition.

There are three concepts, in particular, which are relevant in this context, the first being that of “nation”, with its concomitant terms “nationhood”, “nationality” and “nationalism”, secondly the concept “people” and thirdly the concept “White”. These three concepts are randomly used by hon members of the Official Opposition, to suit the specific occasion, as if they were completely synonymous, whilst in fact nothing is further from the truth.

As an example of this, let me refer to the speech made by the hon member for Lichtenburg in the House last Friday. I quote as follows from the unrevised Hansard:

The hon member went on to say:

He also said:

That is true!

The concepts “nationalism”, “people” and “White” are used. “Nation” is a constitutional concept indicating a group of individuals belonging to the same state—forming a political unit. “National” means “of’, “unique to” or “typical of’ the nation and “nationality” is the characteristic of belonging to a nation, and the concept implies the status of being a citizen and the legal ties between an individual and a nation, including the loyalty of the individual and the protection of his rights by the State. “Nationalism” denotes a strong, fervent love of one’s fatherland.

The concept “people”, by contrast, is an historico-cultural concept and denotes a group of people who, by virtue of their language, culture and historical development, have a clear realisation of belonging together. As in the case of Switzerland and other countries, the South African nation embodies various peoples and population groups, some of whom are White and others non-White.

“White” is a racial or biological concept denoting a group of people possessing specific racial or biological characteristics.

If one applies these definitions to the quoted passages from the hon member for Lichtenburg’s speech, what he said is complete nonsense. How on earth can a strong, fervent love of one’s fatherland, for example—with or without bloodshed and violence—result in the Government’s policy being rectified, in accordance with the Official Opposition’s view, with all of the peoples jointly constituting the South African nation regaining or winning back their country and its freedom? Surely that is complete nonsense.

What does the hon member mean by White nationalism? Does he mean the nationalism of Whites? If that is the case, he has, in point of fact, not said anything. The South African nation does not, after all, consist only of Whites. On the other hand, not all the Whites in South Africa are fervent lovers of their fatherland.

The quoted portions from the hon member for Lichtenburg’s speech only makes sense when the concepts “nation”, “nationalism”, “people”—designating the Afrikaner people—and “White” are regarded and accepted as being synonymous. They are not synonymous, however, and they never can be.

The unscientific and inaccurate way in which hon members of the Official Opposition use the said concepts involuntarily raises the following questions. If, on the basis of the recognised principle of the right to self-determination of peoples, they claim the right to a “Boerestaat” or a “Volkstaat”, on behalf of which people do they claim this right, and with what authority do they speak on behalf of that people? If the basis for the envisaged “Volkstaat” is “Whiteness”—ie a racial concept—the claim to legitimacy falls away on the grounds of the right to self-determination of peoples, because there is no such thing as a White people. By definition there is simply no such thing as a White people, although a specific people can, of course, be White, for example the Afrikaner people. Race is therefore not a basis for a people and never can be.

If belonging to a people, and then presumably Afrikanerhood, is the basis of the proposed “Volkstaat”, certain fundamental questions arise to which the Official Opposition ought to furnish unequivocal answers.

Firstly, is citizenship of the proposed “Volkstaat” going to be reserved for Afrikaners alone and, if so, what will the nationality be of the non-Afrikaners who find themselves in this “Volkstaat”?

Everyone is welcome, except Nationalists!

Secondly, according to what norms and criteria is one going to decide upon someone’s Afrikanerhood or otherwise, and who is going to do so?

Thirdly, on what grounds does the Official Opposition claim to speak on behalf of the Afrikaner people as far as this is concerned? As it is, the CP and its members have virtually withdrawn from all recognised Afrikaner cultural institutions, and at present they are also leaving the three Afrikaans sister churches.

Does the Afrikaner have a right to a fatherland?

I am asking on what grounds they claim to speak on behalf of the Afrikaners! Just look at who is sitting in the benches on this side of the House.

Former UP members!

That is a typical example of what gives rise to the question I have just posed. Who is going to decide about Afrikanerhood, and on what grounds? Until such time as the Official Opposition furnishes unequivocal answers to these questions, on the basis of their statements about nation, people and White, we are entitled to draw our own conclusions, ie that in point of fact they do not envisage an Afrikaner “Volkstaat”, but rather a White “Volkstaat”, in which citizenship will be reserved, not for Afrikaners, but for supporters of the CP-AWB alliance. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon the State President addressed me directly during the course of his speech. I simply want to say to him that I hope he will, upon reflection, be neither proud of nor pleased with the nature of his response. I raised what I believed were serious and valid issues. The hon the State President berated me. That seems to have confirmed what I said, namely that the Government is becoming increasingly petulant and aggressive towards everyone who stands up to them, towards everyone who actually says that there are certain areas in which they are not succeeding. Just as I am prepared to accept his earnestness in debates across the floor of this House, I would expect him to treat opposition leaders and opposition members in the same way, irrespective of whether he agrees with them or not.

What was the gravamen of what I said? He has not dealt with those points. The first statement I made was that there was a clamour from all over the country for greater clarity on where this Government was leading us. If he does not believe this he should read every newspaper, every journal—not only opposition newspapers, but also Beeld, Rapport and others. Everyone is asking where he is leading this country. [Interjections.] That is a perfectly valid point, and yet the hon the State President responded to it with his old-style aggressiveness. [Interjections.]

Furthermore, I said that while there had been certain achievements over the past 40 years—I gave him credit for certain achievements over the past 10 years—I identified three areas in which I believed there had been either a failure to react or retrogression. I mentioned the fact that 80 years since Union and 40 years since the coming to power of the NP, there is still no Black representation in the central Parliament of South Africa. I still believe this is a critically important fact. It is one of the factors leading to the tensions and the polarisation in our community. Instead of responding to that, the hon the State President became aggressive.

The second thing I said was that there had been a deterioration in civil liberties and an abrogation of the rule of law. Surely he would admit that. Perhaps he can explain why it happened. Surely he would admit that there has been a serious deterioration in that situation over the past few years.

Finally—I said it in anger, since I am concerned about it—there has been a sharp and a marked deterioration in our relationships with the rest of the world. I have no doubt that there are people who are our friends and who want to be our friends, and that there are visitors who find that this country is better than they imagined it to be. I am also sure, however, that the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs will know that the isolation psychosis, the pressures from outside, are increasing. That is what I said. We should listen to the reports received. We should listen to the SA Foundation. This is an ugly reality which we have to face. I do not believe there is any point in the hon the State President’s trying to berate me and trying to drag in the red herring of sanctions. I want to stress that these are serious matters which have to be addressed by way of debate.

Let me make this quite clear to the hon the State President. He can berate us as much as he likes. He can drag red herrings across the trail as much as he likes. Nevertheless, he is not going to stop us. He not going to silence us. He is not going to prevent us from expressing criticism when we believe that criticism to be valid. [Interjections.]

We will support the hon the State President when he does in fact make serious attempts to get rid of apartheid. Equally, though, we will attack and criticise the Government when they drag their heels and fail to do what is necessary.

The hon the State President dealt with a whole range of issues in the constitutional field. Other than some new options which he introduced, he primarily covered old ground. I believe he covered old ground in a way which, in retrospect, gives a picture of what he has been attempting to do so far. It gives us no picture, however, of where he is going in the future. What the hon the State President said, in fact, was that he had now received advice from somebody abroad—I believe this is what he said—who told him he should not come forward with a plan but that he should govern this country into a new constitutional dispensation. Those were more or less the words he used: We must govern ourselves into a new constitutional dispensation.

I do not believe that is good enough. There are, however, certain bench-marks. I want to come back to some of the points I raised, on which the hon the State President failed to touch. I want to refer to the question of Black people having direct representation in the central, sovereign Parliament of South Africa.

That’s what Albert wants! [Interjections.]

Does the hon the State President accept that? This is to us a matter of principle. Does he accept the concept that Black people must have a direct say in the central, sovereign Parliament of South Africa?

That’s what Albert says! [Interjections.]

Order!

Once one says that, one can begin to conceptualise some plan for the future. The hon the State President referred to the concept—it may have been in passing—of the European Parliament; that he did not exclude the European parliamentary concept. The European Parliament, however, is a parliament with limited functions in respect of a number of separate, sovereign countries.

We are not talking about parliaments for separate, sovereign countries; we are talking about the Parliament for an undivided South Africa. Other than the TBVC countries and other parts of South Africa which the hon the State President says may wish to become independent, I thought that he accepted the oneness of South Africa. The European Parliament is a concept of a confederation of sovereign, independent states and does not deal with the crux of the issue as to how we here in South Africa are to govern ourselves.

The third point he made was to lay great emphasis once again on the question of communities. I have no problem with that concept. We are all individuals and we are all associated with communities in one way or the other. I want to put it to the hon the State President that if communities exist on a basis of historical or voluntary association, that is one thing. However, if in fact by “communities” he means communities as defined by race classification then he is back on the apartheid track. That is fundamental. Communities can be ethnic or racial, linguistic or cultural, and if they associate on a basis of voluntary association we have no problem with that at all. However, when they are defined in terms of race, then that is a completely different matter.

The hon the State President also said: “Ons sal wegkom van papierwaarborge in ’n grondwetlike bestel.”

*I understand the problem of paper guarantees, but as far as our present Constitution is concerned, there are certain guarantees. There are guarantees relating to language and to group interests that have been entrenched in the Constitution. I hope the hon the State President is not suggesting that those guarantees are actually of no value in our present dispensation, because they were embodied in the Constitution of South Africa in all sincerity as part of the guarantees provided for minorities and language groups in this country.

†The hon the State President then went on to adumbrate the concept that Black people could participate in an electoral college to choose the State President one day. I want to say just this one thing to the hon the State President. Participation in such an electoral college will only be of value if the people participating can become an integral part of the majority making the election. Whether they be Whites, Coloureds, Indians or Blacks, if people are locked into a minority situation because of the composition of such an electoral college it will serve no purpose whatsoever.

Finally, Sir, for some reason or other the hon the State President dragged in Archbishop Tutu and the sanctions campaign. I know that there are differences of opinion between us but I thought that he and I and the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs and I understood one another and that both of those hon gentlemen knew that we are totally opposed to economic sanctions. In fact, we have said this time and time again. Notwithstanding what the hon member for Houghton has already said, as leader of this party I want to say that we are opposed to campaigns for economic sanctions whether they are led by Archbishop Tutu or Mr Wolpe or anyone else. As was mentioned by the hon member for Houghton, we submitted evidence to one of the subcommittees of the American Congress which is considering 28 sanctions Bills right at this moment. I should like to quote one or two extracts from the submission that we made on behalf of the PFP.

The first extract reads as follows:

We conclude with these words:

One day apartheid will go. One day racial domination will be no more. These things will happen not because of coercive pressures from outside but because of the interaction of South Africans with each other. We do not suggest that fundamental change away from apartheid in the political field will be easy …

[Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, before I reply to the hon member for Sea Point, I should like to put one matter straight with the hon member for Bethal. As the Minister entrusted with the SABC, I did not appoint the director general concerned at that stage. [Interjections.] I see the hon member accepts that, and I shall not pursue the matter. It was a board decision.

You suggested it!

You recommended him!

It was a board decision through and through, and I consulted Prof Mouton, who was the chairman at that stage, in regard to this matter. Those hon members must contact him if they do not want to take my word for this.

But you recommended him. You said so in this House.

Of course I did, and I hope that the present Minister will also be consulted on this in future. We never said that he should not be consulted. I merely said that I did not appoint him, and the hon member for Bethal agreed that this was not the case. I thank him for that.

As regards the hon member for Sea Point, the hon the State President did not berate him; he is berating himself. [Interjections.] He has been working himself up into an almost uncontrollable state here today—but why? [Interjections.] I was seated next to the hon the State President when the hon members for Sea Point and Houghton said that they in fact repudiated Archbishop Tutu’s sanctions campaign, and the hon the State President immediately acknowledged that with thanks.

Afterwards. [Interjections.]

I do not know what the hon member is trying to say to us now. [Interjections.] The important question is whether those hon members associate themselves with some of the other statements of that churchman.

It has nothing to do with that.

That is not so; it is of great importance. [Interjections.] He is constantly attacking this country. Do the hon members agree that he is creating the impression abroad that he is representative of virtually all the Christians of this country?

We are not involved in that.

The hon member cannot tell me she is not involved in that. I sat and listened to her quietly. Now I ask her to do the same for me.

Talk sense!

We urge those hon members to stand up and make clear their opposition to this man who is indirectly propagating for violence to solve South Africa’s political problems. [Interjections.] That is what we are looking forward to.

The hon member for Sea Point also said that what was happening in other countries of the world regarding discriminatory measures and the violation of human rights was irrelevant.

When did he say that? [Interjections.]

I do not agree with him, because a major part of the attack on South Africa at the United Nations and elsewhere is based on hypocrisy and double standards.

That is not relevant.

Of course it is relevant.

Why do you put words into his mouth?

I have checked this. Let us take one of the countries which is in the forefront of the sanctions campaign against South Africa, namely Australia.

… and it is not true.

Order! The hon member for Bryanston must restrain himself. The hon the Minister may continue.

I thank you, Sir.

To start with, in Australia there is a separate Department of Aboriginal Affairs. One could call it “own affairs”. Let us look at some comparative figures.

*The unemployment figure of Black Australians, if I may call them that, is twice that of White Australians. As regards education, 13% of the Blacks pass matric, compared with 50% of White Australians. The family income of Black Australians is not even 50% of that of White Australians. Infant mortality among Black Australians is three times that of White Australians. Eight times as many Black Australian women die in childbirth. Of all trachoma cases—trachoma is a disease which affects the eyes—13% are Black Australians, and Black Australians only constitute 1,5% of the total population of Australia. Lung diseases are six times more prevalent among Black Australians; deafness three times more prevalent; and tuberculosis six times more prevalent.

Does that make you proud of our figures?

The life expectancy of Black Australian women is 57 to 65 years, and that of White women is 79 years. The life expectancy of Black Australian men is 48 to 61 years, and that of White men is 72 years. As regards the prison population in Australia, 11,4% of all prisoners are Black Australians, and they only constitute 1,5% of the total population. Hon members should make their own calculations. [Interjections.]

†As a matter of fact, it was recently stated in an Australian paper that it appeared that the most imprisoned people in the world were the Australian Aborigines. That was a statement in an Australian newspaper. [Interjections.]

Order!

It is said that the chances of a Black Australian being imprisoned are sixteen times better than a White Australian. At present the death in detention of 100 Black Australians is being investigated. Why is this irrelevant? It is relevant in fighting the sanctions campaign against South Africa for hon members of this House to state these facts emphatically in this House and elsewhere at every opportunity. We admit that we are not perfect, but countries like Australia must first put their own house in order. Why cannot the hon member for Sea Point agree with this? Why cannot he consider it relevant to his evidence? I appreciate his evidence in Washington, and the evidence which the hon member for Houghton gave, but then he must not say that malpractices in the countries which are accusing South Africa are irrelevant. With these double standards which are being applied to South Africa no party in this House stands a chance of escaping sanctions with its policy. That party does not stand a chance. That party cannot meet the demands which are being made in the UN and elsewhere.

Have hon members read the UN’s records? They come here today and make a fuss about that one sentence in our ambassador’s statement in the Security Council in New York on 3 March 1988, when he said: “You can do your damnedest.”

You said it!

Yes, I said it, and I shall say it again. What was the background, however? [Interjections.] A Security Council meeting took place to promulgate further sanctions and boycotts against South Africa. This Security Council meeting was unnecessary. A Security Council meeting should concentrate instead on the poverty, the chaos, the poor health conditions in the world, the ignorance, the misery and the distress of millions of people all over the world. That is what the Security Council should concentrate on!

However, when steps are taken in South Africa to protect the safety of the public a Security Council meeting is called in order to promulgate further sanctions against South Africa. How did matters progress? The wild elements in the UN, who introduced the draft resolution, initially came up with a draft resolution which sought to introduce comprehensive, compulsory sanctions against South Africa.

†The West then said to them: “Look, can’t you water this down a bit, and then we might support it unanimously? Then we have a unanimous condemnation of South Africa and a unanimous decision will carry more weight to force the racist regime of Pretoria to dismantle apartheid and accept one man one vote in a unitary system, in a single structured system, in South Africa.”

*When they began to adopt this course, we had to decide what was in the interests of South Africa. I am not apologising for this. I shall say this in front of the whole of South Africa. What was in the interests of South Africa? To allow a unanimous decision to be taken, which could blow over to Europe and which would also serve as a stimulus to the American Congress to oppress and hurt South Africa more economically, and which would strengthen the stranglehold of sanctions? Or would it be better for one or two permanent members of the Security Council to repudiate or veto a wilder draft resolution? I decided it was better to try to force a veto. In order to achieve a veto, we had to provoke them deliberately. I deliberately told our ambassador to make them angry so that they would submit a draft resolution which would result in a veto. And that is what happened.

Very silly!

It was calculated language on the part of South Africa’s representative, aimed at achieving a certain result, and the British ambassador, who spoke in the debate, confirmed this. He said: “The South African representative robbed us of unanimity in the Security Council”, or words to that effect. These are the facts, and I shall put these facts anywhere in South Africa. Only the PFP does not like this. [Interjections.] The PFP would have preferred our ambassador to have made an apologetic little speech.

†They would have preferred submission to the West and a watered-down decision which would have resulted in further steps against South Africa. That is their style. They are soft on security and soft on our enemies. That is their style. [Interjections.] This is the accusation …

On a point of order, Mr Chairman: I understand that there was a ruling by Mr Speaker on a former occasion that the accusation “soft on security” should not be used about hon members in this House. I request you to honour that ruling.

Order! I shall go into the matter, but I am not aware of such a ruling. The hon the Minister may continue.

He is soft in the head.

On a point of order, Mr Chairman: May that hon member say the hon Minister is “soft in the head”?

Let him say that; I do not care.

Order! Did the hon member for Bryanston say that?

I said so, Sir, because the hon the Minister was very provocative in making those statements about us.

Order! The hon member must withdraw it.

Sir, I withdraw that remark quite reluctantly. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Minister may continue.

I would rather be soft in my head than have nothing in my head at all! [Interjections.]

I wish to ask the PFP what they have against the following statement made by our ambassador in the Security Council meeting of 3 March 1988:

Plain, clear and unequivocal. [Interjections.]

*I repeat: The PFP cannot meet the UN’s demands either. If they want to meet those demands in order to escape sanctions, South Africa will be lost in any case and they will not need sanctions and boycotts. Then South Africa will have been destroyed. We on this side of the Committee have never said that we deliberately want to provoke the world into applying sanctions. Today the hon the State President again said that sanctions hurt us; they cause us pain. However, if one’s only choice is to avoid sanctions by meeting the demands of the world or the UN, I want to tell the hon members that they do not stand a chance, because then they will ipso facto be destroying South Africa.

These are the facts, and the hon member should know this. I am surprised that they do not know it, because I am told that they frequently travel abroad. They should therefore be aware of the demands being made on this Government and this country. Nowadays the world will no longer be satisfied with a mere Black majority government; that Black majority government will have to be a Marxist government. [Interjections.] Are the hon members aware of that, or do they want to argue about that too? These are the facts, and the sooner the PFP accepts them the better.

Now I want to address a few words to our hon friends in the CP. I find it enlightening that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition agreed with our hon State President with regard to important facets of the present developments in South Africa. This is welcomed. In the field of security and physical threats we must, as the hon the State President has said, find common ground and stand together, because if we are not united our enemies will capitalise on this, and benefit from our being divided on this important issue. I believe that everyone on this side of the Committee, was as glad as I was to hear that those stories intimating that we were willing to talk to the ANC before that organisation had renounced violence had—I hope—been eliminated once and for all. I also assume that this will not be used against us in future elections either. It has now been placed on record that those allegations were unfounded.

The hon the State President also referred to the explanation by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition of the relationship between the Church and the State. I think there is now consensus between the CP and the NP on this important matter, and it is an important matter because Archbishop Tutu constantly tries to make out that he represents by far the majority of Christians. He does not say so in so many words, but the high profile which he enjoys overseas every time he opens his mouth gives many people overseas the impression that he is the elected leader of all Christian church organisations in South Africa. Consequently we also appreciate the CP’s standpoint on the relationship between the State and the Church.

The CP said that they had won the by-elections, and that is true. Statistics show this. However, we have not yet had a reply from them regarding the way in which they are conducting their propaganda. We have not yet had a reply to the questions put to the hon member for Lichtenburg by my colleague the hon the Minister for Administration and Privatisation. During one of these by-elections the hon member told his audience very authoritatively that they wanted to reverse the process of Black urbanisation. They would reverse and destroy all manner of structures, including regional services councils. He promised the Whites that the CP would put a stop to and reverse Black urbanisation. He said the CP would see to it that within 10 to 15 years between 70% and 75% of the country’s urban Blacks would be back in their homelands. The simple truth is that if they want to achieve this, they will have to move two million Black people per year. They will have to move 5 500 people per day for 365 days over a period of 15 years. This is ridiculous. I wonder whether anyone has worked out what this would cost. I wonder whether anyone wants to work this out. It sounds wonderful when one is standing on a platform and one is talking to a White audience, and one makes that kind of statement from that platform; and what is more one has a doctorate, and the people sitting in the audience think that the person with the doctorate gave careful consideration to that statement. They are surely entitled to expect him to have reliable sources; they are surely entitled to expect him to have studied his statement and checked his facts, because to many Whites in this country his statement would sound fine and reassuring. It would sound like a solution—in 10 to 15 years’ time, between 70% and 75% of the country’s urban Blacks will be back in their homelands. It sounds like magic, a wave of the magic wand. What happens after the meeting has adjourned and the people have gone home? Next day they talk to their neighbours, the hairdresser, the taxi-driver, the butcher and the shop-keeper, and the teachers who were there tell the children: “Do you know what? Within 10 to 15 years the CP will have between 70% and 75% of the country’s urban Blacks back in their homelands.” That is how the story spreads. By the time we catch up with it here in the House or elsewhere, the damage has been done. [Interjections.]

Let us consider the other statement made by the hon member for Lichtenburg. No Black worker will be able to work in a so-called White area without a permit. This statement sounds fine to many Whites. It sounds as if the CP again has a solution which the NP does not have. South Africa is now going to be lily white; there are no longer going to be any Blacks here, and the Blacks who are here are all going to have permits and be controlled. I personally visited a farm in the Eastern Transvaal which belonged to a CP friend of mine. He told me frankly and honestly that there were 150 Mozambicans on his farm. He told me that they crawled under the electrified boundary fence and walked through the minefield on the Mozambican side of the border, and came to look for work. When the SAP come looking for the people, they hide. As soon as the police have left the farm, they start working again. That CP friend of mine—I shall identify him if the CP challenge me to do so; I shall tell them who he is, but not here, because I was his guest and he treated me well—told me that it paid him to do this. He said in many cases he only needed to feed them and did not have to pay them a wage.

A starvation wage!

No, I did not say a “starvation wage.” I did not use those words. Apparently they feel this is still preferable to living in the miserable conditions prevailing on the other side of the fence.

In one case the police arrested and deported the same man 14 times in one year. There are anything up to 2 million Black workers from neighbouring states in South Africa, the majority of whom entered the country illegally. Neither the hon the State President nor I have up to now been given an answer by overseas visitors and statesmen to the question: If South Africa is such a racial hell, why do they seek refuge with us?

Because they are …

Dr Franz-Josef Strauss put the same question to Pres Chissano, and the latter replied that he should tell the hon the State President that he should not send his people back, but should allow more of them into the country. The only point I want to make is that even if one were to issue permits to these people and even if one were to introduce influx control systems, one would not be able to keep hungry people out, even if one had the most formidable boundary fences. We hear that they even walk through mine fields and the Kruger National Park.

A Black mother with two children, who was too exhausted to carry both of them, hid one of them in a bush and arrived in Gazankulu carrying the other child on her shoulders. She immediately asked the people to retrace her steps and see if they could find her other child that she had hidden in the bushes. By the time they arrived, wild animals had already eaten the child. This is the truth. Hunger drives people to cross borders. People who are looking for work and food are not easily put off.

Consider what the CP is saying. They want to fragment South Africa with their partition policy. Partition means dividing people. Dividing people means that one drives them apart. It is a centrifugal policy. The NP is a centripetal party … [Interjections.]… which is seeking common denominators and a communal love for the whole of South Africa. We are in favour of collective defence of our border, united action against sanctions and threats from outside and collective marketing of all our export products. What objection does the CP have to a Black man’s business, etc successfully exporting farmers’ products? Must he be partitioned off? Must he be prevented from doing so? Must we boycott ourselves?

Let us take a look at this partitioning theology or policy, if I may call it that. Are they eventually going to have one reservoir of water for Whites, one for Blacks, one for Coloureds and one for Indians? I suppose we shall then have White water, Black water, Coloured water and Indian water. [Interjections.] Where is it going to end if one carries this through to its logical consequences? What about the roads and the powerlines? How is one eventually going to say where one should partition what?

I want to mention an important matter here. Last week I spoke to a Black president of one of the TBVC countries. I told him that a certain facility which he had built had cost too much and we felt they had overspent. We felt they had made a mistake. The president said to me: Sir, do you not realise that the NP may not always be in power, and if either the PFP or another party were to come into power, they might want to boycott us, because of their policy. We must therefore already have recourse to facilities of our own, even if they cost so much. Those hon members who want to partition everything are giving rise to these fears.

I want to conclude my speech by reminding the Committee of an historic event which made a deep impression on me, specifically in this year in which we are celebrating Dias’s discovery of the Cape 500 years ago. What eventually made it possible for Dias to sail around the Cape of Good Hope? Prince Henry the Navigator, who lived from 1396 to 1460, constantly sent out seafarers, but they could never get past a point, Cape Bojador on the West Coast of Africa. According to superstition the ship and its crew would fall off the edge of the world if they sailed past that point, or the sea would start to boil or monsters would rise out of the waves and devour the crew. Only when a man named Gill Eanes devised a plan to sail past that point with his sailors and proved that a ship could sail past Cape Bojador without sinking was the way paved to discover the Cape.

Today I am asking the CP and the PFP to rid themselves of their credulity and their superstitions and to help us to sail the ship of South Africa past prejudices and stories of monsters and to discover a new land of hope for all our people.

Hear, hear!

Mr Chairman, I do not propose to react to the speech by the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I merely want to say that I think that he has given too much credit to the propaganda material which the CP distributed during the three recent by-elections. It played an important role in the victories we achieved, but our perception was that in those three constituencies the voters actually needed no more convincing, because the conditions in their own lives, mirrored in their day-to-day experiences, had already convinced those voters that they could no longer follow the NP. That is how simple it is.

I want to refer briefly to the hon the Leader of the PFP. Before the general election in May, that hon member said that the CP was irrelevant in South African politics. I found it interesting to listen to him yesterday. His speech was virtually an entreaty to the hon the State President, asking him please to give the country some guidance so that the CP did not take over. It is beginning to become pathological as far as the PFP is concerned.

Last week the hon member for Sandton made a qualified declaration of love to the NP. He said that if there was ever any real danger of the CP taking over power, the PFP would know what to do with its vote. One can only draw one conclusion from that, and that is that the PFP—what still remains of it—will try to come to the NP’s aid. If there is one party that has really become irrelevant in White South African politics, it is the PFP.

That is what you think!

The hon the State President has told us that the Innesdal incident is a thing of the past. I want to disillusion him, because as far as we are concerned, it is not. Last week the hon member for Innesdal told us that he stood by every word of his article which was published in Inside South Africa. [Interjections.] He said that he had not withdrawn anything, and that he would not do so either. Then he qualified his statement, however, and said that he stood by NP policy and was loyal to the NP’s leaders. In his article the hon member said that the following is a myth:

Even what you are now quoting is not the truth!

Here it is in the hon member’s article.

Read the sentence with which the article begins! [Interjections.]

It is stated in the hon member’s article. He says that is a myth.

You are now doing precisely what you people did in court, Cas Uys! [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon member went further. He said that he was loyal and that he adhered to NP policy. He said that the following was a myth:

What you are quoting there is a lie! [Interjections.]

He said that he stood by the NP. He went on the state that the following was a myth:

Is that also a lie?

Quote the first sentence!

He says that it is a myth that a solution in this country can be found without giving the Black people of this country representation in this Parliament. He says, however, that he stands by the NP and its policy.

That quotation is false, Cas Uys!

It was quite interesting to watch the reaction of the hon the Leader of the NP in the Transvaal to the hon member for Innesdal’s speech. The hon the Leader of the NP in the Transvaal took the hon member so seriously that he issued a Press statement in which he declared that he was going to submit the hon member’s speech and also the substance of his previous discussion with the hon member to the Transvaal Executive Committee of the party.

That is also a myth!

But surely that is not a condemnation!

I did not say it was a condemnation.

Well then?

A provincial leader of a party does not, for no reason whatsoever, refer the conduct and statements of a member of his party to the executive committee of that party. Surely he refers it to them so that they can pass judgement on that member’s conduct. I find it very interesting that the hon the State President told us yesterday that he had spoken to the hon member; he is perhaps a bit over-hasty at times and should be a little more careful.

I have spoken to you as well. [Interjections.]

I am coming to that.

I agree with the hon the State President—the hon member for Innesdal is a bit over-hasty and careless, because at this stage it is politically foolish to spell out precisely to the voters where the NP is heading. [Interjections.] After all, the NP is developing its future dispensation by small instalments—the voters first have to be indoctrinated into accepting it. [Interjections.]

Of course, that is true! Let them have it, Cas!

What happened, and I now want to refer to the important announcements, extremely important announcements, which the hon the State President made today? During the referendum, and prior to that, when we warned the voters of South Africa that this was but the first instalment and that the next instalment would be that the Blacks were going to be brought in, the NP said we were telling lies.

Yes!

The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said that if Blacks were brought in, South Africa would be destroyed. And now, Sir? Now we find the hon the State President announcing that the Blacks would be included in the electoral college for the election of the State President.

I now want to put a question to the NP, which reads us lectures every day about Christian justice and fairness and equal citizenship. In the present electoral college for the election of the State President, the representation is proportional to the numerical strength of the Whites, Coloureds and Indians. Is the NP also going to be as fair and just to the Black people of South Africa and also have, in the proposed electoral college, proportional representation for the Black people of South Africa?

That is the question!

Yes, that is the question!

Is the NP perhaps going to regard it as essential to the protection of minority rights to have the Whites remain in the majority in that electoral college? I am merely asking. When the NP comes forward with that legislation one day, we shall debate this issue again.

If I have understood the hon the State President correctly, Blacks are now also going to be included in the President’s Council, but the conclusion I have drawn from what was also said—he must correct me if I am wrong—was that the Blacks would be excluded from the President’s Council’s decisive function in the event of the three Houses not being able to reach consensus.

Of course!

That is my conclusion; if I am wrong, I should like to hear it.

You heard correctly, Cas.

What is also important is that the hon the State President told us he was also coming forward with proposals that would make it possible for him to appoint people, who need not necessarily be members of any of these three Houses, to the Cabinet—not the Ministers’ Council—so as to enable him to make Blacks Cabinet Ministers.

When we warned the Whites of South Africa that once one had set off along the road to powersharing one had to go the whole hog, we were told that that was CP gossip-mongering and lies.

There you have it!

What is happening now is not the last instalment.

Never!

It is not the last instalment!

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No 19.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Today I wish briefly to discuss the factors which gave rise to the proposed amendment of the Currency and Exchanges Act.

Section 9(2)(b)(i) of the Act provides for the making of regulations to provide for the blocking, attachment and obtaining of interdicts for a period not exceeding 12 months by the Treasury in respect of any money or goods involved in a suspected offence against the Exchange Control Regulations.

Furthermore, Exchange Control Regulation 22A(3) provides that any money or goods which have been thus attached shall be returned to the person entitled thereto, unless such money or goods are forfeited to the State, as provided for in Regulations 22B and 22C.

In a recent case before the Transvaal Provincial Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa, ie A E Ferreira and others v the State President and others, Mr Justice Eloff found that the application of the audi alteram partem rule, ie the rule of fairness, shall be a prerequisite for a valid forfeiture of money or goods under Exchange Control Regulation 22B.

In order, therefore, to achieve a valid forfeiture of money or goods every person affected thereby shall:

• —be given all information of material interest relating to the offence of suspected offence against the Exchange Control Regulations, as well as the relationship between the suspected offence and the amount to be forfeited; and
• —such persons shall be given the opportunity to make representations to the Treasury as to why the money or goods, or any part thereof, should not be forfeited.

In the normal course of events it is impossible to comply with the audi rule within a period of 12 months, mainly due to prolonged litigation and uncompleted criminal prosecution.

If a forfeiture of attached money or goods does not take place within 12 months, the Treasury will be obliged to return such money and/or goods, and the accused in a case will be unfairly enriched. This is a very important point, Sir.

The following is an equally important point, namely that in terms of the present implementation of the Act and the Exchange Control Regulations, the Treasury is also debarred from attaching such goods and/or money for a second time with a view to declaring it forfeited. This means that if we must make payments—and here we are dealing with R80 million—to people appearing in court at present and they are found guilty, we cannot recover that money.

The difficulties envisaged above could, according to legal opinion, be adequately overcome by means of the proposed amendment to the Currency and Exchanges Act, 1933, by means of which (a) the period of attachment is lengthened to 36 months, and (b) greater flexibility is built in, because the period can be further lengthened to one year after the final conviction or to such a period as is determined by a competent court.

What this amounts to is that the person shall first be convicted and, if there are problems, repayments shall be made thereafter.

This amendment does not leave aggrieved persons without a remedy—this is also important. Persons whose money or goods have been declared forfeited will still have the legal remedies provided in the Currency and Exchanges Act at their disposal.

Mr Chairman, we on this side of the House take pleasure in supporting the Currency and Exchanges Amendment Bill.

Before I discuss the Bill, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the hon member for Yeoville on behalf of my colleagues in the standing committee on the exceptional honour which has come his way. The hon member for Yeoville showed himself to be an unprecedented expert in the Standing Committee on Finance. At his advanced age he still has a quick legal and economic brain. I can assure hon members that whenever other hon members and I have come into close contact with the hon member since the coming into operation of the new dispensation, we have definitely been enriched. Possibly I have been more enriched than some of my colleagues, because I, like the hon member for Yeoville, believe in social democracy.

The hon member for Yeoville has had a splendid career in public life and since the hon the State President is now going to award him a Decoration for Meritorious Service in the gold class, we want to congratulate him and wish him everything of the best for the years in which he is still going to serve our beautiful country.

I now want to get back to the amending Bill. Section 9(2)(b) of the Currency and Exchanges Act of 1933 at present provides that a regulation envisaged in paragraph (a) may make provision for the blocking, attachment and obtaining of interdicts for a period not exceeding 12 months in respect of certain goods or money involved in a contravention of the regulations. As the hon the Deputy Minister said, there are court cases in progress at present in which persons and organisations stand accused of contravening exchange control measures and provisions. However, it has in the interim become clear that the 12 month period is hopelessly too short to gather witnesses and evidence.

The hon the Deputy Minister has mentioned that the courts require that the audi alteram partem rule shall apply before the money or goods may be forfeited to the State. The amending Bill before the House provides that the said period shall be lengthened to a period not exceeding 36 months, which may be determined by a competent court on good cause shown by the Treasury. However, problems cropped up in the standing committee in connection with the interpretation of the concept “good cause” and which standards shall apply to determine this so-called “good cause” for the lengthening of the period. However, we reach consensus on the lengthening of the period and if the amending Bill were to be passed by Parliament, the Treasury would be compelled to return the money or goods or declare them forfeited after 36 months—instead of 12 months—had elapsed.

Sir, this amending Bill is extremely important because certain clever businessmen are enriching themselves at the expense of the people of South Africa. If I may explain this briefly, Sir, I want to mention that many of these people use the commercial rand to buy dollars. Then these dollars are converted into financial rand. [Interjections.] No, Blacks too. The African Bank was also involved in this. The financial rand is then deposited in banking accounts of other banking institutions in South Africa, and later on the money is withdrawn in commercial rand. In this way excessive profits are earned owing to the difference in the value of the financial rand and the commercial rand at any given time.

We cannot continue to let people who want to enrich themselves in an illegal and dishonest way use the taxpayers’ money to do so. I mentioned earlier that at this stage court cases were in progress and consequently it was important for this legislation to be of retrospective effect. The proposed Act will be retrospective with effect from 1 December 1961 in order to authorise certain steps already taken by the hon the Minister of Finance with a view to protecting foreign currencies.

Mr Chairman, I take pleasure in saying that the standing committee accepted the Bill unanimously and we take pleasure in supporting this measure.

Mr Chairman, I agree with the hon member Mr Douw regarding our colleague, the hon member for Yeoville. I served with them on the standing committee for a long time and I think the hon member for Yeoville gave particular assistance specifically to the hon members of this House and the House of Delegates. I know he was always available for discussions, and I also agree that he made an exceptional contribution from the opposition benches to assist us. I am thinking for example of the Building Societies Act. He played an exceptional part in ensuring that we could incorporate a very good Act in the Statute Book.

Sir, I also want to thank this House for agreeing to this amending Bill. It is never pleasant suddenly to come along and request that Rule 33 be suspended—in the case of this legislation for example, it was three days. However, as the hon member Mr Douw said, there are people who are always cleverer than others and there are certain times when we have to clamp down on these people. I again thank hon members for their support.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I should like to make a statement before I start my actual speech. The statement reads:

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to introduce this debate on my Vote, “Local Government, Housing and Agriculture”, today.

They say a pessimist is an optimist who voted for a politician because he thought he would decrease Government expenditure. Fortunately I have not made such promises as yet.

In discussing the Vote of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture, it is fitting to pause at what we are planning to do with the R429 million which must be voted in this Budget. The objective of the department is the improvement and upgrading of the quality of life of the community in the spheres of local government, physical facilities and agriculture. The improvement of people’s quality of life is always a laudable task, but the question is whether it contributes to the primary purpose of taking constitutional reform to its logical conclusion. We shall discuss budgets again and I hope that some people, especially hon members of the Official Opposition, will take careful note of how a budget works.

In the South Africa of today, in fact throughout the world, there is distrust, prejudice and misconception among people. This is chiefly the result of two reasons, namely the enormous differences in standards of living and development levels as well as a total lack of communication, resulting in ignorance about one another. Religious beliefs can also play a significant part, but fortunately this aspect has not assumed serious proportions among us to date. Religion is actually a binding factor.

There are two extremely important factors in any constitutional reform, namely the fears of those who draw full benefits from the system that they will lose these benefits and, on the other hand, the aspirations of those who also want to form part of the system. How is it possible to reconcile these factors with each other if we do not know one another and if there are such great socioeconomic differences between us?

It is true that the exclusive governor, who has to make adjustments to accommodate others who have great backlogs in socio-economic spheres, is afraid that his own people’s socio-economic status will be influenced negatively by this. Consequently the climate for adjustment is tense and, the greater these differences, the more difficult the adjustment. Every action which aids in improving the socio-economic level of our community and of every other lesser-privileged community also improves the climate for meaningful reform. The opportunities which are therefore created for better education, housing, sound community development and agriculture, together with the development of local management structures for their effective implementation, are the undoubted focal point of constitutional reform in South Africa. This is why I am not ashamed to request this R429 million and I want to add immediately, give me more. Against the background of the serious problems which exist in balancing the Government Budget, we had to be satisfied with a modest increase of 9,1% on the Budget of the previous financial year. Hon members will note that the increase in funds under programmes for housing assistance and area development amounts to a modest 11,2% and 12,4% respectively. The Budget could have shown greater increases in these spheres, but a deliberate decision was taken to let the emphasis fall on agriculture and the development of rural areas. The result was that the provision of R20 750 000 was increased to R27 251 000 under the Programme: Agriculture—an increase of 31,3%.

I think that, seen as a whole, we may feel satisfied with the Budget under current circumstances. Nevertheless there is one aspect which concerns me and that is the capital programme as regards education. There is a perception that the financing formula does not generate adequate funds to make up shortfalls. Consequently an increase of only 4,8% is indicated. We are actually retrogressing now.

One result of this is that no new projects comprising total repair and renovation can be carried out in the coming financial year. Against the background of the great impact which this type of project has made over the past three years, this is regrettable.

Subsequently I should like to pause separately at the three chief components of my department’s activities. I shall take local government first. Effective structures, accompanied by a positive attitude, are essential as far as the effective execution of this department’s task at local government level is concerned. This links up with the department’s philosophy that sound community development can only take place if the community itself becomes involved. In the first place, therefore, the local government body—I am referring to management and local affairs committees, as they are called in Natal—has to become involved and ensure that local government receives support.

†Sir, we do not want to do things for the people; we want to do things with and through them. As Christ called himself the vine, and the Christians the branches, the department endeavours to provide the expertise, money and know-how, but the people must do the work and bear the fruit. I do not want to play the part of a minister of religion, but this is an apt comparison as far as community development is concerned. It is not the vine that eventually bears the fruit; the branches bear the fruit. This is what we must do with regard to local government and community development and why we want effective participation in local government.

It is a pity, therefore, that co-operation at local government level is not always that good, and that the upliftment process is in many cases being hampered by conflict at local government level.

There are so many cases in which relations between management committees and local authorities, between MPs and local authorities, or even between MPs and management committees, have turned sour. Then it is expected of me or the department to solve the problems and to facilitate development. Of course there are local authorities who are not really interested in our problems, but I am sure that all differences can be solved if one sets an example by having the right attitude. Instead of adopting a particular standpoint right from the word go, one should put the options on the table and try to reach consensus. When I say “the right attitude”, I do not mean that one should behave in a weak fashion. One does not have to crawl in order to have the right attitude.

*One does not have to be a yes-man or crawl on one’s belly.

†It will be appropriate to refer here to the two donkeys that were tied together between two bundles of food. As long as each wanted to eat his own bundle, neither could reach the food. The solution was to stand together and first eat one bundle and then the next.

When attempting to handle conflict, one should observe a number of important ground rules. Sir, in our department we have found that these rules work. First of all, one has to reserve judgement and not take up a particular position right from the start. Secondly, all possible solutions should be laid upon the table. The facts should be laid upon the table. That is important. What are the facts, for example, with regard to local government?

One has to be flexible in one’s approach and discuss the possible solutions with a positive attitude. People should recognise the fact that they need one another, and accept a solution based on the principle of give and take. When the negotiation ends, both sides should feel that they are gaining something. We know that under the system in South Africa we often just have to give, while others take. However, we must make sure that this phase of negotiation at local government level is approached in such a way that both parties will gain by the solution. I have found that it is one’s attitude at the beginning of a task, more than anything else, that determines one’s future success. That one can control; the facts cannot be controlled. The facts are the truth. It is one’s attitude towards those facts that will determine whether one is going to succeed or fail.

I believe we in this party shall not fail. Very often the problem is sitting on the chair when the problem should be placed upon the table. That is what is wrong in South Africa. [Interjections.] Hon members will see that.

It is one’s attitude towards the problems one faces that will determine the end results. Life has no favourites. [Interjections.] One can see that. Look at the attitude in which hon members of Parliament who succeeded in their constituencies do things. One should look at the attitude in which they do things. One controls one’s attitude oneself and, when one is negative, it is because one has decided to be negative.

We in our department have started to develop the attitude that there are more reasons why we should succeed than why we should fail. This is the basis on which our staff operate. While I am on that subject I would like to thank them publicly for the service which they have rendered to our community.

Problems will always arise with public representatives. One will have problems with officials from my department. This is usually the case with local government. Hon members may have problems with me, they will have problems with the system and they will have problems with the Government. The public representative should develop the attitude that in some way or another he will find a solution.

*Mr Chairman, I indicated at the outset that the various communities in South Africa do not communicate well and therefore are not sufficiently exposed to one another. Had it been otherwise, many of the prejudices would already have been overcome. The sphere of local government is such an important one, where this communication and contact should take place, and where decisions can be taken together for the common good.

That is why regional services councils are such exceptionally important institutions. They are the forums where leaders of the various communities can hold discussions on local problems and where one can teach the other and, it is hoped, develop better understanding. It is specifically through this contact and the mutual learning process that our people can acquire experience.

In this regard I want to appeal to the National Co-ordinating Training Council to make more practically orientated training courses available, for members of management committees too, to enable them to acquire formal tuition in the finer points of local government as well.

†Unfortunately we have a serious problem with constituting more regional services councils in the Cape Province. It was in good faith that I took over the local government functions in local areas of the two councils presently in operation. I did so on the understanding that the deficits in the Budget, previously funded from general rates, will be met by the Treasury. We can prove this with correspondence, if any hon member wants to know and talk about negotiations.

In effect, we do not have these funds today and serious problems are being experienced by the councils. I am talking particularly of the council in the Port Elizabeth area—the Algoa Regional Services Council and the Western Cape Regional Services Council. Because of this I want to state categorically that I will not support any further steps to create more regional services councils in the Cape, unless this problem has been solved.

The problem lies with funding and I want to explain that. We agreed that divisional councils in the Cape Province should go, but divisional councils levied a property rate, which all of us had to pay, whether one lived in the municipal council areas or the divisional council areas. When the regional services councils were established and the divisional councils were abolished here in the Western Province area, this rate fell away. Now there is a shortfall in the rate structure of these regional services councils. Now the Treasury expects us to make up for it through our own Budget and we have refused to do that. If the Government creates structures it must see to it that the necessary funds are there to make those structures work. [Interjections.]

What we are talking about in the field of local government is that we in this party know very well which steps we have taken. We have no illusion that the road is going to be a tough one, but we came into this system to move towards meaningful participation in local government.

This problem is again the symptom of the basic problem underlying the present checkmate situation at local government level, viz a lack of a proper formula to decide on an equitable distribution of income generated by all communities.

We can take more powers and functions at local government level in order to promote the upliftment of our people, but then we want to know that we have our rightful share of income generated in business areas where we buy, and in industrial areas where we work.

Is it fair to say that a quarter of a million people in Mitchell’s Plain do not offer any advantages to the City Council of Cape Town as far as income is concerned? I say no, Mr Chairman, but this was apparently the assumption when the financial arrangements for the establishment of that city were made. It was accepted that Mitchell’s Plain must pay its own way. Take away the buying power of those people and the work force they represent, and Cape Town will be that much poorer. This is why there is talk of open areas to bring the Coloured people back to the centre of Cape Town in order to bring back their spending power. It shows the interdependence we have in local government. We are not going to agree to any system unless this question of budgetary arrangements satisfies us.

I say that the premise on which the financial arrangements for Mitchell’s Plain was based, must be reviewed, and this must also be done for each and every local authority in South Africa regarding the so-called Coloured area and the rest of the municipality.

Against this background, Mr Chairman, I say that the deficits on the accounts of local authorities—I am talking about the former divisional councils—should in the first instance be met from regional services council levies.

*I have mentioned that we have a checkmate situation at local level in the case of many local authorities and this has serious repercussions for the effective application of available funds for development and housing. It is also in the wider interests of South Africa that we see eye to eye at local level. Workable models are so frequently not developed on the drawing board, but rather in practice where people make practical arrangements to overcome problems. I am pleased to say that there are also many local authorities which have found such formulas which, although they do not satisfy fully, yet make a great contribution on the course of evolutionary reform.

†We all know the local authorities with which we can work, but we also know what local authorities are not playing the game with our people.

*The concept of own and general affairs is not of my creation and it cannot be the end of the road, but it did seem practicable to launch the process at central government level and to create a platform from which development could take place. Why can we not attempt something similar at local level too? If a formula can be found for the financial problem and if general affairs are not automatically White affairs, I see great possibilities in such a system for creating a climate for further developments and simultaneously being able to handle serious problem areas regarding development. Is there no local authority which wants to take the lead here? The proverb says deeds speak louder than words. The sooner we in South Africa realise that the various communities need one another, the better. Even with this system, with which we are not satisfied, we have seen we belong together.

Mr Chairman, elections are to be held at local level in October this year. I would be neglecting my duty if I did not appeal to all people to regard these elections seriously and to take part in them. As I have said, there are certain frustrations as regards decision-making at local level but, as sure as I am standing here today, this picture will change and fundamental decisions will be taken at local level. Organisations and individuals who will not be part of the process will then have to accept decisions on their lives reached by others.

People and organisations who stand outside the system constantly come to me about problems.

Chase them away.

No, I am their Minister too. Why do they do this? They cannot do anything else, because only I can solve their specific problems.

Do not be caught napping when the same power to settle matters becomes applicable at local level. Do not come to me with complaints. People will get the local government they deserve.

†It is important to remember that even in this society in South Africa, which is not a true democracy, government is still our business and local government is our special concern.

*We cannot run away from this; our people experience problems daily. I wish hon members could come to my office or see the letters people write to me. People come to see me personally about their housing problems. We cannot get away from this and we cannot leave our people without a protector.

†In saying this, I propose to focus attention on the need for a sense of personal responsibility and individual initiative in order to preserve and develop the communities we represent. We have seen that in this House, Sir. Our people want to use this House as a platform but when they have to do work in the constituencies it is a different story! [Interjections.] If, for example, one were to observe the people who deliver the goods, one would see that they are the people who have taken a personal stand in order to uplift the communities that they have to represent.

*That is why we must participate in local government.

†My belief is simple. If all South Africans can be made to feel individually responsible for the Government, the general improvement of government is more likely to result. The responsibility for local government rests with us. Take this party for example. In 1969 we were outside the system and, at the time, we were criticised for participating in the old CRC. However, through our participation we fought our way into this House and we are going to get even further. I do not care whether the CP rules the country. We dealt with them when they were still members of the NP and we will deal with them again if they should take over the government, because we have adopted the attitude that we can solve the problems of South Africa. This brings me back to the phrase: You can be negative or you can be positive; you can control your own attitude. We get the government we deserve. At local government level, too, we will get the government that we deserve.

*If one takes the trouble to change one’s local government system, it will be worthwhile.

†Local government comes from every citizen and should be directed towards him.

There is a sentence in my speech which I should like to correct because some people are deliberately going to misinterpret it. The sentence reads: “Either you run your own government or the government will run you.” It should read: “Either you run the government or the government will run you.” [Interjections.]

Let us take a look at members of Parliament who have achieved success in their constituencies. They obtained results because they accepted a personal responsibility. Each person must discover for himself how, when and where he should make his influence felt. All of us in the LP have a clear policy. We know where we are going. We have to develop effective strategies to achieve our goal. A strategy is merely a method and every person has to apply his mind to complete the task. This involves risks. One will get hurt in the process. One cannot be sure of success each time. The LP is capable of taking risks, however, because it has the guts. [Interjections.] That is what politics is all about.

And applying your mind.

Democracy can only survive by the active participation of all the citizens in local government. Either you run the government or the government will run you.

Mr Chairman, I shall start my speech when there is a little less noise. [Interjections.]

Order!

Shame, he cannot think when there is a noise.

I am merely thinking out loud, Sir. [Interjections.]

Order!

I want to start with the designation of this Vote: Local Government, Housing and Agriculture.

I find it rather strange, because if one listens to the lamentations of certain hon members on that side, it almost sounds as if this sitting of the House is a management committee meeting.

Who wrote your speech?

The same person who wrote that hon member’s speech. [Interjections.]

Under this own affairs vote the building of houses, pavements, swimming pools and community halls is being discussed. This should not be discussed at the first tier …

What is first tier … [Interjections.]

What I am saying is that it should not be discussed at the first tier of Government. Since we are at the first tier of government at the moment, we cannot sort out and debate the third tier of government at the same time. [Interjections.] Sir, is this House not taking over the functions of the management committees? If this is the case, the management committee system must be abolished at once.

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

No, Sir, that hon member can come and see me in my office. Then I will reply to his question. [Interjections.]

Things are said here for propaganda purposes because everything is recorded in Hansard and certain hon members send Hansard to their voters to show them that they have asked for certain things in Parliament. However, this House is not the place where things should be requested for the community. [Interjections.]

There is a full-scale expansion of the own affairs concept in the LP. [Interjections.] Does the hon the Minister on that side believe that own affairs is his alpha and his omega? This would seem to be the case if one considers how obsessed hon members have become with the concept.

My next objection—I mentioned a while ago that management committees should be abolished—is that the expansion of the own affairs concept will of necessity lead to the concept of own local authorities. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

They still exist at the moment. [Interjections.]

I want to add that over the past four years this hon Minister has acquired more power for himself and more poverty for our people. [Interjections.] The own affairs monster must disappear before we are saddled with municipalities which will be the greatest evil in our lives.

He cannot because they cannot do anything for us. [Interjections.]

I shall wait until the empty vessels have piped down.

Order!

I shall read out to you what your leader said about own affairs.

Very well, Sir. Requests have been made in this House for the abolition of all discriminatory Acts such as the Group Areas Act, the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act … [Interjections.] I listened attentively to what the hon the Minister said. However, I see members on that side do not want to afford me the opportunity to complete my speech because they do not want to hear the truth. [Interjections.]

Order!

They are living in a dream world. [Interjections.] If we advocate the abolition of these Acts, surely we cannot support the idea of management committees either.

But you serve on the management committee. Have you not resigned from it yet?

Management committees have served their purpose. In the same way that the old CRC served its purpose, I feel that the management committees have served their purpose. That is why they must be abolished.

Consequently my question to the hon the Minister is whether he has set a date on which the system of management committees is going to be abolished. The community at large is waiting for this. [Interjections.]

Order! If the hon member for Northern Cape does not keep quiet now, I am going to request him to withdraw from the Chamber. The hon member Mr Müller may proceed.

This interim measure has served its purpose, and people are looking forward eagerly to direct representation on municipalities and town councils. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I want to set a matter straight. This hon member is misleading the House, because he is still serving on a management committee.

Order! That is not a point of order. [Interjections.] The hon member Mr Müller may proceed.

Sir, I want to ask whether any of those hon members knows what this entire matter is about. [Interjections.] It does not look as if they are listening, Sir. They are toying with the people outside, Sir. [Interjections.] Year after year the LP calls elections and they make fine promises to the people, but up to now these promises have not been kept. [Interjections.]

Order! I am respectfully requesting hon members to listen quietly to what the hon member Mr Müller has to say. The hon member may proceed.

Thank you, Sir.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I want to set a matter straight. [Interjections.] This hon member is misleading the House. He says that the governing party in this House calls elections.

Order! That is not a point of order.

It is a rectification, Sir.

They do not know what a point of order is, Sir.

Order! The hon member for Southern Free State must resume his seat. The hon member Mr Müller may proceed.

It is common knowledge that the hon the Minister is seriously considering not making himself available for future election in the House of Representatives once this term of office has elapsed. [Interjections.] Sir, if he wants to retire on a high note the hon the Minister must ask for the abolition of management committees. [Interjections.]

Order! I am requesting the hon member for Retreat to afford the hon member Mr Müller a reasonable opportunity to make his speech. The hon member Mr Müller may proceed.

Sir, I merely want to add that the first day I came here to Parliament …

On our book.

It does not matter on whose book I came. [Interjections.] I studied the behaviour of the hon members …

Order! The hon member is not compelled to reply to interjections.

I know, Sir, but I would like to reply to those interjections. [Interjections.]

*The first day I came to Parliament, Sir … [Interjections.] I can tell the hon member that I did not get a fright, but the behaviour of the hon members on that side compelled me to talk about their conduct at the very first caucus meeting. [Interjections.] That was two years ago, Sir, and they are still the same. [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure to participate in this debate today. Some people in this Chamber, however, do not understand why they are here. They do not have the slightest inkling of what Parliament is all about. I am referring to the previous speaker.

*He said the hon the Minister only promoted own affairs.

Order! The hon member for Haarlem may not refer to another hon member as “he”.

Sir, the hon member said the hon the Minister promoted own affairs, but if he had read the Constitution before he came here, the hon member would have known that there was indeed a concept such as own affairs.

†I am amazed at this man’s intelligence. I do not understand him. That hon member serves on a management committee, but now he wants us to do away with those bodies.

*What will happen if the bodies to which the hon member referred are abolished?

†The NP Government are the people in control, but because of that hon member’s short stint in Parliament, he has only experienced the attitude of the Government of the day. He now wants the hon the Minister to forget about management committees. I want to give that hon member a book to read about the devolution of power so that he can understand what this game is all about. [Interjections.] The policy of the LP is direct representation on all councils of the land, and the hon member must understand that this is an interim measure.

*It is only a temporary, or rather, an interim measure.

†Do you know what surprises me, Sir? The hon member is supposed to understand the constitution of the LP. Listening to him, however, I was wondering whether it was, in fact, the same person.

*I could not understand it because that hon member talked about our Minister …

Order! The hon member should please refer to the Minister as the “hon the Minister”.

Sir, I apologise. The hon member maintains that the hon the Minister claims all the power for himself. How is it possible if the hon the Minister actually delegates his work and power to his officials? To which powers of the hon the Minister was the hon member referring? Apart from the officials there are also the ministerial representatives who do the work.

†Mr Chairman, when one sits in this Committee, one expects other hon members to argue sensibly. One expects sensible debates. Local government is an important subject, because it deals with the lives of the people. The NP came into power and introduced management committees. Elections were then fought and today people serve on these committees. If the hon member is honest, he will agree that we are using management committees as a strategy. At the same time people are also being educated. I want to say something, and I say it with respect: When people look at the hon member, they think he is a fool; and once he opens his mouth, he convinces them. [Interjections.] I do not want to waste any more time on that hon member.

The chief duty of any local authority is the rendering of services to communities to ensure that the general welfare of the members of the communities is promoted. Various systems have been developed over centuries to meet the needs of communities. However, most systems are time-bound and have to be adapted or reformed to meet the expectations of communities at various points in time.

In the past our people served on local authorities. We had direct representation. Then we had to serve on management committees. However, management committees have now become a problem for the Government of the day, because if one uses them correctly, one can make progress. It all depends on how one plays the game.

What happened next? The Government suggested that we consider regional services councils. Sir, no matter how one looks at them, regional services councils afford our people direct representation. There one can sit down and discuss one’s problems. We are all aware of the fact that more functions are going to be devolved upon regional services councils.

The Government is in a dilemma as a result of the abolition of divisional councils. They are having tremendous problems with their own people. I believe the problem can be solved by giving what used to be divisional councils the status of regional services councils. Everybody will then have representation.

I come from the platteland, and there we have tremendous problems. The first problem is that our people are working late hours. The second problem is that we do not have proper venues where our meetings can be held. I think it is imperative, in future, to look at the venues from which the committees are going to operate even before we start thinking of establishing management committees. In some places on the platteland we have small offices where we collect rent and do the necessary administrative work. Consequently, meetings are simply held in those rooms. I want to appeal to the hon the Minister to investigate this matter, so that proper venues or community centres can be provided.

I want to raise another point this afternoon. I want to ask the hon the Minister to appoint an ombudsman. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister will recall that when the housing sales campaign was embarked upon, the Government appointed an ombudsman to explain matters with regard to the sales campaign.

Today we receive various circulars about things which should be implemented. We have many problems with these circulars, because the explanations of one local authority differ from those of another. Everybody interprets things in his own way. As a consequence, the people are suffering. I do not deny the fact that on various occasions the hon the Minister’s staff went around to explain matters. However, this should be an ongoing educational process.

In some instances people do not understand how the system works. We sometimes have a reaction to that. In some centres committee members are refused the use of city halls. The problem is that people do not understand how the system works. Someone has to explain to them how it works.

I am not saying that the rent that people pay is exorbitant. However, Sir, you know as well as I do that certain guidelines are laid down in those circulars about the way in which rent should be increased. There are also guidelines with regard to interest and redemption.

There is another point which, to my mind, is very important. If we have a problem with the existing structures, we should not just sit back and look at the position. If hon members have problems with management committees, they should establish development committees in the areas concerned. They can then enlist the aid of people with a common interest. That body can then be used to help to do the work in a particular area. I have discovered that by making use of such bodies I do not encounter the problems that other people have, because the people who serve on such bodies can provide me with all the data I need.

Apart from that, I think the only thing that can be done is to write to the department or the director concerned and explain what the problems are. They will give one the necessary assistance by sending someone there who knows the system and understands what is being done. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, allow me to participate in this important debate on the Vote of the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture. I hope that hon members will have understanding for the residents of the Western Transvaal and that they will be sympathetically disposed towards them, because we come from the heartland of the conservatives and the ultra-conservatives.

Before I continue my representation, I should like to react to the hon member Mr P J Müller. That hon member’s “spectacular” performance today made me wonder time and again whether he was living in a dream world. He is definitely living in a dream world and it is time that he, like Rip van Winkel, woke up for a change. [Interjections.] The hon member spoke about the own affairs monster which had to disappear. I am not a businessman, but he is one.

Somewhere an own affairs bell is ringing in my head, which makes me wonder whether the hon member is not in this House to promote his own affairs. [Interjections.] I see that hon member is finding it difficult to resign as a member of Parliament in protest, which will serve as a sign to the LP. [Interjections.] I want to ask him politely to hand in his resignation in Uitenhage immediately, and never to make himself available to serve on a local management committee again, until such times as he is allowed there as a directly elected representative. [Interjections.] I think the hon member has taken hold of the wrong end of the stick, and he must first use what is at his disposal to negotiate what is best for the people of Uitenhage.

Local authorities will get better representation as the constitutional process develops. One’s voters expect one to concern oneself with the problems of the voters at the third tier of government, and this is “bread and butter” politics, which a local authority in fact is. I therefore want to make a serious appeal to the hon the Minister to introduce management committees for all “developed” Coloured areas immediately. From the point of view of the Western Transvaal, which has lagged behind all these years, and was known as an undeveloped area, it is essential to establish such a committee. The liaison between the city fathers at local level and the inhabitants of an area must be at an official level. Management committees are therefore an important point of departure. Important areas in the Western Transvaal, such as Coligny, Fochville and Zeerust must receive attention. It is distressing to think what these people in the regional services councils still want, or how they are represented if they do not have management committees. The inhabitants know their shortcomings and only they can identify the problems. They are acquainted with the dictatorial attitude of the conservative officials, who deprive them of their rights simply because they do not have a platform from which to put their case.

A platform is needed to negotiate nowadays and therefore the establishment of a management committee is of cardinal importance. South Africa is in confusion as regards constitutional matters. It is therefore absolutely essential to use all possible channels, and local government is one of the many channels which is a prerequisite for negotiation.

Another important factor which should never be overlooked is the delegation of power. A management committee without power is like a bulldog without teeth. One must have power in order to get what is best for one’s people. The building of houses and the power to negotiate loans for specific projects are still thorns in one’s flesh. These members are expected to achieve a great deal, but nowadays funds are a problem.

Replies like “there is no money in the kitty” must be treated with the greatest contempt nowadays. Why is only the Coloured cash register empty? If we take an area where the average income is R800 per month, one wonders how a community must feel when it makes a payment every month, 20% of which goes on interest and repayment of capital, while 80% goes on administrative costs, maintenance funds, community facilities, insurance, property tax and so on, and yet they have to do without any facilities. Is this not serious enough to frustrate any community and make it rebellious?

Our members in the management committees will have to reflect on the division of the cake. Over the years our people have paid for the amenities of the Whites. That is why there are far more subeconomic houses in our areas than in the White residential areas. At local government level members have to deal with the radical elements which want to use them as political footballs. There are also the CPs who like blind moles refuse to face up to the reality of change. [Interjections.]

Last June, the allowances for management committees in the respective provinces were adjusted drastically. Everyone has to get the 13-point formula to work. I want to congratulate the co-ordinating council on being courageous enough to implement this hot potato. Equal allowances for management committee members must not be seen as a privilege or a favour, but as an obligation. Legislation must be introduced to highlight the seriousness of this matter. The different grades should not apply to White, Coloured, Indian or Black areas. The money must go into one kitty which is then divided among everyone, so that the members of those management committees can get their rightful share. Allowances must not be seen as charity either. They are to compensate for the trouble and problems members have in getting the infrastructure changed so that something can be done about the dark winter nights, the dusty roads and the ramshackle shacks. Our management committee members must be judged by the work they do and not by their qualifications.

My appeal in this House this afternoon is of cardinal importance, particularly in this Vote, and I trust it will make a contribution towards bringing about real change in South Africa.

Mr Chairman, local government at management committee level is certainly a very controversial and ad hoc subject. However, I just want to make a few brief points in this regard because it has been discussed so many times. In respect of local government there has been very little progress as far as we are concerned.

Local government, as I understand it, refers to government of a small area within a country, for example, in a town, city or village. A local government unit is responsible for the welfare of local citizens and for providing certain important services. Local government is run by elected officials who are voted for by the citizens of that particular country, city or town and have decision-making power.

In South Africa, however, we have the anomalous situation that at local government level, power is in the hands of a certain sector of the community only. I refer specifically to the management committee system, which is the most iniquitous form of government ever devised or created. A management committee is powerless and toothless except where a local White authority is prepared to give the management committee delegated authority, and then only just. The LP believes that all citizens of the country should be directly represented at all levels of government.

At the same time, while the present system of local government is unacceptable to the LP in its present form, we did participate in it with two goals in mind. Our long-term goal is the eventual direct participation at all levels of government by all the citizens of the country. Our second goal is the short-term needs of our community which we call the bread and butter issues, such as housing, high rents, evictions, etc. The majority of people in our community find themselves in a dreadful position, particularly with regard to housing. Unbelievable overcrowding occurs with 15 to 18 persons occupying one-bedroomed units. The crime rate is high and the townships are in a mess because there was no proper planning. Poor roads, lack of landscaping, high rents, a lack of maintenance and a lack of facilities are the order of the day. No wonder that one has a ready situation for any form of uprising.

For that reason we cannot stand outside or on the sidelines shouting at the authorities for change. The purpose of our participation is to help improve the quality of life of our community and rectify the many wrongs.

However, we have reached the stage where power must be given to us in terms of Act 110 of 1985—Section 17(d)—in order to achieve our short-term goals. I serve on the Athlone District Management Committee, which has already made application to the Administrator for certain powers and functions in terms of the said Act. Sir, the hon the Minister knows about our frustrations in dealing with the City Council of Cape Town which is vehemently opposed to the management committee system. The City Council of Cape Town has taken a political stand against us and the system and therefore we must take a political decision as far as the council is concerned.

We have approached the city council and the executive committee on numerous occasions to discuss participation in their local standing committees, but to no avail.

We believe that, as the so-called Coloured community in this city, where we in fact outnumber Whites 2:1, we should have a direct say in whatever affects us at local government level. We are, in fact, the greater contributor—directly and indirectly—to the coffers of this city. Let me give an example. The town planning department of the city council decided to develop an underground and ground level mall in the city centre of Cape Town at a cost of between R16 million and R17 million. Yet we as a community had no say in the planning of that development, even though we are also affected by it. At no stage in the Cape Town City Council’s history was such a development ever contemplated for our areas. We can see their shrewdness in the development of their particular CBDs in that they attract the custom away from our particular areas to fill the coffers of their businessmen.

There are other examples, Mr Chairman. With regard to housing, for example, I have just had a man run in here this afternoon saying that I was the only person who could assist him. Unfortunately, however, we as a management committee do not have any power to allocate a particular house to a person, whatever the merits of his case. This particular person had applied and signed for a particular house, and they, at the stroke of a pen and apparently without reason, refused him. Now the man is standing outside; he has no place to go.

We believe that we must have the power to decide on whom to allocate the house to, taking into consideration the circumstances we know the people find themselves in. The White people, as they sit there as city councillors, have no inkling of the frustrations and problems that the people in our particular areas have. We, who live amongst them, know those problems and how to deal with them on a day-to-day basis.

Let us give another example of the city council’s non-recognition of us. We recently applied to have a particular area divided up into a ward system. We applied for nine wards. The city council originally agreed to nine wards. However, in terms of the regulation which stipulates that two persons are required to represent a ward, the council turned down our application. You see, Sir, the numbers game was, in fact, worrying them. Perhaps I could read the letter we received in reply to our application for the introduction of a ward system. The letter was written by the Chief Director of Local Government in the city council. It reads:

At the moment we are eight members.

I shall not quote any further, Mr Chairman.

The hon member cannot quote any further because his time has expired.

Mr Chairman, in the first place I, as an admirer of the great South African, Alan Paton, who died last week, want to pay tribute to him.

Hear, hear!

He was a man of truth and the LP and the whole of South Africa will remember him as a champion of the rights of the underprivileged. His book Cry the Beloved Country will go down in the annals of our history as one of the country’s greatest literary works. I want to ask the MPs of the Peninsula whether they cannot ask the city council to let the flags fly at half-mast tomorrow when a memorial service is held in the Cathedral for this great South African.

I want to tell the Opposition that I am proud of the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture in whose hands local government affairs lies. He has come through thick and thin and was involved in local government from the outset in the days of Assomac. He deserves all our praise. I think it is gratifying that the Government has given him a team of officials who can get us out of trouble. In spite of the new South Africa people are talking about, local government is and remains the field which deals with where the South Africans live. Local government does not involve itself with ideology. Everyone wants a place where he and his family can live in peace. There must be a school and other essential facilities nearby. These things make a citizen happy and satisfied. The moment there is trouble with these things one comes up against incitement and this creates a breeding ground for activists to stir up the people with their ideologies on matters which the people cannot yet achieve.

Therefore, in the short time at my disposal I want to bring certain matters to the attention of the hon the Minister. The present system in South Africa consists of an area of jurisdiction within which a municipality functions with full power. A management committee is appointed for the other race groups in that area of jurisdiction. In the past management committees had advisory functions. Powers were extended through negotiation. Although we are debating own affairs this afternoon—the status quo compels us to do so—I want to request that our hon Minister negotiate for more powers for the management committees.

At the end of the day, and perhaps in 12 years’ time at the turn of the century, we will be able to abolish certain laws, as we are going to do soon in education, because by that time we will quite possibly have direct representation.

Another important point is that the co-ordinating council and the other bodies must establish a local, umbrella body. Let us take as an example a town with three different population groups—White, Coloured and Black—which are divided into group areas under the present system. I consider those designated areas simply as dormitories, because the people sleep there, but work elsewhere during the day. Why can these areas, which I call dormitories, not also enjoy representation in order to make laws and ordinances for the entire area? I have been serving on the management committee for 13 years now and one thing is certain: There I learnt what local government really is. It is not only a matter of a tarred road and a house. It involves bigger things like town planning, a budget which has to balance, the levying of taxes, and expansion. The management committees taught us these things. That is why we no longer need to stand hat in hand today, because we can now prove our case.

I also want to refer to the regional services councils. I am glad the hon the Minister referred to this, but I should like him to spell out pertinently that this is a point of departure for direct representation, because members of the different race groups will be able to sit down around a table at local government level for the first time. The fact that I am sitting there means that I can put my problems on the table. It is of no avail for me to get up on a soapbox to shout about my problems. However, when I sit around a table with other representatives, I can put my problems to them and explain these problems in order to give my people their rightful place in the township concerned. It is a pity that the hon the Minister did not touch on the matter of the provincial standing committee. The committee is in session at the moment and I want to know to what extent our people are affected by this at local government level. Are the people being informed on what is being discussed there or is it a closed meeting? May the man in the street attend the meetings and hear how his rights are being negotiated for?

I want to remind the hon member Mr Müller about the election which is to take place next October. This election is not a foregone conclusion, because the people are going to make a decision and they are entitled to do so. I simply want to warn the hon member that the LP has worked hard and for that reason I am not afraid to participate in the election. There have been appeals for MPs not to stand in the elections, but let us consider what happened in the past.

The Abe Bloombergs were also in Parliament, and they eventually became mayors of Cape Town. Why can we not also do so? Sir, if every MP serves on a management committee, we all have a base we can work from. I, for example, will know precisely what is going on in Buffalo Flats. It will not be necessary for me to be informed by telephone, because I will be there.

Order! The hon member’s time has expired.

What a pity, Sir! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, you know, with the debate having progressed this far, I doubt whether there is anything left for me to say. There is one question, however, which I regard as very important and which I very respectfully want to raise with the hon the Minister.

This is our fourth successive year in Parliament, and for all four years we have been clamouring for direct representation. Now, I should like to ask the hon the Minister whether it is possible for him to spell out to us at this stage on what road he is going to take us. If he cannot do that, I should like to put it to him that all other municipalities should be downgraded to local management level. Then we would have no problem with regard to this question.

Another very important aspect—it can be coupled with the previous point—relates to the fact that in some instances the people have a regional services council as well as direct representation through their local municipality and their local management committees. I feel, therefore, that the time has definitely come for the hon the Minister to look into this matter. Something has to be done about downgrading the municipalities to the status of management committees. [Interjections.] We would then all have bodies on which we have equal status, and one then just needs to look at the percentage of the votes and also at the powers that each member has.

At the moment we have a problem, however, in that there are some management committees which fell under the control of the old divisional councils and which have far more powers than those which fall under the control of municipalities at present. As far as the management committees which fall under the control of the municipalities are concerned, these other management committees are merely operating in a consultative capacity. [Interjections.]

As a matter of fact, Sir, when one examines those management committees which fell under the control of the old divisional councils—they now fall under the control of the hon the Minister, because he is now the “divisional council”, as it were—one sees that they have so many powers and functions that the management committees which fall under the control of the municipalities are left quite incredulous.

When I look at the list of powers—this fist has been requested from time to time—I see that when it comes to those management committees which fell under the control of the old divisional councils and which now fall under the control of the hon the Minister—he is the chairman of the relevant controlling body—one is surprised by all the functions that are included and which they have already carried out. These include functions like housing and selling. I do not see the hon member for Matroosfontein here, but he now has such power that he is virtually running Elsies River. He is virtually running Elsies River, Sir—from housing to sports, you name it, Sir—that hon member’s finger is in every pie. It is causing so much confusion, Mr Chairman.

When one crosses the road to Valhalla Park which divides the area into the section controlled by the Cape Town Municipality and that which used to be controlled by the old divisional councils, one realises that there is virtually nothing those people can do about alleviating the impoverished conditions that prevail there. [Interjections.] There is virtually nothing that can be done. I feel sorry for those people. Really, Sir, I have every sympathy with them, because there is nothing they can do. Moreover, the City Council is only prepared to see them in an advisory capacity, and then it is via their representatives in the management committees. That is all they are prepared to do.

Mr Chairman, I think it is important that the hon the Minister look into this. I think they have tried to do everything possible. They even tried to change people’s attitudes but, alas, they could achieve nothing.

*We have another problem and that is that we find that when it comes to management committees, legislation is very confusing—there is legislation on constitutional development, the provincial administrator also has a share in that and there are also municipal ordinances. The management committee finds itself in the middle and cannot move. The time has come to detach it. The hon the Minister must do that, and he must spell out the road on which he wants to lead us. If one moves in a certain direction, one is told that the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning must decide on it. If one asks again subsequently, they say the Administrator’s office must decide, and if one makes another attempt, the municipality also has a share. Where are we going? [Interjections.]

To the Minister.

Thank you very much, I now have new material with which to proceed. The hon the Deputy Minister of Population Development said it was done on purpose. It was done on purpose so that we could be anchored somewhere, where we could not move forwards or backwards, which causes one continually to find oneself in a position where one has to stand hat in hand.

In effect one is hamstrung.

One is hamstrung. When we want to milk a cow, we tie her hind legs together so that she cannot move. Our position is even worse. Therefore I ask the hon the Minister to ensure that something is done to alleviate this situation which is causing us so many problems.

Recently I received a letter from the Department of Finance in connection with financing of capital projects.

†In that letter it was stated that management committees must be placed in a position from which they can also apply for loans. The findings of this committee are stated in this letter. I do not have much time left, so I cannot quote the whole letter, but I should like to read the recommendations. I quote from the letter:

Mr Chairman, we have so much ‘red tape’ it is unbelievable. [Interjections.] My time is limited and I have to hurry. Once again, Sir, even in this particular exercise, we are being hampered.

That is true.

I want to go a little further and tell the hon the Minister that I find it surprising each time I go into the history of the old divisional councils. [Interjections.] I took a look at the functions that the divisional councils have fulfilled from time to time. What I am going to say now is controversial, but if one takes a look at some of the functions which our management committees fulfil today, one will see that they are almost the same as those of the divisional councils. I ask the hon the Minister whether it is not possible for us rather to move away from these management committees in order to establish divisional councils which have the powers and functions which are already contained in the ordinances, and which can be transferred immediately. This would eliminate these problems. In this way provision could also be made for the participation on that level of surrounding industrial areas.

Mr Chairman, if one wants to discuss the local government system meaningfully, it is essential to take a look at the history of local government. In comparison with towns and cities in Europe, North Africa and Asia, South African towns and cities are still very young. After Jan van Riebeeck landed in Table Bay on 6 April 1652, it took a considerable time before this horticultural settlement and trading post developed into a town and ultimately into Cape Town. Municipal councils which have to see to the government and administration of cities and towns are a relatively recent institution in South Africa. Elected municipal councils, as found in all our towns and cities today, are also a recent development in European cities and towns. Although I have spoken mainly about Europe so far, I should like to concentrate more on the South African local government system. For many years after Jan van Riebeeck’s arrival, Cape Town continued to be the only town of any significance in Southern Africa. For more than 100 years after 1652, Cape Town managed without a municipality. It was only in 1779 that 500 burghers who lived in and around Cape Town sent a petition to the Here XVII in Holland in order to obtain more of a say in the local government system here. After the great success of the Cape Municipal Ordinance of 1836, the first election in Cape Town was held from 4 to 8 May 1840. At that stage 12 council members were elected, but one must remember that Beaufort West had already received municipal status on 3 February 1837.

Local government as we know it today is a highly sophisticated management system and requires highly trained officials. If anyone thinks that the problems which we are experiencing on a local level today can be solved by adopting the techniques and approaches of the past, that person would be living in a fool’s paradise. The magnitude and complexity of the problems facing local government at the moment can only be solved by a measure of insight and progressive management which hitherto has been unknown in this sphere.

The primary function of a local authority is to provide services for its inhabitants. These services are called commercial services. They include the provision of water, roads, electricity, sewerage and waste removal as well as community services which comprise sports complexes, community halls, clinics and cemeteries. The system of Coloured management committees took shape in the system of separate residential areas. However, I want to make it very clear that this system of management committees is merely a useful vehicle in which we are trying to remedy the deficiencies in our community. Our policy, however, is that our ultimate goal is to obtain direct representation on integrated city councils. Although it is the policy of the present government to establish autonomous Coloured local authorities, that is not our policy at all—not now, nor in the future.

Before going any further, I should like to read a quotation from a speech which the hon the Minister made to the Hawston management committee on 9 May 1987.

He said:

Management committees still fall under the Provincial Administration. Once again I should like to emphasise what in my opinion is the most important element, namely the question of public relations of officials towards the public in particular. Every facet of the operation of a municipal authority is associated with public relations. Unless there is a good relationship between municipal officials, council members, management committee members …

And the dominating White authorities.

Order! The hon member for Northern Cape must realise that we are not speaking about domination now. He must please keep quiet.

… and the general public in a town, there is friction and frustration and one finds that people do not get along with one another.

I should like to read another quotation, this time from the Report of the Proceedings of the Institute of Municipal Treasurers and Accountants of South Africa, 1987, on page 116. Council member Oberholzer said here:

For this reason a concerted attempt must be made to provide for public relations as an integral aspect of every level of government and administration. I want to tell the House that there are still local authorities and municipalities which are found lacking in this important aspect of relations politics. We shall have to work at this aspect. We shall have to see how we must correct that aspect of relations politics which is of cardinal importance to us on that level of local government.

Sir, we have made much progress in local government. We can make even more progress, but we should be careful not to move away from our ultimate goal, namely to obtain direct representation on an integrated local government system. Therefore I want to ask the hon the Minister for an investigation into the system of devolution of power. In addition, the powers which are devolved to local authorities must not be such that the end result will be autonomous local authorities. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I want to hang my head in shame because of certain people who cannot see which course to adopt. However, it is not that important to me if hon members do not know where they are going. This afternoon I should like to prove something in this House. I want to thank the hon the Minister most sincerely for what he has done for my constituency over the years. We sometimes disagree, but today we are meeting here to build a better future. I approached the hon the Minister for help and he voted R143 000 for my constituency plus a further R70 000. I thank him most sincerely for this.

The hon nominated member Mr Müller …

He is walking out.

The hon member can go ahead and walk out. The Opposition is afraid of me. I am the only person they are afraid of. That hon member said that the hon the Minister had led us into poverty. If that hon member is still experiencing poverty he is dreaming and he has not done anything for his voters yet. I have been working with the hon the Minister for years now and to a great extent he has helped my people out of poverty. That is why we could get home ownership. I learnt something from that hon Minister. He told me that one must use one’s powerless powers. If hon members of the Opposition do not know how to do that so that they can get something for their voters, they must have their heads read. I have already had my head read. I know where I am going and I know how to get there too.

I know hon members are ready to bombard me with questions because I said that my constituency was so beautiful, but they can read in tomorrow’s newspaper what the town clerk had to say about Ravensmead. The hon member must look around in his constituency and approach the hon the Minister …

He does not even have a constituency.

That hon member does not even have a constituency. That is why the hon member is saying the wrong things. Today we have home ownership through the intercession of the hon the Minister. He had a hard time of it. I must also say that the hon the Minister was never afraid to stand up and tell the White Afrikaners in South Africa that his people were suffering and that they had to be lifted out of their poverty. Before the hon the Minister’s time our people could never buy houses on a large scale. I am acquainted with the department of the hon the Minister and I know all his officials. I have been refused by those officials often. That is why they all know me. I know that when I talk they will do something about it. I have achieved things because I am not afraid. I told the then regional representative, Mr Walters, that I never had and never would kowtow to a White man. I shall never do that.

I shall fight for the rights of my people, because they are also South Africans. They helped to build up this country. That is why we have the same rights. Today I want to appeal to those Afrikaners who still have such strange ideas to come to their senses like the other South Africans who now think as we do. To the latter group we want to say: “Thank you. Keep it up. Together we are going to build the new South Africa.”

I want to agree briefly with the previous speaker who was so unhappy when his time had expired. However, we both feel equally aggrieved about the fact that MPs may no longer serve on the management committees. What aggrieves me is that one never heard how much a White member of Parliament earned until we came here to Parliament. No newspaper ever wrote about this. However, the moment we came to Parliament, they had a lot to say about it. The moment we Coloureds get something, a fuss is made about it. Then a great deal is said about it, and there is incitement. This kind of thing must be stopped. [Interjections.]

Now the town clerks are wailing about parity. Today I want to say that because we in this House were a thorn in the side of the Government, we can lay claim to having contributed towards South Africa’s developing to where it is at management level. Now people whose names do not appear on the LP’s register are complaining to their town clerks. They go and complain there and they run the LP down as being good for nothing. It is an asset to have the LP there, but they are afraid of them in the management committee! [Interjections.] That is why my town clerk said to me: “Get rid of Oom Hansie and close that office in Ravensmead, then Mr Heunis will have to give the people of Ravensmead council members.” If hon members do not know what to do, they must come and consult me on how to run a local management body.

Yesterday evening when we sat late, hon members like the hon member Mr Müller sat there loafing. I asked them whether they wanted me to tackle them again. I told them they would pay for this. They fled, but when I got back after taking a telephone call, they were all in the House again—that is how afraid they are of me! They are getting afraid of me too. I shall have to investigate the money matters of their constituencies. They must not waste the taxpayers’ money like this. I am here every day. [Interjections.] Sir, I want to get back to the matter of parity. In the legislation the matter is defined in such a way—hon members have already referred to this—that one does not know whether or not one is going to have parity. The local authorities interpret a matter as they wish. They talk to one about 60%, 80% or 90%. They talk about qualifications. [Interjections.]

Order!

Sir, I want to tell you that management committee members know more about what is going on in their constituencies than many hon members in this House do. Management committee members have the most experience, because they have to deal with far bigger problems—problems which the Whites do not have. [Interjections.] They have more problems and more work. They do not only hold two meetings, as was said in Wednesday’s Die Burger. That is not true!

Yesterday evening I had to telephone my people and tell them to carry on in the meanwhile. There were complaints, and we held a meeting on housing matters. This was not our monthly meeting. We held our monthly meeting on a Monday evening. We are there every Wednesday evening. This evening I again have a meeting in the library with my people from the municipality.

Standing committees hold only one or two meetings, however. The work of four standing committees is completed in an evening. I am serving on a standing committee. The committee adjourned for a while, and on Tuesday evening we met for about half an hour before the committee adjourned again. Sir, do you see that they do not have as much work as we do?

Money matters are discussed then, however. Every time the Coloureds have to get money, there is an argument. I cannot understand it. I wish these people would come to their senses, and give us equal rights and equal payment so that we can also get where they are. Then it is not necessary for anyone to wail so much. They have been neglecting us in this way for years now. A stop must be put to this. They must be made to come to their senses.

I think the Government should also take a look at the salaries of the hon members who sit about in the passages when it is time to work. It is not fair that I am the only one who comes to work, but that they are also paid. A stop must be put to this. I wonder if they are not ashamed to spread such false rumours. They have no shame. They want to play games, but there is no time for such things.

[Inaudible.]

The hon member must be careful what he says, because if I get hold of him outside, that will the end of him. I shall give him one more chance.

Order! Is the hon member for Ravensmead making a threat?

Sir, it is not a threat. The hon member knows what I am talking about, because we are still friends when we leave this Chamber. It is simply the way we talk. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it was very interesting to listen to the debate because one can immediately detect the frustrations about local government.

*I should like to refer to the hon member Mr Müller’s speech. Everything he said is stale news. We have been asking for years to have management committees abolished. That is stale news. We even introduced motions in this regard in the CRC; the hon member is rehashing a very old story. In the past the LP led deputations to the hon the State President to request that management committees be abolished. We have insisted on direct representation for years. The hon member alleged this afternoon that the LP was not in favour of the abolition of management committees and that we were actually requesting that the system be expanded further. In this regard I want to draw hon members’ attention to a confidential letter which the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition wrote to the department. The hon leader referred inter alia to Rabie Ridge and I have the greatest respect for what he has done there, but he used own affairs to get it done. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Minister does not require the assistance of other hon members in making his speech. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Sir, in the letter concerned the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition requested an inquiry into the proclamation of group areas in terms of the Group Areas Act. I quote:

That is exactly what the hon leader is requesting in the letter. It would appear that hon members of the Official Opposition do not know how to spell out a policy. They took these steps when they were still members of the LP but, now that they belong to another party, they suddenly have to cook up a different political philosophy. Now they suddenly have a policy of non-ethnicity and want nothing more to do with own affairs. I shall quote further:

This is typical of the way in which the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition argues. I continue:

The next sentence is in brackets:

But we are in Committee now.

That is how hon members of the Official Opposition argue. They appeal for the abolition of management committees while their hon leader makes such statements.

Spell out your policy.

Sir, that hon member was a member of the LP. He knows what our policy is. They are the people using own affairs. I want to quote further:

†Now, who is building up own affairs? The hon members’ leader. [Interjections.]

*Now they are no longer going to do this; own affairs will not be expanded any further. They no longer intend putting their people’s needs here.

Sir, according to today’s speakers’ list, the hon member for Bosmont is to speak on housing. He intends standing in the next election. What will he tell the people of Riverlea? What has he obtained? [Interjections.] He is free to say what he likes.

The hon member for Outeniqua is not here now. Money has been granted for housing in George; that is why the hon member is working now; the hon the Minister is going to work in George.

He is looking for a constituency!

That does not matter; it is the hon member for Outeniqua’s constituency. We are working on problems in that constituency.

†In the constituency of the hon member for Durban Suburbs we have a self-help housing scheme. The people in his own constituency in Natal were the pioneers of this kind of scheme, so he must not come and make accusations which imply that things only happen in constituencies if hon members of the LP represent those constituencies.

That is typical of the attitude they have learned from the boycotters. Now we have suddenly become non-collaborators and boycotters of own affairs because we do not want to be “tainted” by own affairs. However, that implies that we do not want to deal with the people’s problems. Sir, when one argues intellectually, one has to cook up an argument. That is what hon members of the Official Opposition in this House do.

We in the LP have said two things clearly. The hon member for Hanover Park spelt it out to hon members. [Interjections.] Our long-term goal is direct representation at all levels of government. Those were his words. In the meantime, however, we see to the needs of the community. That is very important. That is why those hon members lost three by-elections in a row. If the accusations they made, when they stood in front of the people, were true …

[Inaudible.]

Sir, that shows how badly they canvass. They left here under the pretext that they supported Archbishop Tutu and those people who are now being detained or are banned from political activities.

That was the danger!

They did that because they wanted to take part in the election campaign at Ceres. [Interjections.]

†We know very well that that was the reason. However, what happened to them? Sir, they are going to lose the other two by-elections as well! They should rather not put up candidates.

You have Mr White coming, and you have Mr Da Gama. We know about him. [Interjections.]

Of course those hon members know about this; it is their business! [Interjections.] We also know that they struggled to find a candidate in Pretoria! [Interjections.]

*They are struggling because the candidates know they Will lose.

Morris Fynn will “polish” you!

Oh no, really! He has been “polished” so often he is quite shiny! [Interjections.]

†Sir, what we have learnt at local government level in politics is that White people do not boycott. Liberals do not boycott. When one looks at the history of South Africa, one notices that in 1943 even members of the Communist Party stood for this White Parliament—in White constituencies. They even asked Coloured people who were on the voters’ roll to vote for them. Members of the Communist Party stood in an election of a White parhament. [Interjections.] They even stood in elections of the Cape Town City Council. They also put up candidates in elections for Blacks, who were on a separate voters’ roll. Sam Khan was represented here in this Parliament—a Communist! Blacks voted for them.

However, as soon as we make use of separate structures …

We are looking at the future of this country!

Of course. The hon member Mr Müller knows, however, what advantages he was entitled to in Uitenhage as a member of a management committee. [Interjections.]

I want to ask hon members of the Official Opposition something. I am pleased they are here because this is what parliament is all about.

†It is all about open discussion. I want to ask them please to sit down and write out a policy that the voters will buy.

It is coming. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, just look at their argument.

*They say I have impoverished the community. †Let them go and look at Blue Downs.

But rents are going up, Sir, instead of coming down. [Interjections.]

That is exactly my point, Mr Chairman; he does not know. The rent insofar as the portion paid by the tenant is concerned, has come down. What has gone up is the cost structure of local government.

’He does not know the difference between the two. [Interjections.] We shall reply to this in the course of the debate. We shall get to it.

Just look at the projects. We have to divide up our Ministers to open halls—just to open halls! Take Strydenburg, Piketberg and Moorreesburg, for instance, to mention only a few places. [Interjections.] Take the swimming baths too which we have opened. Just do not let them tell those people who do not have a hall that it is a concession. [Interjections.] No, this just shows what we have done.

Look at the houses that we have built. I shall reply to hon members. I shall tell them in the course of my speech on housing what we have done for our community.

Those hon members will see how many candidates there will be for the election at Uitenhage. I hear there are 18 already. [Interjections.] Those are the people who reject the system, but they will undoubtedly queue up when it comes to the election. [Interjections.]

†It is going to be an election in which hon members will really participate.

When one looks at this community of ours and studies its history, one discovers that the reason why we are still struggling so hard against poverty at the moment, is that we did not wish to participate in the main stream of politics.

*We left the boycotters out of it and now these people want to copy them. They stand for non co-operation and say we must not speak about human rights. What happened next? Now we are behind.

†Look at what is happening in our community at present with regard to education. Do hon members know that we have lost the race for equality in education? Look at the Indian community. Eighty-eight percent of Indian children are matriculated, whereas the figure for our community is 44%. This has happened because of this talk of boycotts.

*What does the boycotting of opportunities have to do with a future political dispensation? Thousands of our children are hanging about the streets without an education, unequipped for the modern world, because we talk this nonsense about non-cooperation. We say: “Do not take part in elections; do not vote; do not participate.” †That is why I have told hon members that government is their business.

We, the Labour Party, said that we would use platforms. Listen to what our members said: “We will use every platform available to have our voice heard.” However, those hon members do not understand politics. Let me explain it to them. Even the South African Communist Party uses separate structures—White structures; the White Parliament—in order to propagate their beliefs.

’They do this because a preacher requires a pulpit. We told them these things but they do not apply to them; they are clever. That is why they are sitting in the Opposition. That is why they lost the elections.

†I want to thank those hon members of our party who have participated.

*One need only drive round the Western Transvaal to see the poverty among our people. Nevertheless one should take a look at what that hon member for Rust Ter Vaal has done.

Brought in the Defence Force!

Oh no, that hon member was in the Defence Force too. [Interjections.] He must remember what he said on television the day he returned. [Interjections.]

We all know our members have said we want direct representation, but we shall use the system at our disposal because we have a poor people out there waiting for us to act. [Interjections.] We know this very well. We cannot wait to solve problems only then.

†However, that is what they are telling us, namely: “Wait for a non-racial constitution, then talk about the needs of the community.”

*The Whites do not do this, however; oh no, they do not do this. Nevertheless he now comes and tells us we must abolish the management committee system. If we had the right, we would have abolished it long ago. [Interjections.]

Look at what the hon member for Hanover Park said: It is part of the province; it is part of the municipality; it is part of this department. Why? Because they know what we would do about it if we obtained control over it. [Interjections.] We obtained control over our schools, for instance, and our schools are open to all races now.

†As I have said, we in this party are not too naive to know that the road ahead is a hard one.

*We have accepted this and we shall not turn back any longer. That is why we speak about negotiation. That is why we speak about a strategy of negotiation—a method of putting our case and achieving our goal. Hon members speak about it; they speak about different ways of acquiring direct representation.

†The hon member for Vredendal said something interesting. We have a divided society in South Africa, but some people say: “You cannot have democracy in this country, because you have a conflicting society.” We say one can do this, but what we have at the moment is domination. We have domination in local government by White local authorities and we say that we can work out a system.

*I also wish to thank the hon member for Ravensmead, especially for that little sentence that a person must think about how one can turn one’s powerless powers into forces. [Interjections.] They do not understand that kind of philosophy. [Interjections.] The hon member spoke about poverty. Hon members should take a look at how our people build and upgrade their own houses. In Belhar, as one drives from Laboria Park, one sees a scheme in which 2 000 families will build their own houses. Hon members should just go and take a look. This is because we are concerned with the upliftment of our people. We are not talking about this now, yet they attack us.

Mr Chairman, I now want to continue with the second part of my speech which deals with housing. As regards housing, there have been splendid achievements over the past financial year. Based on updated information, up to 31 March 1988 altogether 17 809 housing matters financed by the Housing Fund had been concluded. Of these, 9 560 were sites only, whereas 8 249 houses were completed. Show me where, in the old days of community development, so many houses were built for Coloured people and so many plots made available to them. On 31 March this year we were also engaged in 12 924 housing matters financed by the Housing Fund, of which 8 860 were sites only.

Houses erected by means of self-help building projects already comprise 24% of the total and this in itself must be regarded as an excellent achievement. I want to say immediately that we are engaged in working out a system according to which we shall reward people who build their own houses. Hon members can see this from our budget; almost 25% of the budget is concerned with self-help housing. Hon members can talk to people who are building their own houses and see who they are and where they come from. Hon members will then see that we are engaged in an upliftment task. We are trying to eliminate poverty. [Interjections.] We are addressing it and we know we have a problem.

If it is accepted that housing matters which are carried over from one financial year to another follow an even course, it may be said that we have succeeded in tackling housing matters at an average expenditure of R12 350. This obviously includes the financing of community facilities and communal housing and cannot be equated with the costs of a house or plot. Final figures are not available yet, but estimates indicate that a total of R220 million from the Housing Fund will be spent. This is no mean achievement. I should like to record my thanks to management committees, local authorities, MPs, officials and, last but not least, the Housing Board. They made this result possible.

†A month or two ago, a great many eyebrows were raised when it was reported by the Auditor-General that a certain amount of money made available for housing was not utilised in the particular financial year. At the time I made a statement, but I would like to deal with it again, because it seems that a great deal of misunderstanding about this still persists.

First of all it must be understood that the housing process cannot be compartmentalised into financial years. It is an ongoing process flowing from one year to the other, and once funds have been allocated and a project started, there is no chance to turn back, even though funds may be spent more slowly than was anticipated. Because the process is a complicated one, there are various stages where delays can crop up. It is therefore very difficult to plan expenditure accurately. Another important factor is that the statutory funds are revolving funds and the income in terms of interest and redemption flowing back to the fund cannot be estimated accurately.

Because of the difficulties mentioned above, it is standard practice to allocate more funds than the estimated available amount. Any amount shown as a credit in the fund at the end of the financial year is therefore already committed, and cannot be used for anything else. Any such amount is not given back, but it remains in the fund to be utilised for the purposes as allocated. The performance in a particular year can therefore be measured only against the total amount spent. In many instances this may take place over a period of five years.

*I want to make a few comments on the subsidisation of housing financed from the Housing Fund and the subject of standards as regards such housing.

My department’s strategy is firstly to ensure that existing and new housing is affordable and, secondly, that preference is given to self-help building projects, not only to save on costs, but especially to stimulate community involvement as part of a comprehensive community development programme.

Weighed against other priorities such as education and employment creation, it is clear that a dramatic increase in the approximately R86 million which is being voted for housing cannot be expected; on the contrary, Sir, if one looks at the astronomical needs in Black housing, it would appear more likely that this amount will decrease and that we will become more and more dependent on interest and recurrent capital which will have to carry and enlarge the fund.

The new formula for rents and instalments was produced by the hard work of this House and the department and it enables poor people to acquire reasonable housing at affordable instalments. Subsidies at the bottom of the income spectrum are very high, however, and if standards are not kept at a realistic level, the fund will soon be exhausted to the detriment of the provision of housing in the long term.

Against this background I believe that every house which is financed is actually a basic house only, which the owner can enlarge and improve with initiative and taste to satisfy all his requirements.

Because the formula does not offer adequate incentive for participation in self-help building projects, measures are currently being considered to rectify this. I want to appeal to MPs and members of management committees to encourage realistic standards among people. The days of “rentals” are past. What is pleasanter than to adapt one’s house to one’s capabilities?

†Whilst dealing with housing, I would like to give a brief overview of the damage caused by the recent floods. Tentative figures available for the areas declared disaster areas up to 17 March, indicate that 595 private homes were destroyed or partly destroyed. A great many of these homes were constructed from raw bricks and collapsed because of the water. These people will have to apply for aid from the disaster fund. The immediate need for housing has been satisfied by the provision of tents. Provision of more permanent housing will be financed from the statutory funds by shifting priorities.

Damage to schools, roads, bridges, etc amounts to about R2,5 million and will have to be met from the 1988-89 Budget.

On top of this a rough estimate of agricultural losses (including Eksteenskuil) amounts to plusminus R8 million. Additional funds will have to be considered, and this is to be pursued with the Treasury.

Most of the damage on the agricultural side has been done to Eksteenskuil. Although all available machines are on standby to start with rebuilding, ground conditions have been such that up to now it has not been possible. Detailed surveys will be started soon.

The department is already assisting with the execution of housing projects in order to help the people left homeless, and the intention is to get the people out of the tents as quickly as possible—even if we have to use temporary housing.

Housing remains one of my top priorities because it is the cornerstone of a healthy society. In the spirit of Robert Frost: “Home is the place where, when you have to go there, they have to take you in.”

Where the Housing Fund is basically a loan fund, the Development Fund is more of a “do-fund” and is being used very widely for direct and indirect assistance in order to facilitate development and promote community development in its widest sense.

The Development Act is a very useful piece of legislation, enabling the Development Board to play a positive and significant role in the upliftment of the community. It is ironical that the very similar Community Development Act was in the past used extensively to uproot our people. We are using the same instrument to ensure upward mobility for our people.

During the previous financial year an estimated R55,75 million was spent from the fund, of which more than R10 million was for the acquisition of land and more than R38 million for departmental projects. I am proud to be associated with a department which was instrumental in inter alia establishing a new town of 1 000 erven with 750 houses in Rabie Ridge within a year and which made it possible for the private sector to build 1 200 houses in Ennerdale and sell 1 256 houses in Blue Downs. More than 318 erven have already been made available to small developers in Blue Downs, and more than 4 000 erven have been approved by the local authority for development. I would like to thank everybody involved in this effort.

* And that is poverty. I said at the outset that we should undertake projects with people and not for them. The department has a part to play as a negotiator to launch initiatives and to present options for consideration by communities. Our people must become involved in their own upliftment and this is why I am in favour of community committees which may serve as discussion forums for solving problems.

It has already happened, however, that people have wanted to use the committees for political gain and then they have failed. Therefore it is necessary for me to lay down guidelines for the operation of these committees. The intention to institute such a committee must be published widely in the community and interested parties must come forward to offer themselves as members. The issue is solving problems and not a forum to form pressure groups. The objectives of the committee must be spelt out properly from the start as follows: (a) it is a discussion forum to improve communication and will not be able to take any binding decisions; (b) the elected management committee remains the only body which can take final decisions on matters on which they have the power to decide; (c) this is an apolitical forum where the problems of the community can be discussed and information exchanged mutually; (d) any political or personal attacks and campaigns will be ruled out of order.

A maximum of only one member from a specific organised grouping will be admitted in order to give as many groupings as possible the opportunity for discussion. Only people who have resided in the area for at least 18 months will be able to qualify. Only people with a proven record of community service will be acceptable. The Minister will decide on the final composition of the committee. Accepted community leaders will serve on the committee together with representatives of the public sector and of the department.

(These committees are working. Those members who are serving on them can substantiate that. They are the MP and leaders within that community.

*Because manpower is limited, it will not be possible for the department to be involved directly on a continuous basis, but this need not detract from the operation of the committee which is aimed at improving communication and solving problems at local level. Just remember that the institution of a committee is still no guarantee that the work will be done.

†It is said that when all is said and nothing done, a committee meeting is over.

Mr Chairman, it is one of the major functions of the Directorate of Development to ensure that timely action is taken to identify and proclaim suitable land for development purposes. Towards this end, I am glad to announce that consultants are well advanced in executing studies in this regard.

In the end, however, we are in the hands of another department to get land proclaimed under the Group Areas Act. Grave mistakes were made in the past because of the political input in this whole process of locating our neighbourhoods, in many instances next to the rubbish dump or the sewerage plant, or behind the koppie, or 5 km out of town. We are part of the local economy of every town or city and what is more, we are not as mobile, and not as financially capable as the White community. Why is it then that quite frequently we have to develop far from town or on the clay? To repeat the hon the State President’s words: “Are we lepers?”

I make a plea here today for the Group Areas Board and the hon the Deputy Minister of Development Planning to be sensitive at all times to the needs of the community in this regard. I know I have the sympathy of the hon the Deputy Minister and his board, but sympathy is not enough; we must stand up against political pressures which are forcing us in the wrong direction. Eersterus in Pretoria will be noted with interest.

*As residential areas are situated far from towns in so many cases, I take pleasure in announcing that the Development Board recently gave their approvement in principle for all towns with such problems to be placed on a programme and for a certain amount to be voted annually for the tarring of access roads. This assistance will be offered on soft terms which may vary from place to place. Surveys are currently being conducted and details will be furnished later.

Hon members will permit me to pause for a moment at the problem of making land and erven available to developers. I call this a problem because it certainly is one. Because the Development Board plays a part in making land available for development at reasonable prices, from the nature of the case there is enormous interest in the ranks of developers to acquire land. To act justly in this process usually requires the wisdom of Solomon.

Although the board is not closing the door entirely to making land available out of hand, this will only be possible under certain circumstances in very exceptional cases and in respect of applications which are limited in extent. As a rule this will be settled on a competitive basis and interested parties are advised not to incur high costs on the announcement of an interest in land.

Calling for development proposals has already been well refined in consequence of experience at Ennerdale and Blue Downs and a sound basis of adjudication has already been established. In many cases the price of the land is not the decisive factor.

When erven are made available, it is best to let people choose personally which developer they want to use and that is why a system is followed according to which participants are given the opportunity of erecting show houses and subsequently of marketing reserved erven on a plot-and-plan basis.

The development sphere is an exciting one and the objective is to create increasing opportunities for executing projects aimed at balanced community development.

There is a great deal to report as regards works, but I do not wish to tire hon members with a pile of statistics. The building programme is really impressive. Let it suffice for me to mention that in the 1987-88 financial year 33 new primary and secondary schools were completed. An amount of R114 million was involved. The previous year a start was made on the erection of the first prototype of a newly designed primary school specially intended for the winter rainfall region.

This specific design will be tested first. Meanwhile the Ministers’ Council has agreed that, subject to certain cost norms, all new primary and secondary schools will be designed individually in future. Standardisation will take place as regards the modules comprising the school and these modules will be combined in every single case in a distinctive design suitable for that specific terrain. I believe that this approach will play a large part in creating greater pride in their school facilities among our pupils and teachers.

Hon members can therefore see that the department is involved in planning. We are carrying out the work the people have given us to do. We are not involved in expanding own affairs but we are involved in an upliftment task.

†The Ministers’ Council has decided that schools should be planned on an individual basis to serve the needs of a specific community.

*One of the most beautiful schools is the new school built at Arniston. That school blends with the environment and the fishing hamlet. We are not involved in politics but in the true upliftment of our people. Hon members who wish to participate in the debate must not come here with their petty politics because we can give them an answer on every count.

Order! Before I put the next question, I want to ask hon members to give the hon member Mr Müller a fair opportunity to put his case.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister has not spelt out anything for the future. [Interjections.] For that reason I cannot react to his speech, but since the hon the Minister devoted a great deal of time to what I said in my speech, I think I have hit the nail on the head.

I want to draw hon members a picture of what goes on in the Swartkops constituency. I want to begin at a small place called Kleinskool, if hon members knows where that is. As far back as I can remember, Kleinskool has been in existence. There we only have squatters living in cars and old burnt-out buses. There are only street taps and only one tarred street running through the town. That is the result of own affairs. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member is misleading the House. He alleges that Kleinskool is the result of own affairs, but it was in existence long before 1984.

Sir, my reply to that is that the LP has been at the helm for the past 20 years. That is what I mean. In all that time they have done nothing about the matter.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member alleges that the LP has been in power for 20 years now, but that is not true.

Order! That is not a point of order.

Sir, hon members are wasting my time. I do not want to devote any more time to Kleinskool. I now want to refer to Despatch. In that small town there is also only one tarred street and the houses have no electricity. It is situated in the mountains, and when it rains the inhabitants have to walk around knee-deep in water. [Interjections.] Two years ago that same hon Minister had houses of hessian built at Despatch. I want to say nothing more about that little town. I think I have painted a good enough picture.

I also want to refer to Uitenhage. At the town there is a squatter camp in which 480 people are living in corrugated iron shacks. The conditions prevailing there are terrible.

The word is “haglik” and not “aaklig”!

Order! The hon member for Wuppertal must stop making these continuous interjections. Hon members must please behave themselves. The hon member may proceed.

Sir, I merely want to say that hon the Chairman of the Minister’s Council was chairman of that management committee for many years. Nothing happened then either. When I was chairman, however, things were suddenly expected to happen. [Interjections.] If one belongs to the LP, one must do what they say. One must say what one is told to say; in tackling a job one is not permitted to use one own’s initiative. That is why nothing has been done in recent years.

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon member for Fish River must please give the hon member Mr Müller an opportunity to make his speech. The hon member may proceed.

I want to come to regional services councils. An amount of R100 000 has been voted for expenditure on the squatter camp, Lapland. That R100 000 is going to be wasted. It could have been employed more constructively in areas where permanent housing could be erected instead of using it in that emergency camp.

Oh, you do not want them to help the people there!

No, Sir. The people want proper houses. [Interjections.] That money is going to be used to dig ditches to improve the drainage.

What money are you talking about? [Interjections ]

Judging by the manner in which hon members are carrying on here, it would seem as if they are in favour of those people remaining there. [Interjections.]

Order! We cannot go on conducting the debate in this fashion. Hon members must please restrain themselves. The hon member may proceed.

Sir, that is the attitude of hon members in this House when I speak about the people of Lapland. Those people are struggling to pay their rent of R17,50 per month. No money was forthcoming from this House for the establishment of Lapland. The local council provided the money. I want to make an appeal today for something to be done for those people. This House, and the hon the Minister …

The own-affairs Minister?

Yes, that is what he is there for. [Interjections.]

Sir, I want the money spent on establishing Lapland to be written off, because the people had to erect their own small houses there. It cost a great deal of money, and now they still have to pay rent. I do not mind if they have to pay for the services laid on there, but unfortunately I have to add that the services are of a very poor quality.

The hon member for Hanover Park, in particular, but also other hon members, clearly spelt out what I have mentioned here to the hon the Minister. He is a member of the hon the Minister’s party, and he knows about the inconsistencies. He knows how it ought to be done. [Interjections.]

The hon the Chairman of the Minister’s Council is in a so-called position of authority—as it is always termed. [Interjections.] Why did he not use that authority to provide sufficient housing for the people of Uitenhage, Despatch and Kleinskool? [Interjections.] Why could that not happen? They are in a so-called position of authority—so why could they not succeed in doing that? That is why repeated discussions are held with town councils, but today I want to suggest something. [Interjections.] I realise that the system of management committees will continue to exist for some considerable time, but when the local committee applies for a certain project to be carried out in a certain area, a letter should simultaneously be sent to the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture so that when the local authorities do not respond to the management committee’s request, the hon the Minister can at least do something about it. Because of the position he occupies, he would hopefully be able to do something about that. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, it is indeed a pleasure to speak on the Vote of the hon the Minister for Local Government, Housing and Agriculture. I would like to thank the hon the Minister and the officials of his department for having allocated funds to the City Council of Port Elizabeth for ongoing projects in the northern areas of that city.

I am particularly grateful to see that what I pleaded for last year became a reality this year, and I thank the hon the Minister for that. [Interjections.]

That department is quick, is it not?

I hope and pray that the projects will be proceeded with and finalised as soon as possible. These projects are: Bethelsdorp, extensions 31 to 34; Bethelsdorp, extensions 28, 29, 27 and the provision of funds for the erection of a YMCA hostel in extension 11 of Bethelsdorp.

I am also grateful for the allocation for the improvement of street lighting in extensions 12 to 15 and the R75 000 for the electrification of the houses in extension 6, Helenvale, in the Gelvandale constituency. Once again I say a very big thank you to the hon the Minister. [Interjections.]

I must mention here today that we of the Northern Areas Management Committee of Port Elizabeth fought for many years for the provision of electricity for domestic use in the township known as Helenvale. This has now become a reality, for which we are grateful. I must also mention here this afternoon that this area has an estimated total population of 15 252 persons. For all those years they were without electricity.

I would also like to commend the hon the Minister for his far-sightedness in allocating a huge percentage of his budget for the erection of self-help housing. We believe that, apart from the social and political benefits of this to the country, the hon the Minister has also made his contribution towards alleviating the high unemployment rate amongst our people. [Interjections.]

We regard the self-help schemes at Grassy Park and Belhar as model schemes, which the rest of the country would do well to emulate. They should go and see for themselves what these schemes look like. [Interjections.] What is also important is that whenever people come to the friendly city of Port Elizabeth they will see what the management committee of the northern areas have achieved as far as self-help is concerned.

I would like to make a personal plea to the hon the Minister, however, to allocate a greater slice of the cake to the Eastern Cape, where the pace of the delivery of houses should be accelerated. Examples of this can be found in places like the northern areas of Port Elizabeth, where the next delivery of houses is only expected in 1990.

This we find socially and politically unacceptable, particularly because the other sections of the community are being extremely well catered for—examples are the new town for Blacks being developed in Motherwell in Port Elizabeth, extensive development in the White areas, and an accelerated rate of development in Malabar, the Indian township in Port Elizabeth. Other areas requiring extensive redevelopment and forward-planning are Uitenhage, Despatch, Somerset-East and Alexandria, to mention a few.

I once again request the hon the Minister to grant a subsidy towards the servicing costs to make plots and dwellings affordable to the low-income group. Once again I plead with the hon the Minister to reconsider the application for an old age home in Bethelsdorp, extension 19, in Port Elizabeth, comprising 75 units. Our programme for the aged came to a complete standstill years ago. I also request the hon the Minister to reconsider the request of the Port Elizabeth Council in respect of Bethelsdorp, extension 21, for R105 000 for survey costs.

I now want to refer to Circular no 3 of 4 July 1987, issued by the Department of the hon the Minister. This circular refers to a very important discount—

However, the management committee of Port Elizabeth, via its parent local authority, applied months ago to the department for the implementation of this concession, and it is a matter of concern and deep regret that the Port Elizabeth Municipality has to date not received a reply to its representation. Where elections for the management committee are pending, it puts the entire management committee in an unfavourable light. We expect the hon the Minister to react to this.

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

The critical housing shortage amongst our people is generally acknowledged to be one of the most serious problems South Africa is facing. Housing is the cornerstone of any stable society. Therefore purposeful efforts will have to be made to solve the housing problem in South Africa. We shall definitely not be able to solve our people’s housing crisis before the Group Areas Act has been repealed.

I should now like to quote from page 64 of a book entitled Kleurlinge se persepsies van die eerste verkiesing vir die Huis van Verteenwoordigers written by Nick J Rhodie, C P de Kock and M P Cowper:

In Brigton in Oudtshoorn we have approximately 2 000 families without any accommodation at present. This serious housing crisis gives rise to overcrowding, for example more than 20 people living in a minute four-roomed house in some cases. No wonder there are 825 people being treated for tuberculosis in Brigton at present. The housing shortage in the rural areas gives cause for concern, and a Blue Downs is no solution to those people’s problem. [Interjections.] For that reason I want to lodge a serious plea today for us to take the bull by the horns in an attempt to relieve the housing crisis in the rural areas.

Apartheid is still the single greatest barrier between the South Africa of today and the South Africa of tomorrow with its better economic prospects. At present there are thousands of houses in White residential areas which are completely empty, while many of our people have no accommodation. My White friend, Danus Lategan, who rents out fully furnished rooms at R75 per month at Oudtshoorn, electricity included, is struggling to get boarders because of the fact that there is no shortage of accommodation for the Whites. That is why he has appealed to me to tell the Government that it would be to the advantage of all South Africans if the Group Areas Act were done away with as quickly as possible. [Interjections.]

Owing to unemployment and other economic problems, many of our people find it difficult to meet their obligations when it comes to paying rent. There is only one solution for the dilemma of rent in our residential areas, and that is to give away houses for nothing. Our people have more than paid for them already in any event. The most important benefit in giving away the houses would be that we would immediately create a large middle class and, what is more, this would contribute towards promoting the quality of life of our people. It has already been proved that those of our people who are home-owners look after, upgrade and protect their homes. If the hon the Minister were to comply with my reasonable request that the houses being rented out at present be given, free of charge, to our people, the gesture would create unprecedented goodwill amongst our people, since there are few things that give one as much stability as does homeownership. Such a give-away campaign would definitely give the consumer economy a shot in the arm. At present rent payments end up unutilised in the Treasury when, in point of fact, they could promote an economic upswing. By giving all rented houses to our people, the Government would be indicating the seriousness with which it is tackling reform. Let us be magnanimous and correct the mistakes of the past by giving these rented houses to the tenants who are living in them now.

In Dysselsdorp the sales campaign for houses is being hampered because in Extension I, where there are 736 houses, and in Extension II, where there are 366 houses, not a single house can be sold, because for some considerable time now we have been waiting for the Department of Local Government to determine the prices. In Toekomsrus in Oudtshoorn 500 detached, sub-economic houses were completed during 1984, and I should like to quote to hon members from the Oudtshoorn newspaper, Het Suidwestern, of 17 August 1984:

The prices of these 500 subeconomic houses were only received from the Department of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture on 27 November 1987. Our community was deeply shocked because, after three years, the prices of these houses were fixed at R10 553,36 by that department. Why must our people pay such steep prices for this rubbish? Why must the tenants of these houses, which have numerous structural flaws, pay so much? I therefore want to quote from a report by Liebenberg and Stander, consulting engineers, dated 27 July 1987, in connection with an investigation carried out on the houses at Toekomsrus. The report reveals the following:

In what year were those houses built?

I made several representations to the department to grant a discount of 65% on these houses owing to their structural flaws. [Interjections.] Consequently I am making a further serious appeal today for the granting of the discount in the light of this report by the consulting engineers.

In spite of the fact that the Coloured population in Brigton at Oudtshoorn consists of more than 32 000 people, we have no community hall. I have made representations on several occasions for the establishment of a community hall. Yesterday the regional representative of the Department of Housing and Agriculture, Mr Roberts, informed me telephonically that they had received the request for a community hall and that they were processing it. Our community is in very great need of a community hall. I therefore appeal to the hon the Minister and to his dedicated officials, whom I am very proud of, to assist us in having the community hall built in Brigton before the end of this leap year.

Mr Chairman, I appreciate this opportunity to speak on behalf of my constituents. We have a tremendous backlog of housing in the Riverlea areas and this problem has caused overcrowding. A certain area called Riverlea Extension 1, which is approximately 24 years old, is at present being electrified. In 1973 a certain Mr R R Peffer, a member of the Johannesburg Coloured Management Committee, referred to this area as a slum. It is clear from a letter written by Mr Peffer that this is a forgotten area of Johannesburg. The letter states:

1. 1) It is a dirty, filthy, thickly populated area.
2. 2) It is an area that is foul.
3. 3) These units are unfit for human occupation, with the result that it constitutes a danger to the health of the occupants.
4. 4) It is continually degenerating.
5. 5) It is defectively constructed so that repairs or alterations are not likely to remove the nuisance. These houses are priced at R4 186,46 each. On the edge of the township runs a stream that is filthy, except when cleansed by rain. A marshy, mosquito-infested area surrounds the stream and an unofficial dumping ground borders this marshy area. A school that accommodates approximately 1 200 pupils is situated in this area. The stench that comes from this area in summer is nauseating.
   I am not asking for the mass removal without alternative accommodation, but for suitable, hygienic housing fit for human occupation within a reasonable period.

Sir, there is no substitute for truth. Today, 14 years later, I stand here with the very same call for help for the Riverlea areas. Riverlea Extension 2 is six years old—as the hon member for Toekomsrus knows, because he lives there. Here we have the question of full rights for the land. People in this area who wish to build or extend their homes cannot do so, because they cannot obtain loans without being given full rights in respect of their homes and land. At the moment new plans are envisaged for Riverlea Extensions 3 and 4 and we would like to have full rights on that land before building commences. Hon Ministers of the LP visited the area and are familiar with the circumstances there, as well as with the needs of our people.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member a question with regard to the letter to which he referred?

Sir, I do not have enough time to answer questions.

Promises of upliftment and the upgrading of these areas were made to the constituents by these hon Ministers, but thus far their promises were only a ploy to obtain the votes of those residents.

What did you do to assist those people?

Hon members on the other side of the House can deny this, but it is the truth.

†Sir, I also want to stress that we should look at the planning of these areas. For instance, Riverlea Extension 1 has only one entrance that also serves as an exit. Riverlea Extension 2 has a very busy road that runs through the area, leading to the West Rand, Soweto and Sun City. This road needs an overhead pedestrian bridge and to me this is nothing but a matter of poor planning.

I also want to refer to the problems concerning Riverlea proper and Riverlea Extension 2. The main problem in this area at the moment is the resumption of mining activities by a company called Gold Mine Dumps. The residents are very concerned about whether expropriation will take place and why these mines are allowed to resume their operations in this area. They are also concerned that houses are being built for our people in areas such as this one when they know that full rights for the land will not be obtained there.

I have requested assistance time after time in this regard from the departments concerned, but to no avail.

Then there is also the problem of land. We have seen the construction and completion of the following projects: There is Nazareth, the national showground near Johannesburg; Shareworld, a new recreation centre; and the Highgate and Maxwell shopping centres. Why was this allowed to happen? These areas could have been negotiated for and utilised for accommodation purposes for our people.

It is envisaged that in the near future a new national stadium will be built on land adjacent to Riverlea, Extension 1, an area which I represent. The constituents of Riverlea and the Riverlea extensions are patronising the area called Langlaagte. Because this area is becoming a “ghost town” to the Whites, I am very sure that we can lay claim to it. In the same way that the Whites took Albertsville away from our people, we can take Langlaagte away from them. In Hansard: House of Representatives of Monday, 2 June 1986, one can read that the late Mr A P Booysen also appealed for help with regard to the Riverlea areas.

In conclusion I appeal to the hon Ministers concerned to investigate the matter with regard to Riverlea and its extensions with a view to upgrading the area and in order to fulfil their promises to my constituents.

Mr Chairman, I find it very strange that the hon member for Bosmont actually quoted here today from a letter from someone who supposedly did not support the system, someone who resigned from the Riverlea management committee years ago. I cannot understand how he wishes to promote his case here. I wonder, in fact, whether the hon member for Bosmont is not perhaps such a good friend of Mr Peffer that he wants to promote his case here in Parliament.

Conditions are unchanged. That is what he implied.

In doing that, surely one is not being honest with oneself or one’s voters.

I now want to come to what the hon member Mr Paul Müller said. The hon member said that the hon the Minister had not spelled out the future prospects for housing. The hon member must wake up to reality for once in his life. He has complaints about conditions in Despatch. If the people in Uitenhage, whom he represents, do not have their heads read, I do not know. Presumably they want to live in such terrible conditions. The hon member is supposedly the chairman of the management committee there. One would expect him, as chairman, to do better. It really seems as if the hon member will have to pay a visit to a psychiatrist to find a cure for the political retardation he suffers from.

At present the Government is engaged in economic reform. This is generally welcomed by our community in South Africa. The word “reform” should not, however, be defiled, debased or used recklessly. What is important in our society is social reform. This goes hand in hand with political and economic reform. It is a reality that improvements in the sphere of housing in our community will bring about social reform in that community. Every individual wants a home. It is therefore vital to obtain land on which one can build one’s dream house. The question of housing is unfortunately that hon Minister’s legacy.

Before the commencement of the new dispensation, many of our people still lived in corrugated iron shacks. Because the families were too large, they could not all be accommodated in those houses, which had only two bedrooms. Houses therefore had to be enlarged with corrugated iron sheets because many inhabitants were poor. The upgrading of housing is essential in our areas. When the authorities come to the tenants with a package deal, it must be a package deal that will relieve every tenant’s burden. It must be a package deal embodying progress and change. There must be social reform in the true sense of the word. The inhabitants’ corrugated iron shacks must be upgraded to two-bedroomed, three-bedroomed and four-bedroomed houses. I can understand the housing problems of our community, but the elimination of those depressed areas is essential. A plan of action will have to be instituted. All these houses which have been mentioned must get electricity, and we could even promote the sales campaign in our community.

I want to lodge an appeal with the hon the Minister for funds for those purchasing houses for the first time. I want to appeal to the hon the Minister and his department to increase the R40 000 to R60 000 so that convenient houses can be built for our people. At present building costs are so high that one can only buy a convenient matchbox. We must promote our people’s interests, and housing is the only way in which this can be done. Man is determined by his environment. Man develops in accordance with the environment in which he finds himself. Decent housing can eliminate the “skolly” element in our areas. The politicisation of housing could thereby also be nipped in the bud. Radical elements cannot gain a foothold in decent, developed areas. I should like to appeal to the hon the Minister to give attention, once again, to the upgrading of Fochville, the housing crisis at Rustenburg, housing at Ventersdorp, the further development of plots for Promosa and the backlogs in Christiana, Bloemhof, Schweizer-Reneke and Alabama.

I trust that the hon the Minister and his department will give the necessary attention to the Western Transvaal which will lead to its stability and progress and enhance this area’s pride in itself.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister will agree with me that one cannot debate all the issues that were raised in his address to us today in only ten minutes. There are some matters I agree with wholeheartedly, such as the question of the community’s having to develop a positive attitude, just to mention one. I agree wholeheartedly with that. I also agree that the flood victims will have to be assisted and that that should receive priority.

There are some other aspects of the hon the Minister’s speech that will need closer examination. There are, however, certain aspects which are cause for concern, especially the total revolutionary onslaught against the country—in terms of NP thinking—and the creation of committees at local level, which are frowned upon if they originate in the Black community, because the leaders of those committees are detained and some of them are still being held without trial. One has to analyse the new committees which have been created, especially the guidelines that have been laid down as to what they can do and what they cannot do. I am also thinking particularly of the fact that the hon the Minister has the final say in the matter and not the people at the bottom.

We will debate those matters during the course of the year.

In the ten minutes at my disposal I also want to touch on one matter which the hon member for Rust Ter Vaal mentioned here in referring to the speech made by the hon member for Bosmont. The hon member was not trying to support Mr Peffer; he was pointing out that in 1973 Mr Peffer said the same things he had to repeat here today and he wanted to know when he would be getting relief. The other policy matters I will debate when I have more than 10 minutes at my disposal.

What I want to address today is file no 25/1/1/2/1729. It is a file in the department of the hon the Minister and it deals with the report of Charles Lloyd township, particularly the upgrading of that township. I noticed these words of the hon the Minister with concern:

I hope that that is only confined to the Department of Education and Culture, which the hon the Minister mentioned, and not to his own department, because if that is the case it would be a tragedy. The people in the C C Lloyd township have made bold to say that municipal officials have not entered that area for more than two years, simply because riots took place in Duncan Village. If one were to go to that area now, one would see that the Duncan Village of which they complain no longer exists. In the place of those tin shanties they have built brand-new dwellings and tarred roads. There is electricity, although at this stage it is described as high-mast lighting.

However, right across the road C C Lloyd township is going to rack and ruin, simply because the municipal officials do not have an interest in that part of the world and they have allowed squatters to move into the area. The estimation in this report compiled by the department of the hon the Minister is that there are more than 400 squatters, because they are now occupying the area at a rate of 1,5 squatter dwellings per erf below 30 and 40 Beaumont and Bont Streets. There are 409 illegal dwellings in this area.

I just want to highlight some aspects of this report which was in the hon the Minister’s possession as far back as 2 November 1987. One sees here that the sewerage reticulation problem, the refuse removal problem and the stormwater control problem were addressed, while the sidewalks, the roads and the parks received attention. Certain recommendations were also made. I now want to pause at the recommendations contained in that report, because this is where we need money to upgrade this area in East London.

I have already traced the history of this area several times in a number of speeches in this House. It was property which was inherited from a former Black township. When Mtanzani was created in 1963 the inhabitants were moved from C C Lloyd township to Mtanzani and people were transferred from West Bank, East Bank and Cambridge to this particular area. However, it has never been touched since. Some people there have bought and improved their properties. They have changed the existing houses into something beautiful, but when one looks at the surrounding area one sees that it is in urgent need of money in order to be upgraded.

Funds are needed to provide a tarred inlet into the squatter camp where bulk wastebins can be placed. I am not in favour of squatting. I believe all squatters should be accommodated in some way …

Not squatters; homeless people.

Well, homeless people then. We call them squatters for emphasis. We need R6 200 to provide that road. We need stormwater control at a cost of R100 000. The sidewalks are a disgrace and we need R20 000 to see to that. We need at least R500 000 to see to the roads. We need R7 000 to establish the parks. This area is still without electricity and in this day in age it is a sin and a crime to see our townships throughout the country without electricity. The cost of paraffin and other petroleum products used in those dwellings far exceed the cost of electricity.

When these townships were built about twenty or thirty years ago, the cost of electricity far exceeded the cost of a bottle of paraffin. In the meantime, the cost of paraffin has risen. Paraffin is now being used not only as a fuel but also as a writing material—in fact, it is being used for almost anything. The price of paraffin far exceeds the price of electricity.

If Eskom wants to do this country a favour, then, instead of spending millions of rands on flowers for its offices, it should spend millions of rand on providing lighting for the people in the townships. In any case, the people will ultimately still have to pay for any electricity that they use in their homes, and Eskom will ultimately make a profit. It is important that this aspect also be addressed. The hon the Minister has the ability and the power to ensure that the problem with regard to all the townships in the country that do not have electricity, is resolved. Before Eskom is privatised, it should supply these townships with electricity from the millions of rands at its disposal.

Mr Chairman, I have addressed letters to the hon the Minister concerning the plight of the 1 400-odd families on the waiting list. We urgently need new land. I know that the department is negotiating, but whilst the department is negotiating for these additional pieces of land in order to accommodate the 1 400-odd on the waiting list, the people’s anger and frustration is growing. With the advent of winter, more of our children in these “backyard pondokkies” are going to die as a result of winter illnesses. Such events only serve to make those communities bitter. Something urgently has to be done about that matter.

I have told the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning that this is an urgent matter. Because of its urgency, this problem should be addressed at the highest possible level so that the necessary land can be acquired. Buffalo Flats is absolutely saturated. In this regard the management committee wants to have “infill” schemes, and I disagree with them on that. It is senseless to develop erven at a cost of more than R7 000 per erf when subeconomic dwellings are going to be built on that land, because those people simply cannot afford it.

I want to move on to another aspect. We need emergency housing to provide these homeless people with housing. In the Charles Lloyd Township alone there are reportedly 409 illegal dwellings. If that is the case, Sir, you can imagine how many people there are in Charles Lloyd alone who are waiting for homes.

Right now, we need 50 emergency homes at a cost of R617 000. Here is a summary of what it will cost to upgrade Charles Lloyd Township: Refuse removal for squatters or homeless people—R6 000; stormwater control—R100 000; sidewalks—R20 000; roads—R500 000; parks—R7 000; street lighting and power supply—R293 000; housing per block of 50—R617 000. That constitutes a grand total of R1543 000. That is for one suburb only. The situation is aggravated when the people living in Charles Lloyd Township look across the road, because they know what was there before. Because of the riots, the burnings and the general unrest, what has risen in place of the old tin shanties is a beautiful township. We did not want people to embark upon that cause of action in the hope that they would achieve the same result. That is why we are here—to negotiate so that we can get the money from the hon the Minister’s department in order to achieve the same result on the other side of the road.

I turn now to the next aspect I want to address. The hon member for North Eastern Cape has even been to East London to attend a meeting there with the hon the Minister’s ministerial representative, Mr Erasmus. We have been grappling with this problem for the past six years. The people in Buffalo Flats Extension—this area is called “Ghost Town” because it is located next to a graveyard—have been living there for the past six years without knowing what their homes are valued at. I believe this matter has received attention in that some of the many problems have been addressed. My problem, however, is simply this: The person who has to work out the price of that dwelling does not appear to know how to do it; and if he does not know how to do it, he should be replaced by someone who does know how to do it. For six years, Sir, we have been struggling to get those homes valued. Many of those people have applied for bonds, but there is this uncertainty. Many of these people’s employers would go out of their way to assist them, but there is this uncertainty. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I thank you for this opportunity. I do not want to speak for long, but I want to say that I do not understand the hon member’s arguments. There are certain people who constantly have problems.

I now want to address this problem, Sir. Kleinskool falls under the jurisdiction of Port Elizabeth.

It has nothing to do with the leader of the Labour Party. He is the MP for that area, but Kleinskool is situated in the area of jurisdiction of the management committee. Over the years this has been an ongoing issue. The Director of Housing in Port Elizabeth and Louis Koch fought over this land. Parliament adopted a resolution in this regard and said that Black people had to live on the other side of the river and Coloured people on the left-hand side. There are houses there. What happened then? Squatter problems arose. They are now being investigated. However, I do not want an hon member to come here and mislead the House.

With regard to the question of Despatch, the local management committee must apply for a loan. The town can then be provided with electricity. I understand that the hon member Mr Müller and the hon member for Schauderville are members of the management committee and can therefore help. However, if they are planning to create a residential area there, I want to emphasise that it takes a long time. Certain formalities must be disposed of. If I have sufficient time I shall come back to the procedure in this regard.

When the houses were sold, the Department of Community Development managed the transactions. They multiplied the original cost plus 1% with a figure and then arrived at the selling price. The price was then so high that they gave one a discount. One then paid three to four times the original price. I want to appeal today, because the same thing is happening in the rural areas. I can give the House an example in this regard. The worst houses are in Uniondale. They were built 44 years ago. The original cost of one scheme amounted to R382. What is happening there now? The price is being calculated according to circular No 10 of 1983.

†They applied those measures. What happened? They granted a discount of 65%, which brings the prices of the houses down. What happens in the end? One gets a figure of R894. This is the dilemma in which we find ourselves. I want to ask the Housing Board to decide that all the houses should be sold at their original cost. [Interjections.] Circulars 10 and 17, dealing with the sale of houses, should be cancelled. Those circulars allow the Government of the day to exploit us because it gets 50% of the profit and the other 50% goes to the local authority. Hence we are experiencing all these problems. This is how the problem started.

I now want to deal with three circulars in the order in which they were received. I think an hon member has already dealt with the 65% discount. They did away with the 20%. Initially the 65% was meant for structural defects. Now it has been changed around because one received 20% and 65% plus 40%. This has now been nullified.

The other question I would like to raise relates to the stipulation in the circular that if one has any problems in paying, one should go to the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. I should like to know whether the department negotiated with the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. It is senseless to issue an instruction when one cannot follow it up. I heard complaints in regard to pensions, for example. I do not understand the situation.

*I now want to refer to circular 4, paragraph 3.2.3, which reads that if a person’s income is so low he should approach the Department of Health Services and Welfare. Paragraph 3.2.5 reads:

That is the income of a husband and wife. What it amounts to is that when people are assessed, only the income of the breadwinner should be taken into account. Many municipalities calculate the income of the husband and the wife. I am now going to refer to the rent formula.

†The way I see it is that this circular was issued. It was sent to the local authority. The local authorities have to work on 1983 incomes because they have no incomes as yet. Those people must be debited or be given a credit. In the meantime they should send out the survey forms and they should fill them in and then return them to ask the people for the 1988 incomes.

However, what happens? The local authorities are not doing anything. People must receive credits and that is why I always say that some of the people who should be in their houses are evicted. The eviction is then illegal. If one calculates their credit and it adds up then those people have a right to be in those houses. I now want to come back to my point that we must get an ombudsman to do this throughout South Africa because the people are suffering.

I want to take Durban as a typical example. Depending on one’s income—and this formula is applied in most cases—one pays a lesser amount. However, what has happened in Durban? The Durban City Council has become the most subversive element in government in Natal. Rather than act in concert with other Government institutions, like the House of Representatives and the local affairs committees to afford tenants relief from harsh rentals, the Council has instead sought to impose massive rental increases. The manner in which it has chosen to use circular 4 proves it is interested in mainly making a profit out of rentals in the first place and secondly diverting blame from itself to the House of Representatives and fanning the fires of conflict in the local community. The message must be brought home that while the Ministers’ Council of the House of Representatives seeks to effect rental relief, the Durban City Council is exploiting the situation for its own benefits.

This is our problem; we receive circulars and then the local authorities say that we have to look at the circular and we look for problems. In the past when the circular was issued it was meant for implementation. However, lately all these circulars from this department have been for discussion only.

They also have problems with circular 5. What has happened is that some of the circulars repeat what has been said in previous ones. I want the department, when it issues a circular, to be specific because they present conflicting arguments. Before they send out a new circular they should look at the old circulars and inform us that certain clauses are no more.

However, what happens? Instead of informing a local authority that it must sell the houses to the tenants without deposits, they state that they may and shall. I want to tell hon members—and the hon the Minister knows this—that that “may and shall” instruction is creating difficulties because no local authority will sell houses without a deposit. What about the funds that they are building up? What are they going to do with that? We must understand that local authorities are business people. They do not care about people; they want the money. What happens is that they pay the interest on redemption biannually. In the meantime what happens to that money? It is invested. For whom? We are told that it is in frozen accounts, but it is not. If they have to do anything they borrow money from their own funds and we have to pay for that.

I want this to go out loud and clear: We are either going to win the war against this circular or we are going to perish like fools because throughout South Africa the circular is the most important thing and I want us to have a look at this. Even as far as that 65% discount is concerned, local authorities are not interested in it. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, on this occasion I specifically want to speak about my constituency. I should like to point out to the hon the Minister that we had a major relocation at Vredendal two years ago.

As a result of the conditions at Vredendal North—investigations having been carried out into the rock formations there—the services furnished there cost tremendous sums of money.

This community was shifted from the old area, which was declared a White area, to the newly proclaimed Coloured area. I concede that the essential services could not be furnished to the community in the old area, but as a result of a relocation in terms of the Group Areas Act, those people had to move to the new area.

Representations were made to the department to help by writing off or extending the term of redemption of a large part of the costs of the services supplied there. There were several deputations from the Municipality of Vredendal. I wrote several letters to the department and the hon the Minister requesting relief for that community. To date that community has been paralysed by debt owing to rent payments which are in arrears. The people cannot afford the rent as a result of the high cost of the services provided there. I am asking the hon the Minister to ensure that these people are assisted. We sit there, and to date have not had any feedback from the hon the Minister’s department. We do not know whether something is going to be done for this community. We have had some of the people there. The Chairman of the Development Board, Mr Dave Daniels, was there, and on several occasions we have brought the matter to hon the Minister’s attention.

On this occasion I want to thank the hon the Minister for what has, in fact, happened in Vredendal. At present we are engaged in a self-help building scheme there. The first of those houses can shortly be occupied. I want to ask the hon the Minister, however—he knows the area to which I want to refer very well—to give attention to the dreadful conditions in Vergenoeg. That is the area in which the Roman Catholic mission station is situated—there are people living there in hovels. The Municipality of Vredendal applied for 100 subeconomic or subsidised housing units. There was also a health report.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No 19.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr Chairman, I move without notice:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I just wanted to bring to the attention of the Chair newspaper reports which appeared over the weekend in two papers, the Sunday Times Extra and the Sunday Tribune Herald. As Chairman of the component on public accounts, I would like, if possible, a ruling from you as to whether hon members of this House can speculate on matters which are still before the Select Committee on Public Accounts, which has not dealt with such matters.

Mr Chairman, with great respect to you, before you make that ruling, I would like to inform this House that the speculation to which that hon member refers, was in fact contained in a report which was made public on Friday last week.

Mr Chairman, I would just like to inform the hon member for Springfield that that was just a report by the Auditor-General, but this matter has still not been dealt with by the Select Committee on Public Accounts.

Mr Chairman, I serve on the same committee as the hon member for Laudium and it is my conviction that that is a public document and that what was said in that document is authentic, because it is the report of the Auditor-General. It is not confidential. It is available to the Press and to the public.

Order! I just want to bring to the attention of hon members that I am not aware of the circumstances surrounding the particular reports referred to by the hon member for Laudium. I will be going into them, since the hon member has brought it to the attention of the House. However, I just wish to reiterate a ruling given by Mr Speaker on 21 February 1979 with regard to matters related to the matter which has been raised by the hon member for Laudium. I quote:

I will, however, call upon the hon member for Laudium to make those reports available to me. I will go into them and come back to this House on this issue.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of the hon the Minister of Finance, I move:

Mr Chairman, we have no problem in supporting that particular motion.

Mr Chairman, we on this side of the House have no problem in supporting the amendment.

Mr Chairman, I merely echo the sentiments expressed by the hon member for Laudium and the hon member for Southern Natal.

Question agreed to.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of the hon the Minister of Finance, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move:

I wish to discuss today the factors which give rise to the need to amend the Currency and Exchanges Act, 1933, as amended.

Section 9(2)(b) of the Currency and Exchanges Act caters for the making of regulations to provide for the blocking, attachment and obtaining of interdicts for a period not exceeding 12 months by the Treasury of money or goods involved in an offence against the exchange control regulations. Exchange control regulation 22A(3) further provides that the Treasury shall return any money or goods which have been attached by the Treasury to the person entitled thereto on a date not later than 12 months as from the date on which such money or goods have been attached, unless such money or goods are forfeited to the State before that date, as provided for by regulations 22B and 22C.

In a recent case before the Transvaal Provincial Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa, ie A E Ferreira and others vs the State President and others, it was determined and found that the application of the audi alteram partem rule—that is the rule of natural justice, hereafter called “the audi rule”—is an essential prerequisite for a valid forfeiture of money or goods under exchange control regulation 22B.

In other words, in the present context of the Currency and Exchanges Act and the exchange control regulations, it is essential for purposes of achieving a valid forfeiture of money or goods thereunder, that every person affected thereby should be apprised of all the essential and material facts relating to the particular offence or suspected offence against the exchange control regulations and the relationship between such offence or suspected offence on the one hand, and the money or goods to be forfeited on the other hand, and such persons be given the opportunity to make representations to the Treasury as to why the money or goods, or any part thereof, should not be so forfeited.

In the normal course of events it is impossible to comply with the audi rule before the lapse of the twelve-month period during which an attachment of money or goods is authorised in terms of section 9 (2) (b) of the Currency and Exchanges Act and regulation 22 A (3) of the exchange control regulations, mainly due to prolonged litigation and to criminal prosecution being uncompleted.

If a forfeiture of such attached money or goods does not take place within that twelve-month period, the Treasury will be obliged to return such money or goods to the person entitled thereto; which person will therefore be unjustifiably and substantially enriched by virtue of the occurrence of the relevant exchange control infraction. Thereafter, in terms of the Currency and Exchanges Act and the exchange control regulations, as presently enacted, the Treasury will be debarred from attaching such money or goods for a second time for purposes of the forfeiting thereof to the State. It is clear that after we have paid out an amount of R80 million for example—I am thinking of the court case in which we are involved at the moment—we cannot get the money back.

It is proposed that the difficulties envisaged in this paragraph would be overcome by an amendment to the Currency and Exchanges Act and the exchange control regulations in the following respects: Firstly, by lengthening the twelvemonth period referred to in section 9 (2) (b) (i) of the Currency and Exchanges Act (hereafter called “the attachment period”) to 36 months. Secondly, by providing greater flexibility whereby the period can be further lengthened to one year after the completion of the relevant criminal trial in each case or to such an attachment period determined by a court of competent jurisdiction on good cause shown.

The amendment does not leave aggrieved persons without a remedy. Persons from whom money or goods have been forfeited to the State, will nevertheless have available the substantial benefit of the remedies contemplated in the Currency and Exchanges Act.

Mr Chairman, we on this side of the House have no objection to supporting this measure. In the standing committee the hon the Deputy Minister and other officials made known to us the reasons for this particular amendment. In essence the only amendment that is valid here is that the period of twelve months during which money can be seized by the State is now extended to 36 months plus a further 12 months if the court so desires.

We know that court procedures of this particular nature take more than two or three years in most cases. There is a pending court case where we know the hon the Deputy Minister may have a problem and that is why, in the interest of the State, we are prepared to support him.

I want to mention that although the standing committee is not happy about the clause where provision is made for a retrospective measure we said nevertheless that we would support it and it was supported in full by all members of the standing committee. This was done because of the assurances given to us by the hon the Deputy Minister. We support this particular Bill.

Mr Chairman, we on this side of the House support the Currency and Exchanges Amendment Bill, for all the reasons explained by the hon the Deputy Minister.

Mr Chairman, I support the sentiments expressed by the hon member for Laudium and the hon member for Southern Natal. As the Currency and Exchanges Act stands now, it leaves a very large loophole for unscrupulous people within the RSA to be unjustifiably and substantially enriched at the taxpayers’ expense.

It is common knowledge that we had a similar amendment last year because the officials of a certain bank in our country were obtaining the financial rand through their bank for their own use. That is under investigation. [Interjections.]

I want to substantiate the statement I made that it creates an opportunity for unscrupulous people to unjustifiably and substantially enrich themselves at the expense of the taxpayer. This is how it works according to the present Act: If within 12 months the Treasury has failed to prove or failed to find those culprits guilty, whatever assets—that is money or goods—that relate to the case have to be returned to them.

With regard to this particular case of the bank officials, someone remarked that it has not been proved that they committed those misdemeanours. I agree with that and that is why this amendment is absolutely necessary. I understand that something close to R100 million is involved. The process still has to continue. The 12 months will expire very soon and once the court releases the attached property the officials will once again be substantially enriched and nothing can be done about it, as according to the laws of this country, a man cannot be tried twice for the same crime. Therefore this Bill has to be passed in terms of clause 2 of the Bill retrospective to 1 December 1961.

This is one case we know of, but there are hundreds more which are also being investigated by the inspectors of the Treasury. This is an enabling Bill and it is to the benefit of the country. I support it.

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon members of this House. I know I have come at short notice. I appreciate it very much that hon members accept our recommendation and also support this Bill. We have very clever people in this country and they always like to say that in the political process we are very inflexible and that things take a long time. However, having this amendment passed has shown that we can also be very efficient and effective.

I also wish to thank the standing committee for helping us to put this Bill before the House and we thank hon Members for their support.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I am asked to speak in English. My benchmate asked that and therefore I revert back to English.

The hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture in his first reply in his debate referred to me and said that I should search my conscience to find out … [Interjections.]

Order! Allow the hon member to give his explanation.

He said that I did nothing to assist the farmers during last year’s flood disaster. In that respect I should like to put the record straight in this House so that my name can be cleared.

I have before me a letter from the Natal Farmers’ Union of 14 Jack Street, Stanger that is addressed to me at P O Box 234, Hammarsdale dated 5 November 1987 and which reads as follows:

I shall give the hon the Minister a copy of the letter—

1. 1. On behalf of the Natal Farmers’ Union I wish to express my sincere gratitude to you and your organisation for the assistance and guidance offered to members of the Natal Farmers’ Union, especially during the assessment of the recent floods experienced in Natal.
2. 2. Your co-operation and assistance is always appreciated.

It is signed by the President of the Natal Farmers’ Union, Mr D B Badul.

That proves beyond doubt that I was not resting on my laurels; I did my utmost to assist farmers, and not only in my own constituency—I also assisted farmers of all race groups outside my constituency. I assisted Whites, Blacks and Indians—in fact, everybody. I assisted any farmer to the best of my ability, and the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare can attest to that.

Mr Chairman, yesterday in the course of my speech, I drew the attention of the hon the Minister to certain discrepancies and problems that were in fact faced by disability grantees. I do hope that he has taken cognisance of the appeal I made in this House.

I was debating the question of the R2 levy that is now being imposed by the provincial authorities. In this connection I should like to know from the hon the Minister whether in fact the Ministers’ Council was informed of this levy when the provincial administration decided to introduce it. If not, why were they not informed, since they have two representatives on the provincial administration, and this concerns the Indian people at large—the poor people. I think there has been a default on the part of those that represent the Indian community in the provincial administration, and the Ministers’ Council should take the blame.

My call here this afternoon is that this matter be taken up with the province; it is now the responsibility of the Ministers’ Council as a whole. If the response from the province is in the negative, then I am of the opinion that some arrangement should be made for this levy to be crosssubsidised from the House of Delegates to the province. As I pointed out yesterday, this is not merely a matter of people who are collecting pensions or earning R167 per month or disability grantees; it is also people who are earning R200 a month.

Order! I want to inform the hon member for Havenside that his time has expired.

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

Order! The hon member for Havenside may continue.

I am indebted to the hon member, Sir.

The other issue I should like to raise here is the question of pressures in high-density areas, particularly areas such as Phoenix and Chatsworth were unemployment is still rampant Mothers are forced to go and work and now, with the curtailment of disability grants, there are many grantees who are perforce now asking their wives to go and look for work.

What is happening is that these working mothers are left with a problem—their little ones. Little or no care is given to these children and this is clearly evident in areas like Unit 2, Unit 3 and Unit 5 in Chatsworth. I feel that the creches are important institutions, especially when it comes to the areas where the poor communities have settled.

I am aware of the fact that the hon the Minister is going to tell me that it is not the responsibility of his department. Yes, I know that the welfare organisations are responsible. However, having gone through last year’s report, I note on page 68 that some reference is made in so far as creches are concerned. I quote:

Well, Sir, if welfare organisations saw the need and enquiries were made, then it is very clearly evident that this type of situation does exist. In order to get this matter off the ground it is important rather to have workshops in this area than having workshops in the Eastern Transvaal to inform people on local government and how to go about voting in the forthcoming election. It is more important that there should be a workshop in these areas. I am serious, because if there is a need and if there have been enquiries, how can we sit back quite content? I feel that this should be investigated very thoroughly and if there is a need for this, the welfare organisations should be encouraged by the social welfare division of the department.

We have institutions in the area. A nice big hall was recently built in Arena Park, which was uncalled for. Then there is the Odeon Cinema, standing like a white elephant. Workshops and institutions of this nature are more important. However, I know that it is not this department’s responsibility to provide accommodation.

On the same note I would like to appeal to the hon the Minister that if he is going to heed this request, he should rather not inform the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, because I know that he will use that as a platform to promote his party politics. Please keep him out of it. I do hope that this is done in the spirit that is needed to serve the people who need these facilities.

I want to refer to page 23 of the hon the Minister’s report under the heading “Community Psychiatric Services”. In the last two or three years this subject has been hotly debated in this House. There was a matter of deep concern over certain psychiatrists who had made alarming statements in the newspapers as far as two or three years back. I would like to know whether this situation still prevails or whether it has been remedied to any extent. If it has not, I would like to know from the hon the Minister as to why the amount allocated as such for this service has remained static: R75 000 provided for the payment of salaries of the staff who carry out home visits. I do not think this is very fair to the staff, because we read a little further, and I quote:

If there are 19 more than the last financial year, the 1987 record reveals that there were 15 only. We have now doubled this figure here, but are we doing justice to those nurses who render their services? That is my first question. Furthermore, are we fair when provision is to be made for twice that number—19 more than last year—without any further money than the amount allocated in the year 1987?

I do not think the hon the Minister has justified this particular course and it should be addressed by the hon the Minister.

The other important issue that has been a matter for concern is one that was highlighted in the 1987 report when the hon the Minister made some reference to a nutritional scheme in those areas where unemployment has been rife. I should also like to know from the hon the Minister whether this operational scheme was, in fact, put into effect and if so, what amount of money was disbursed for this particular need last year. I should also like to know whether it is still in existence this year, and if so, how much money has been allocated for this scheme; and if not, why not. That is the other question I should like to ask him. I have several others but my time is limited.

I want to deal very briefly with the question of staffing at the department’s Chatsworth centre. I have had the opportunity, together with my colleagues from Chatsworth, to visit this Chatsworth branch office together with the hon the Minister, and their senior staff very ably highlighted the difficulties with which that office was being faced.

One of the questions which had aroused a hue and cry was that of transport, which had become a burning issue because the investigation of a number of cases was being hampered. The hon the Minister was quite sympathetic and he did indicate that he would look into this matter.

Even the staff problems had become a burning issue. Staff at that centre were working over weekends and after hours without being reimbursed for their services and I think this is very telling on any staff. The question of transport in particular was highlighted because the social workers had to go into the area to investigate cases where necessary. I hope the hon the Minister will furnish us with a reply at the end of the debate as to what he has done in these areas. With those words, Sir, I shall resume my seat.

Mr Chairman, although I may not agree with the hon the Minister’s politics I nevertheless believe that it is abundantly clear to all hon members of this House that I have a great deal of respect for that hon gentleman. I should also like to record that I have a great deal of respect for the manner in which he runs his department and the efficiency with which he does so. It is because of this respect that I should like to begin this afternoon by offering him a piece of advice. I do so because I sympathised with the hon the Minister yesterday when he had to plod rather laboriously through the 38 pages of this budget speech. [Interjections.]

I should like to tell the hon the Minister that with regard to future budget speeches he should perhaps consider dividing the speech into what I would call a report, in addition to the actual budget. As all hon members will realise, a report serves merely to highlight the activities of the department during a particular year and this is being done by other departments in Parliament. I would advise the hon the Minister to follow suit. As I understand it, a budget speech is a speech in which the hon the Minister, if he wishes to do so, ought to motivate the reasons why the House should vote certain funds that he wishes to be voted for the purposes of his department.

Having said that, and due to the somewhat limited time I have at my disposal, I should now like to move on to something else. Like other speakers who spoke in this debate yesterday, I must also record my extreme disappointment at the fact that this administration has been unable to increase the pension that is paid to our old aged persons, our disabled and the other categories of people who are affected by these pensions. I cannot and do not agree with the argument advanced by the hon the Minister that it was not possible to increase the amount payable because this would affect the economic survival of the country.

I quote the words of the hon the Minister in that regard. Taken to its logical conclusion, what the hon the Minister is saying is that if this Administration were to pay out an additional amount of, say, R5 million, which would represent an increase and an advance towards parity, the economy of this country would collapse. What nonsense!

As I indicated, because of the limited time at my disposal, I do not intend to debate this point any further, except to say to the hon the Minister that he should not be bamboozled by his colleague, the hon the Minister of Finance, in this regard. He should rather say to him that were he to get his priorities right, and were he able to persuade his other colleagues to accept less for their respective departments, there would be a saving which could obviously be passed on to his department for utilisation of the payment of an increase in pension benefits.

In that regard I also think the hon the Minister would do well to persuade his other colleagues on the Ministers’ Council to maximise the resources that are available to them in such a fashion that savings could be effected. We have heard in this Chamber about the wastage of funds that has gone on. I am not going to list these now for the purposes of the debate here this afternoon. The hon the Minister of the Budget is very much aware of that. We have just now heard the hon member for Havenside make reference to the fact that an amount of R1,1 million was spent on the acquisition of the Odeon cinema site which, in his opinion, and quite correctly, was wasted. If we were to allocate our resources far more prudently, we could well have given an increase to the people who expect pension increases.

I must also, with great respect, express my regret to the hon the Minister that he has tried to buttress the Nationalist Government’s concept of own affairs by telling us that health and welfare services are of such importance that generally it is regarded as own affairs in most parts of the world. Here again, I quote his words. What the hon the Minister has forgotten to tell us is that unlike the rest of the world, it is only this Government of this country which has created and ordered own affairs, not in terms of regions or interested communities, but rather on the basis of race, colour and ethnicity. That is a very fundamental difference. Quite obviously, the hon the Minister has overlooked that. I must say that not only is this concept totally unacceptable to us, it is also totally repugnant. I believe that it is not only repugnant to us on this side of the House, but that it is repugnant and offensive to all those who have taken the Hippocratic oath. I believe that it is only acceptable to all those who have taken the oath of hypocrisy.

I would also like to take the opportunity of raising another matter with the hon the Minister, which was raised in this House previously and which was unanimously supported by all hon members of this House. It was also raised by a colleague of the hon the Minister, the hon member for North Coast. I now refer to the question of the recognition of the degrees of those who have been trained in foreign countries. I refer to the representations made to the hon the Minister by an association which calls itself Omega.

This House took an unanimous decision to assist as far as possible all Indian persons, and other people as well, affected by the regulations that have been imposed by the South African Medical and Dental Council in that regard.

I would like to ask the hon the Minister why, in fact, he has not prosecuted this matter—and I use that word advisedly—with his colleague the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development as well. I wish to remind the hon the Minister that he himself was party to a resolution that was taken before this House. He himself motivated that resolution. As I understand it, there was a report which detailed a meeting that took place in Pretoria some time in October/November last year, at which meeting representations ought to have been made by the hon the Minister in that regard. Representations ought to have been made by the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development. However, I was informed that the meeting really took place between representatives of Omega on the one hand, and the South African Medical and Dental Council on the other hand.

I see the hon the Minister is shaking his head. I have a great deal of respect for him and I accept that that was not so. However, I merely wish to tell the hon the Minister that this is what my information is. Since the hon the Minister has failed to raise this issue again in this House, I wish to bring it to his attention. I await his reply in that regard.

In recent months a great deal of concern has been expressed by interested parties, including social workers, on the question of child abuse. I believe that the hon the Minister is very much aware of what I am referring to. I would like to ask him whether, in fact, he has taken any steps to identify child abuse in schools, for instance, by consultation with his colleague, the hon the Minister of Education and Culture, whereby it is made compulsory that all teachers who have evidence of child abuse, report such abuse.

Child abuse has reached such alarming proportions in our community that I believe it behoves all of us, including the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare and the hon the Minister of Education and Culture, to do everything that we can to rectify this problem. I would appreciate it very much if the hon the Minister were to take the lead in that regard, and insist that the hon the Minister of Education and Culture also does something in that regard.

Mr Chairman, following immediately after the hon member for Springfield, I must say that I would agree with his suggestion to the hon the Minister that in future the Budget Speech be short and a report be submitted. I think this is a worthwhile suggestion to all departments in our Ministries. It is difficult for hon members to carry around and digest 39 or 40 pages of written material. The hon member for Montford yesterday asked the hon the Minister to take a breather for his own welfare! I think this is one of the considerations.

A casual flick through the pages of the hon the Minister’s printed speech had me very worried yesterday. Until I read the paragraph in full on page 35, a casual glance told me that there was a provision made for escort fees! [Interjections.] Fortunately, after reading it, it read in full that, and I quote:

I am pleased to say that this left the credibility of the hon the Minister and his department intact.

I believe criticism can be levelled against the hon the Minister and his department because it appears that the hon the Minister and his department are totally oblivious of the existence of Indians outside Durban and Natal. When one looks at the case of the appointment of district surgeons—they could be full-time or sessional—one reads in the hon the Minister’s Budget Speech that we have eight full-time and 10 sessional medical officers in Natal at the moment. No mention is made of the hon the Minister’s intentions and his future plans and appointments in the Transvaal. I do not know why this is the case. I asked previously in another debate whether the doctors in the Transvaal are unwilling or simply not capable of the task. I believe this department has to provide services throughout the country, so let us do just that—let us provide for all Indians and not on a selective provincial basis.

Another area that I wish to highlight is mentioned on page 7 of his Budget Speech regarding the appointment of four school social workers in Phoenix. According to his speech it was done—

the use of alcohol and drugs among school-going children.

These appointments are welcomed and they are in fact overdue. What I would like to ask the hon the Minister, however, is why they are all situated in Phoenix? Does the drug menace only prevail in Phoenix? Are areas such as Lenasia, Actonville, Laudium, Ladysmith and others not affected by the drug menace? [Interjections.] There is still time to make adjustments and I would strongly recommend to the hon the Minister that until such time as further appointments are made the services of the four social workers who are earmarked for this particular area should be utilised on a provincial basis.

As we are all aware, the drug problem is assuming alarming proportions and those responsible for the introduction of these school social workers are to be commended. The drug menace is causing untold misery and heartache to families where children have been baited by heartless cranks, as I would call them, to become hooked on a habit of drug-taking. No community is safe from the peddlers. I request the hon the Minister to introduce an awareness programme to educate people of all ages and to make them aware of the problems of drugs. Parents as well as children need to be informed of the dangers of tasting sherbets and of accepting sweets from strangers.

There is another point that I wish to raise with the hon the Minister and I know that he will say that he expected me to do this but I have to do it out of necessity. It concerns the community health centre in Actonville. I want to place on record our thanks and appreciation to the hon the Minister for having allocated R1 million for the erection of this community health centre. I also want to place on record the fact that I was recently informed by a source outside the Ministry that plans are to be drawn up for a community health centre utilising an amount of R150 000.

I drew the hon the Minister’s attention to this and, to his credit, he immediately put a stop to those projected plans. The reason for this is that we have a million rand, so why should we go for a R150 000 project that will not even serve the requirements of yesterday.

I subsequently received a letter from the hon the Minister, and I believe the hon member for Actonville has received a similar letter, dated 12 April 1988. To this letter the hon the Minister attached sketch plans of the proposed health centre in Actonville. I immediately addressed a letter to the hon the Minister in which I stated the following, and I should like to place the contents of this letter on record:

Among the reasons for requesting this is that if the proposals as per sketch plan are accepted, it would mean a transfer of the present Wattville Clinic, which is outdated, with the addition of offices only for social workers in the new premises.

The most important aspect here was that no provision has been made for emergency facilities as envisaged in the resolution of the Actonville Management Committee. The centre is intended to serve the needs of approximately 30 000 people who do not have a hospital in the immediate area of Actonville or Rynsoord. The nearest is the Boksburg-Benoni Hospital.

We are looking for emergency facilities that could assist the people even as a temporary measure, before they can be transported to hospital.

Before I resume my seat I want to take this opportunity of placing on record …

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

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

Mr Chairman, I am indebted to the hon member for Montford.

Mr Chairman, I had the occasion this morning to talk to someone in Heidelberg in the Transvaal who informed me about an incident that occurred there last night and which was also reported in The Argus this afternoon.

Last night the Moslem congregation was praying in the mosque at Heidelberg which is outside the residential area. It is the original mosque that was built when the Indians lived in Heidelberg town. Some crank or other threw a canister of teargas through the window of this mosque last night whilst the congregation was praying.

The AWB!

I would not say the AWB. We do not have proof so we cannot level accusations at anybody.

However, I want to place on record our disgust at this attack on a peaceful congregation, people who at the time were engaged in doing nothing more than observing their duties to the Almighty.

I have taken the liberty—and I believe it was my duty after having been informed of this—of talking to Captain Du Plessis who immediately contacted Major Visser in Heidelberg and the matter is being investigated. According to The Argus “… about 200 worshippers aged between 3 and 87” were engaged in praying. According to Mr Goolam Laher the congregation first thought that a bomb had been fired into the mosque. I have been told that it was a grenade or a canister that was thrown through the window. I quote:

I mention this to record our disgust. We cannot condone this sort of behaviour, be it perpetrated at a place of worship belonging to the Muslim faith, the Christian faith, the Hindu faith or any other faith. It is enshrined in the Constitution of South Africa that we have freedom of religion, and I would appeal to the members of the South African Police Force to do their utmost to bring those responsible for this act to book.

Mr Chairman, I want to associate myself with the sentiments expressed by the hon member Mr Y I Seedat. I do not think a matter of that nature will be welcomed by anybody, of whatever faith or religion, particularly in South Africa where we have freedom of religion. We want to state very strongly how reprehensible we find this kind of development.

I have been listening very intently to the submissions made by the various hon members in this House yesterday and this afternoon, and the concern they have expressed in regard to matters affecting their areas and constituencies. Having said that, I should like to express my appreciation to the hon the Minister and his department for the plan of action they have devised concerning which they reported to this House last year and again this year.

However, what hon members of this House ought to be addressing is not what the hon the Minister has not been able to do, but rather why he has not been able to do those things that they are demanding of him in this House. I believe that this is the most important issue. I cannot see anyone faulting the motivation or the plans of the hon the Minister and his department. However, their limitations in regard to their activities are imposed as a result of a constraint on the availability of funds. If they had the funds we should be able to have far greater satisfaction, not only here but in our community as well.

I want to come back to the fact that once again, the formula devised with a view to arriving at equitable allocations to all the race groups, places underdeveloped and developing communities at a disadvantage, and that disadvantage is manifesting itself again here—it runs through the report.

My plea to the members of the Ministers’ Council as well as the Chairman is that they need to make representations to the effect that until and unless the historical imbalances which exist and which have to be addressed are resolved, any formula is going to get any Minister sitting in that position, into trouble; there is no question about that.

What is more, the responsibilities of the hon the Minister and his department have immediate repercussions, in most cases in the lower income group in our community. Consequently their cries and pain have made and will make a profound impression wherever these things are highlighted. Unfortunately, we can go on year after year and these shortcomings will be even more eloquently addressed in this House; but this is not solving, nor will it solve the problem. That is why I think that we as a House should be united and should convey the message to the authorities that here a good job of work is being done under financial constraints and under difficult circumstances, and unfortunately the shortcomings that are expressed by members of Parliament do not adequately recognise the plan of action that has been mooted by this department to address the health and welfare services of the whole spectrum of our South Africa society.

I want to refer to some of the ideas that the hon the Minister has canvassed in his report. He spoke about the need to carry out social work programmes in schools, but he does not have the means to do so. However, the House of Representatives has been able to address this problem to some extent and, in fact, 38 workers are presently serving 58 schools. I take it that this must be primarily concentrated in areas where the scholars are from communities in the lower income group, because the problem will be greater there. It probably manifests itself to such a degree so as to result in some priority being given to it. Then there is the intention to move from case work to preventative services. After all, case work means attempting to cure an illness and preventative work is intended to ensure that the case work does not arise. I believe that prevention is better than cure and once again I believe that this is a very meaningful approach to the problem. Still, without workers or money this will also be an idle wish, although it is something which needs to be addressed.

I also want to refer to the fact that lots of posts have been identified. Posts were identified even when I happened to be the Minister of the Budget, but those posts are not a reality and as long as they remain vacant, we will not have the qualified personnel to address the situation and to extend some of the services that are being mooted. Obviously this once again is one to the financial restraints.

Mention was made of the inadequate pensions. Personally I think that we can go on talking about this in parrot fashion, year in and year out. This does not help, unless we want to get our names reported in Hansard. I believe we should go further than that. Until and unless the historical imbalances are addressed we will find ourselves in the same position. It would be unfair to single out the Ministers’ Council or any particular hon Minister for a situation that presently exists. I do not get any joy from putting someone against the wall in a situation like this. It does not matter how eloquently one debates the issue. The answer is simply that as long as the man has no money, he has problems and those problems will be visiting all of us.

Concerning pensions, it is a well-known fact that until 15 or 16 years ago most Indian workers who were employed anywhere were just not considered for pensions. What the department is at present doing, amounts to issuing alms for the sins of the employers of yesteryear. They exploited our labour, but they did nothing in return for them. Here once again let us attempt to contribute towards resolving the issue. The sooner pensions are made compulsory, the better it is going to be. Then there will be no new people coming into the basket and hopefully each year the number of people dependent on the Ministry will be reduced. This is the real answer. If people are not prepared to contribute towards a pension scheme, they must accept that contingency and live with the risks inherent in such thinking. We live in a modern world where there are many large pension schemes in this country. Many people now benefit from those schemes. I do not see any reason why pensions should not be spread over the entire community. I concede that maybe initially in certain categories employers might have to make a larger contribution than the employee himself, because the deduction from his salary might impair his ability to supply the needs of his family. The challenge has to be answered. There has to be a compulsory pension scheme. How we address that problem in regard to different people, is a matter that can be resolved if there is a desire to do so.

However, I believe that as long as he leave the door open to more and more people who, after giving the best years of their life working for different employers, are left to fend for themselves at the end of that period, his problems are going to continue to multiply and no kind of appeal in this House will resolve that issue. I therefore believe that question must be addressed.

I now come to the Valley View Place of Safety and I am pleased to learn that there are plans afoot to replace this institution. However, I want to ask why we do not consider the possibility of setting up this new institution in a place away from that dark corner. I do not believe that is the best place to build a place of safety. [Interjections.]

Cool Air has already been built.

Yes, but all I am saying is that any new plan should allow for a building site in an area where it will be congenial and conducive to these young people breathing fresh air, and not motor car exhaust gases, so that they may see sober people walking around them and so that they may emerge from this atmosphere and improve their lot. I think the place of safety has served its purpose, but now that we are the masters of our own destiny let us identify some place where there are trees, flowers, valleys and some streams. This would be more in keeping with the kind of work one wants to do there.

My final plea is that it should be the resolve of this entire House to indicate to the Ministers’ Council and to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council that the Minister’s job cannot be done and neither can the departmental work be executed in the fashion in which we want it to be executed unless and until adequate financial resources are placed at his disposal. Until the historical imbalances with regard to health services and welfare are remedied, the formula can be used but the additional resources required must be made available to the hon the Minister.

Mr Chairman, I wish to associate myself with those hon members who complimented the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare on his detailed report yesterday afternoon, having regard to the fact that the needs of the community had to be satisfied to the greatest possible extent with the resources at our disposal. Therefore, all of us must commend the hon the Minister for what he has been able to do for the community.

The hon the Minister visited the rural towns of the Transvaal and resolved some of their problems. I wish to thank the hon the Minister for this.

The hon the Minister also provided relief measures for the needy at the time of the floods in Natal and has always responded to any calls to help us in the Transvaal. The only exception is the Orange Free State, where he forgot there were about 50 Indian families living.

I should like to inform this House that through his regional offices in Johannesburg, the hon the Minister has investigated numerous cases of pension grants and has solved them for me, especially in the Palmridge area.

I should like to bring something to the notice of the hon the Minister and ask him whether he could help to solve a problem that I have already mentioned in this House in a previous debate. We have approximately 35 pensioners who are about to be evicted because of their arrear rentals. When these pensioners were moved to Palmridge no provisions were made in so far as homes for pensioners were concerned. They had to move into sub-economic homes, for which the rental is R50 per month. That is besides the water and electricity bills they have to pay. I should appreciate it if the hon the Minister were able to help these families.

I should like to refer to a letter which the hon the Minister has sent to me and to clarify an explanation by the hon the Minister.

I welcome the fact that old-age pensioners can consult private doctors and the cost be borne by this department. However, I would like the hon the Minister to explain to us how one should go about it if a pensioner is sick and cannot go to a magistrate for authorisation. What provision could be made for that pensioner to go to a private practitioner? I would like to read from the letter the hon the Minister wrote to me, and I quote:

I would now like to deal with the Orange Free State. On our visit to the Orange Free State, the Goldfields, we found that there were about 50 Indian families living there. The problem is that while we were inspecting in loco, we have heard from numerous Indian families that they have a problem as far as hospitals are concerned. At one of our meetings of the Standing Committee on Provisional Affairs, a question was raised by one of the members, which I would like to quote:

This is the reply we received, and I quote:

I feel that the hon the Minister should investigate this and also discuss it with his counterpart, the hon the Minister of Health Services in the House of Assembly, so that we will be able to assist these Indian families when they get sick. The only alternative is that they go to the Transvaal for treatment.

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

Order! Unfortunately I cannot grant that.

Mr Chairman, I want to agree with many others that the hon the Minister has been co-operative and sympathetic to problems. I am also aware that he has a good department, manned by able people. I will, however, be making constructive criticisms which I do not intend to be understood as casting aspersions on the hon the Minister or his department.

Yesterday the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare presented a detailed account of the state of affairs in his department. The hon the Minister of course admitted that he had the ordeal of reading 38 pages, in addition to several loose leaflets. In the process hon members of this House were also subjected to an unusual ordeal. This, in my opinion, was unnecessary.

I think there is an anomaly in the presentation of Budget speeches in the House of Delegates. The speech as such should be separated from the report, which makes the speech unwieldy. The report could then be released weeks ahead and studied by hon members. I think that will promote a more realistic and fruitful discussion in this House than releasing the speech, shall I say, in the last few moments before the actual speech is delivered. Many of the general affairs Ministers and their departments effectively do this. I would like the Ministers’ Council to give consideration to this suggestion which hon members will agree is reasonable and has merit.

I want to emphasise an important aspect from a general perspective, and that is that no department can render an effective service without the co-operation of the community which it serves. Consultation is both a privilege and a right to the individual, and even more to representative organisations. The communication taking place through consultation enhances willing co-operation. Unless we have this willing co-operation, we will only be scratching the surface in the welfare work, in particular.

I now come to voluntary welfare social units. If we have this kind of co-operation, this should be envisaged by people who have insight into rendering adequate social work in a community where welfare work are fast increasing and where conditions are deteriorating for various reasons. I do not wish to go into these at this stage, but welfare service units ought to flourish as in the days gone by. That can only come about if we can enlist the co-operation of the community to the fullest extent. How can this be accomplished?

Does the answer lie in advocating the own affairs concept in health and welfare areas? Can this be accomplished? I say no, because the community at large finds the own affairs system in health services abhorrent. I only have to read one paragraph from an article by Dr Ginwala, President of the Durban Indian Child and Family Welfare Society. This is what this very dedicated social worker has to say in an article in the Post of 26 February 1986, and I quote:

This is a conflict in which we find ourselves. I know sometimes hon members say that certain groups want to gain control of voluntary organisations, but besides that aspect, there is an absolute need for winning over the community and enlisting their support. After all, one can have any number of paid workers. One can attend to the curative or remedial aspect of it, but it will not help to wipe the tears from a widow’s eyes or satisfy the hunger of an orphan, let alone reducing the alarming divorce and suicide rates in our community. This can only come about by an alert and concerned community. I am not only speaking of our own community, but of the community at large in South Africa.

What was the position in the Indian community some 30, 40 years ago? We had no paid workers whatsoever, but the communities’ needs were fully satisfied. This happened because we had a community that was responsible and conscientious. We have to do far more than what we want paid workers to do.

I wish to make it known that I abhor apartheid in the health services of this country. It is repugnant to the spirit of participation in the tricameral Parliament because it was intended to use the system to dismantle the system, and not to entrench the system.

If we want to accept all the responsibilities that will be thrust upon us by giving us this institution and that institution to manage, we will find ourselves in a situation that will make us feel sorry, and the future generations will probably not pardon us for it. I want to sound a word of caution to the Ministers’ Council that apartheid affects health services in the country. For some time now health services in the country have been facing a major crisis. I want to go further and substantiate this statement. There are empty beds in some hospitals, eg the Addington Hospital and the Johannesburg General Hospital, while the situation is the opposite in Black hospitals in particular, where there are gross inadequacies and overcrowding.

Let us take the King Edward VIII Hospital as an example. It is one of Natal’s major hospitals but the patients sleep on the floor.

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

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

Mr Chairman, I am indebted to the hon member Mr Y I Seedat.

I mentioned that patients sleep on the floor in the King Edward VIII Hospital. At the R K Khan Hospital there is a shortage of staff with the result that people have to wait for some considerable time to receive attention. It is alleged that Blacks are receiving inferior medical treatment. At some Black hospitals there are not enough staff members to cope with the patients.

I want to mention another case to illustrate the discrimination that results in an inadequate service. In Natal R21,5 million is spent on the redevelopment of the New Castle Hospital for a population of 38 298 people. I know for a fact that the initial population of Montford—unfortunately the hon member for Montford is not here at the moment—was in excess of 35 000 people. Here large sums of money were spent. I want to emphasis the fact that when it comes to supplying facilities for the White community money is no problem. Yet the Phoenix Hospital will probably take another five years or more before it will be completed. I want to say that all the canons in history cannot defend the concept of own affairs. It is absolutely defenceless. If it comes to health matters, why separate the facilities on a group basis? The vaccine used on White and Black patients for the Singapore flu for example is not a differentiated vaccine. The vaccine used to treat an Indian against the Singapore flu does not need to be a separate strain or vaccine. All this shows the fallaciousness of the concept of separation in hospitals.

I think it was when the present hon Minister of the Budget held this portfolio that he made two points, firstly that he did not support own affairs and secondly that he very strongly supported the regionalisation of services. I can see the strong reasons for regionalising.

In the RSA we have umpteen systems. At present we have a system that has been fragmented into 18 separate administrations, 14 Ministers of Health and four provincial administrations. It reminds me of the catacombs of Rome; there are so many that we are left deluded.

There is a huge wastage of taxpayers’ money as a result of keeping so many departments going. Someone remarked that if Don Juan wants to keep his many concubines going he will have to find the money for his joy.

As my colleague has just indicated, I only have two minutes and I want to hasten to place some parochial matters on record.

At Shallcross a site had been identified for the development of a centre for the aged. Subsequently this allocation was withdrawn. I do not know whether the reason for this was my changing parties. The Shallcross Association for the Aged is doing commendable work and that was no encouragement. A suitable site must be allocated for the development of a centre for the aged.

I want to hasten to lend support to the point the nominated member Mr Y I Seedat brought to our attention. We have appointed four social workers in Phoenix but I can tell hon members that that only scratches the surface.

What I want to say here is that the administration must set up numerous voluntary service units. One must find some kind of activity for these people even if it is to do some kind of work for child welfare or some kind of work for the destitute. I think we must provide this amongst the young, the men and the women. If we do some kind of preliminary work throughout the country and set up these groups of people to do the work then I think it would be money well spent.

I do not want to go on to discuss any other matters here; I shall discuss them with the hon the Minister.

Mr Chairman, I wish to express my appreciation to the hon the Minister for not only presenting a very comprehensive report on all the activities undertaken by his department during the financial year under review, but also wish to express our thanks and appreciation to the Director-general, and the heads of departments and staff. [Interjections.]

Order!

They, no doubt during a very difficult period, rendered an outstanding service, perhaps not to the complete satisfaction of all the hon members of Parliament, but rather to the people who really and truly needed these services.

The period under review has been a very difficult one, particularly as a result of many unexpected natural disasters coupled with the increasing number of broken homes, drug abuse and child abuse.

The Department of Social Welfare and Pensions is a very important department and it provides a very important service to all its people. It is therefore very difficult to satisfy all the people all the time.

However, I wish to make the following comment for the hon the Minister’s observation and record. I was rather disappointed to learn that our pensioners will not be receiving an increase this year, but just a hand-out of approximately R60 as a bonus. I do not want to moralise or philosophise on this issue as many members have done lest I became emotional. I want to make an appeal at this early hour that this does not happen again. I feel a lot of money is being spent on man-made institutions at the expense of people who are suffering. Therefore I also hope that a careful revised allocation is made to the institutions that are involved in caring for children.

I also wish the hon the Minister, in consultation with the hon the Minister of Education and Culture, to urgently launch a joint effort to encourage students to take up courses in child care and social welfare. I believe they should be given bursaries as we do for our teachers in order to satisfy the needs in this area.

The programme to improve conditions at our hospitals is indeed welcome and the acceptance in principle of the plan to build the Phoenix hospital—a very long-awaited institution—is certainly most essential and I think that most of the people welcome this.

I also appeal to the hon the Minister to make urgent representations to the provincial administration to provide that pensioners do not have to pay the increased fees at hospitals—all the more so since they have not received any increase this year. I think the pensioners have budgeted for the very small increase that they do get—the amount they receive is a mere R167 per month. To them that R2 is like one or two hundred rand for any of us. Their expenditure will certainly, therefore, increase in this direction, and all the more so because they in any event have to visit the hospitals more often than many other people. That is why I am making this earnest appeal, and I should also like the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, together with the Ministers’ Council, to make these representations jointly.

I, too, agree with much of what the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said, namely that there were many stumbling blocks in many of our programmes. He was correct in saying that pensions have been denied to our people to a very large extent until recently, when very strong representations were made and the Government really came to understand what it really meant to the coffers of the State to provide such relief funds to the pensioner who has reached the age of not being able to work. It is only then, I think out of pressure and necessity, that pensions schemes for the non-Whites in this country were opened. I believe that this matter should not rest there but should be extended and expanded.

Another area in which this kind of blockage has occurred in the past is the medical sphere. Many of our people are excluded from medical aid as well. I believe it was early in 1985 that I moved a private member’s motion in this House calling upon the hon the Minister of National Health and Welfare to create a national medical aid fund for all the people of the country to enable them to benefit from medical aid. With these words I hope that the hon the Minister will follow up the good work he is doing and will also highlight some of the very important difficulties to which our community is subjected from time to time.

Mr Chairman, I want to take the opportunity in this Health Services and Welfare Vote to raise a few points.

First of all I am very pleased to note that post offices are being used as distribution points for pensions and welfare grants. I welcome this decentralisation process. However, there are certain deficiencies in the operation of these schemes.

As many of the recipients are old and feeble, they cannot stand and wait for long hours in a queue to collect their money. No seating accommodation or other small comforts are provided. There are no toilet facilities, even for emergency cases. Moreover, there is not enough staff at the post office to cope with some of the work.

I do not advocate that pension distribution at these places should be stopped. On the contrary, I think we have a problem, and that problem has to be addressed. I think we should put our heads together and solve that problem. The problem can be solved. We must appreciate the fact that the post office is doing a job of work and the staff are trying to accommodate these pensioners to the greatest possible extent.

I have a suggestion to make. Pension distribution could be staggered over a number of days, depending on the population of the area. Small numbers could come and be paid sooner, and they could leave immediately. There would be no need to wait, and no need for the other facilities. However, I would definitely advocate that such facilities be made available when the new distribution points are established.

I wish to record my appreciation and thanks to the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare for his co-operation in matters which I brought to his attention. I can tell this House that I enjoy the best co-operation from the hon the Minister. His replies are always prompt and the attention is personal. I am sure that I echo the sentiments of many other MPs in this House. I believe in giving credit where it is due. I must commend that the hon the Minister does not see me as a member of Solidarity or of the Opposition, nor does he favour requests from his own party members above opposition members’ requests. He has the welfare of all the people at heart.

I would like to refer to the 1987 floods—in particular to the damage done in the Merebank area. I praise the hon the Minister for all the assistance he has given me as well as the organisations in Merebank in that regard. The Merebank victims were the first to be compensated for their losses and that fact is on record. I have always mentioned to people who have been affected that they will get the utmost co-operation from me and the hon the Minister. Copies of my correspondence with the department were available to these people and generated a great deal of contentment.

On page 11 of the hon the Minister’s report he mentions the social welfare relief and I would like to endorse the statement made by the hon the Minister. I quote:

I had occasion to take some very desperate cases to the department. I was gratified to find that those affected families had full stomachs to start with and were given some hope. That was immediately given to them. I very rarely take up such cases, but where deserving I do. I want to endorse the attention that was given and the statements made by the hon the Minister concerning the work that his department is doing. May he keep up the good work.

Mr Chairman, a semblance of sanity prevails in this debate when the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition acknowledges the responsibility of my colleague, the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare. Following the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition’s remarks, I want to say that I agree with him that finances dictate the delivery of services and the delivery of goods by the Department of Health Services and Welfare.

The take-over of services by the House of Delegates did not actually mean that my colleague became a decision-maker in relation to general affairs.

He has actually taken over the responsibility for rendering services on a community basis and in particular, on a regional basis.

[Inaudible.]

Having said that this is being done on a regional basis, I shall prove it.

You will have to.

“Geographical” means regional, if I may put it that way.

They are different words.

Hon members will recall that in the developing areas, and particularly in Chatsworth and Phoenix, certain services—particularly welfare services—did not exist. The Ministers’ Council has recognised the dearth of these services.

Mr Chairman, having regard to the hon the Minister’s statement regarding the non-existence of services in Phoenix and Chatsworth, would he deny that the Blind Society, the Child Welfare Society, Fosa and the Association for the Aged have been functioning for many, many years in both of those townships?

Mr Chairman, I am sorry if I gave the wrong impression. I was referring to the non-existence of official services, or State services. However, I do recognise and I am ad idem with the hon member for Reservoir Hills that services of this nature have been, and are continuing to be rendered by the child welfare and family welfare agencies in the area and we, the Indian community, in particular have a proud record of assisting those agencies financially, morally and physically—particularly morally and physically—without expecting any return for our services. That augurs very well for the Indian community.

I should like to refer to those psychiatrically ill people who receive their services through my hon colleague’s Ministry. Our cry has always been that psychiatric facilities for our community have been neglected and that insufficient wards were available in the present hospitals to serve that need. Having that in mind and in pursuance of the points that were raised in relation to this particular service that is required, my hon colleague has negotiated for, and has succeeded in obtaining a place for the psychiatrically ill. Therefore, they have negotiated for a piece of land for a home at Verulam. This will therefore serve the needs of the community. It will not necessarily only serve the people of Verulam, but others as well. Therefore to say or to infer that there has been some neglect on the part of my hon colleague in this connection, is unfair comment.

We are aware that the Valley View Place of Safety was inadequate and that it was overcrowded, and therefore a second place of safety has been established at Cool Air in Dalton. I think this is progress.

With regard to the rehabilitation centre being planned in Newlands, once again this will not necessarily only serve the people of Durban, Newlands or Phoenix, or those of Natal for that matter, but will serve patients in need of these services throughout the Republic of South Africa.

One cannot afford rehabilitation centres, which are an expensive exercise, at strategic points throughout the country. Certainly, this will for a considerable period look after the need of our community regarding rehabilitation centres.

I want to say that hon members of this House must realise the importance of the services rendered by the Department of Health Services and Welfare. The flood damage, and the ravaged areas of Natal particularly, during and after the heavy rainfalls of September, presented a great problem and there was immediate need for officials of the department to be present to offer relief to our people and others. The hon member for Reservoir Hills unfortunately is not here, but when these officials of the department went to these areas, they had to perform services to cater for the immediate needs of the people in the area. They were there at all times to offer help. Therefore we need to recognise the services of our officials who, under constraints and restraints, have done their very best.

It is very unfair to stand up in this House and point accusing fingers at the personnel or officials, because they are not in this House to defend themselves. Therefore, with respect, when we speak of professional, qualified people in our department who use vehicles and conveniences for the purposes of performing their duty, we should not be saying that they should be getting off their backs, as it were, and work. I think that is unfair comment and I believe that if such comments were made, they were not meant to be of a condemnatory nature or an attack on the integrity of, in particular, the doctors.

Again, I want to say that the task of my colleague, the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare, is not an easy one, nor is that of all those who serve in the ministry. We should remember that Rome was not built in a day, but certainly it was built. Therefore I want to congratulate my colleague on work well done and I also want to compliment his officials in the ministry for their dedication and devotion.

Mr Chairman, my voice is not good today and therefore I will not deliver a lengthy speech. However, I want to take this opportunity of also placing on record my appreciation, on behalf of the Ministers’ Council, for the excellent work that is being done by the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare and the chief director and all the officials of his department in respect of bringing health and welfare services to the people.

If one takes stock of the health and welfare services which existed prior to 20 August 1984, and considers the tremendous progress and spread which was effected by the Administration: House of Delegates, I can say that we have been of service, not only to the Indian community, but to the larger community of South Africa.

As the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition quite rightfully pointed out, if we are not able to extend the services to the areas where we want services to be rendered, the problem does not lie with the Ministry of Health Services and Welfare or with the Administration: House of Delegates, but with the central Treasury in respect of its inability to provide sufficient funds in order to enable us to provide the services.

We are criticised if we take certain decisions. Our criticism generally is that there is political interference. I honestly believe that, like education, there is a clear distinction between the duties of the political arm and the duties of the administrative and profession arm.

This question of disability grants crops up regularly. No non-medical person can take a decision on an application for a disability grant. This is done by doctors and the final decision is also taken by people who have qualified in the medical field. One must not expect an administrative head, who is not a professional person, or a Minister, who is a politician, to do the work of medical people.

Mr Chairman, why do applicants have to wait for as long as 30 days or six weeks before they are examined? Some people have died before they could be examined for the disability grants. Their names are put on a list.

Sometimes they have to wait for six months.

My hon colleague says that they sometimes have to wait for six months!

I am sure that the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare will be able to give the hon member a suitable reply when that issue is debated. However, I wish to give the hon member the assurance that if ever there was a department that performs a dynamic role, it is the Department of Health Services and Welfare.

We have dealt with the dental faculty at the University of Durban-Westville. My hon colleague dealt with the Phoenix Hospital. As I indicated in another debate, the decision to establish a hospital is a general affair. It is not an own affair. However, once the Cabinet takes a decision as a general affair, the funds will have to be provided by our own affairs administration. During his main address, the hon the Minister indicated that all the necessary clearances are given for the establishment of a hospital in Phoenix. A memorandum is being prepared to go to the Cabinet. I am certain that with all the obstacles cleared, the Cabinet will most certainly approve the necessary funds to establish a hospital in Phoenix.

The hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare, together with the hon the Minister of the Budget, is now examining a five year plan for health and welfare services to the members of the Indian community. Once we have the details of this plan, and we get the necessary blessing of the Treasury, we will unfold this plan for the benefit of our community.

And a hydro health centre for us!

The hon member for Newholme wants a hydro health centre. I want to suggest that we should be disciplined. In an age where there is a rising cost in the production of food, in an age where the health of our nation is deteriorating, we should encourage every South African to fast for one day per week. It is simple. It does not cost money. Can we have an exercise? The hon member for Newholme referred to the establishment of a hydro. We should ask every South African to fast for one day per week. The country will save and we will have a more healthy community. South Africans should also concentrate on eating the right food.

For one month a year!

I said in another debate that God has created the human body with the necessary computer to handle any situation. If people will only accept that, there will not be any need for the hon member for Montford to talk such nonsense in this debate.

The hon member will agree with me that when one has a viral flu one goes to the doctor, who gives one all the medicine under the sun, but the hon member for Montford knows there is no successful medical treatment for a viral flu.

Another matter that I want to deal with is the high cost of medicine and medical treatment. I sent for some medicine the other day. The pharmacist only had to take some tablets off a shelf but he charged R50 just to read the name. I think we should establish action committees. Most of these professional people are patrons of the UDF and that is why the UDF and its front organisations do not form action committees when there is a rise in medical tariffs and a rise in the price of drugs.

I want to say in my capacity as the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Delegates that in spite of the negative comments made yesterday, one must give recognition to the positive work that is done by this Ministry and this department. I am proud of the Department of Health Services and Welfare and of the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare in the House of Delegates.

Mr Chairman, if the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition had spoken earlier on in this debate I believe a great deal of the criticism levelled at the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare—I believe it was uncalled-for and unnecessary—would not have been delivered. Many hon members had a great deal to say about what the hon the Minister should have done but did not do.

I want to pose a question to hon members on both sides of the House this afternoon, namely: Are they fulfilling the duties for which they are paid? My answer is “no”. Just look at the empty seats in this House. It is a disgrace. [Interjections.] I want to call upon the hon leaders of all the parties in this House to instil discipline among their members. The least that hon members can do is to stay in the Chamber for the duration of the debates. [Interjections.]

A great deal has been said on financial constraints. I know for a fact that the Defence Force spent something like R44 million in Angola during their operations there in the week 1-7 November 1987. Now that they are pulling out from there, I feel that some of that money should be channelled to this House to provide the much-needed services.

The current trend in Government policy will almost certainly exacerbate the problems in health care. This policy has two particular aspects. Firstly, there is the further division of health authorities into White, Indian and Coloured own affairs, general affairs, as well as different authorities for the ten Bantustans. Secondly, there is the move towards increased privatisation in health services, housing and welfare. The existing inequity in health services is likely to be multiplied many times over in an attempt to fragment the population even more. It must be stressed that in a country like ours with such wide disparities between Blacks and Whites with regard to living and working conditions, income, education, housing, welfare, political power and virtually every facet of life, privatisation divides and worsens the differences in health services.

Passing the burden of maintaining health to communities who struggle against such heavy odds is not only foolhardy but immoral in the extreme. Individuals can certainly be responsible for their own health if they have the means to do so. In the absence of this the inadequate provisions for Blacks will increase. It can also be argued with conviction that this divestment will retard economic growth and development.

To aggravate these difficulties it has been shown that the proportion of the Budget allocated to health services fell between 1971 and 1981.

Experience in the USA suggests that the privatisation of health services leads to excessive profits, higher costs, lower wages and fewer workers as well as less services for those in need.

Many, but obviously not all of the distortions introduced into the profession of health care by the unique racialist policies of South Africa could be corrected straight away by a national health service scheme and I urge the authorities to investigate such a scheme. I believe it would be for the betterment of all South Africans.

There are substantial inequalities among Black, White and urban-rural divisions when one compares spending, the distribution of doctors and availability of hospital beds. In 1985 R451 per capita was spent on Whites and only R115 on Blacks. There was one doctor for every 2 320 people nationally, but only one for every 33 000 people in the homelands. There were 1,6 hospital beds for every 1 000 people in the homelands, 2,5 per 1 000 Blacks outside the homelands and 4,8 for every 1 000 Whites.

I just want to quote from an article from last Saturday’s Mercury under the heading “Doctors slam crush at Baragwanath Hospital”:

This is a disgrace.

I want to move on to my constituency. I want to thank the provincial administration for having opened a new primary health care clinic which is run by nursing staff. This will assist the poor and the sick who will not have to travel to Scottburgh. It will save time and money.

I am pleased to note that Indian doctors are now employed at the G J Crookes Hospital but I cannot understand why no Indian nurses are considered.

I also want to discuss perisions. Can provision not be made for the pensionable age of widows to be reduced as many widows, particularly in the Indian community, cannot find gainful employment. Indian women have traditionally been housewives. Many widows are left destitute and do not receive support from their grown-up children who themselves may be struggling to make ends meet. The husbands of these widows have left them nothing and there is nothing for them in the way of pensions etc. I believe that we must seriously consider legislation to ensure that all forms of employment carry a compulsory pension fund so that widows are not left destitute.

I have a problem with unmarried mothers. [Interjections.] But the hon the Minister does not want to look after them! I have a couple of cases in Umzinto where unmarried mothers have been receiving grants because the person responsible cannot be traced. However, recently the grants have been stopped and the replies I get from the hon the Minister’s department is …

Just now you were complimenting the hon the Minister and now you are criticising him!

I am only highlighting a minor issue.

We have these social welfare officers that go out and investigate cases. I do not know whether they do the work of a social welfare officer or rather that of a detective agency. It says here:

Must these poor children suffer for the doings of their parents?

Finally, I want to thank the hon the Minister for finalising the opening—which is to occur shortly—of a full-fledged Indian Affairs Department in Umzinto which will deal with pensions, passports, births, deaths etc.

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

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

Order! The hon member for Umzinto may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Chairman; I am also indebted to the hon Whip on that side.

This facility will include a dental clinic. There has been a crying need for this facility since the days of the SAIC and I have been amplifying this need to this House year after year. I am very happy that it will now be a reality. I wish to congratulate and compliment the hon the Minister on presenting a comprehensive report containing many positive aspects. I wish to place on record my very sincere thanks and appreciation to the hon the Minister and his department for the courtesy accorded me at all times.

Mr Chairman, I think the work done by the hon the Minister and his department has been recognised in this House, and particularly the manner in which the hon the Minister and his officials have gone about tackling the problems facing the Indian community in this particular instance. I think we all commend him for this and we commend the work done.

I think we are missing a very important point, and that is the fact that the Minister and his department have pointed out to this House—I think we should thank him for this—their inability to provide all the kinds of services in regard to health and welfare if sufficient funds are not forthcoming. I think that what is also encouraging is that they have been honest enough to mention the particular fields in which they will not be able to provide this kind of service. Even if one only takes into account—and I think this is a matter which the Ministers’ Council must take up—the point mentioned on page 17, namely that the household subsistence level of Indians in 1985 was R386.78 per month, while in the same year 22% of Indians had a monthly income of R400, this indicates that we are going to have a very difficult task ahead of us, particularly if this department is to be able to meet the needs of maintenance, welfare grants and all the accompanying subsidies. This is so because the per capita income of the Indian community has not grown substantially, in line with the escalation in the cost of living in this country. Therefore he has already made it known that in many fields he is going to have a tremendous problem, and Treasury will therefore have to understand that unless we do not only redress the imbalances, but also take into account the reality that 22% of Indians in that year earned a mere R400 per month, there will have to be a greater drain on the Treasury and the Budget of the hon the Minister.

I want to cover two aspects in this particular report. One is that I want to issue a word of warning to the hon the Minister and his department and to this particular House that up to now the Indian community has been a self-help community.

It has been recognised that welfare work started within the Indian community itself. This does not mean that we are not recognising all the work done by the other communities. So far we have been able to look after the handicapped, aged and other categories of disabled people. It has only been very recently that this has become impossible, in view of the per capita income of the individual and the increasing number of cases.

I am unhappy about the future plans to meet these contingencies and problems that are going to face us. If one looks in particular at the category of the aged, with which I have been closely involved, we see that in 1985 there were 24 800 of these people, and by 1987 this figure was estimated at 27 000. By the year 2000 it will be 49 900 and by 2020 about 81 000. We are going to have a very serious problem, because I do not see that we are planning ahead to meet the needs and the care of the aged, let alone the disparity as far as the pensions are concerned. This year there was only a 3% increase in the pensions, which comes to R5 per month, whereas inflation is in the region of 15% or 16%. Then there is the question of rent and the cost of living as far as household commodities are concerned.

I just want to sound a warning, because the aged have to a large extent up to now been protected by the philosophy among the Indian community, that we do not show our weaknesses and do not expose ourselves to the community if there is a problem in our household. The aged up to now have been living either with our extended families or with the children in the townships which were created by the ideology of group areas. The aged are therefore having a tremendously difficult task in meeting their needs. We will have to provide adequately.

It is self-evident that only 155 inmates are being looked after, with a total of 27 000 pensioners who are receiving old-age pensions. Unfortunately survey figures in this sphere are not available, but hon members could look at the statistics. Over the past five years the HSRC did carry out a survey which highlights the kind of problems that the aged are experiencing. The President’s Council has produced a Report on the Socio-Economic and Spatial Implications of Ageing which is to be debated, so that the concern shown by the Government will have to be taken seriously. In this regard the President’s Council’s report states, and I quote:

Therefore I wish to emphasise that it is essential that satisfaction of all the needs, including accommodation, social care and health services, which have important financial implications for all concerned, be taken seriously.

I would like to sound another warning in respect of the fact that up to now we have not been able to expose the handicapped in our community. Although we have recently established very well-planned institutions for which this department must be complimented, in terms of the hon the Minister’s own submission in his report we know that the financial situation is going to impede his progress as far as preventative and other care is concerned. We do not want the handicapped to suffer.

For that reason, at the A M Moolla School in Phoenix, the Council for Advancement of Special Education, of which I was previously the assistant secretary, was resurrected over the weekend because there is concern about this and apparently it has been brought to the attention of welfare institutions that with regard to their per capita subsidy or the amount of money that will be made available for after care, there will be only a very small increase or no increase at all. Apparently, certain posts will not be filled.

It is on behalf of those people who are concerned with this, and who are the only ones who will know how much is involved in caring for the handicapped, that I want to make the appeal in my concluding statement today that the hon the Minister must take into account that whatever the category of handicap—even age is a handicap—the Treasury will have to ensure that sufficient funds are provided because prevention is better than cure.

I believe it is all very well to build homes for the aged, but if their health care is not looked after we shall have a great problem because, as I have said, with regard to the total number of Blacks, Whites, Coloureds and Indians, we shall have over 4 million aged in this country by the year 2000 and that will create a great problem. The Indian aged will number 81 000 and I therefore just want to make this appeal.

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.