Mr Speaker, I move:

Mr Speaker, as an amendment to the motion of the hon the Leader of the House I move:

Mr Speaker, I do not think the hon the Leader of the House will have any problem accepting this amendment because, after all, that is the way we dealt with the Standing Rules last year. What is more, the report is drawn up in the form of rules. It would therefore make a great deal of sense, and of course also be more democratic, after we have discussed the report, to have a Committee stage to deal with and debate the respective rules seriatim.

The hon the Leader of the House is a democrat, and here we are dealing with the rules of the game in a democracy. I therefore do not foresee his having any difficulty dealing with it on this basis so that the House will have the benefit of dealing with, debating and answering for the rules one by one in Committee.

Before discussing the merits of the motion moved by the hon the Leader of the House any further, I merely want to express, once more, on behalf of this side of the House, our dissatisfaction at the way in which this was done. Mr Speaker, you will remember that on 28 and 29 March the hon the Leader of the House rose and, out of the blue, moved that these Standing Rules and Orders be discussed on Friday, 15 April, and then again on Monday, 18 April, and Tuesday, 19 April. He also moved that on those two days the House would adjourn upon its own resolution and that the Standing Committee on the Standing Rules and Orders would convene on Tuesday and Wednesday morning to discuss the Standing Rules and Orders.

The reason why this method was adopted, calling away senior hon Ministers serving on the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders because—this is our opinion, and in this we could perhaps be shown to be wrong—the hon the State President’s Vote was to have come up for discussion last week, was of course that the new Standing Rules and Orders had at any cost to be adopted before the time.

All other work had to be left in abeyance. Post-haste the Committees on Standing Rules and Orders had to adopt these Rules. Thereafter the House of Assembly had to adopt the Standing Rules and Orders so that they could be ready in time for the discussion of the hon the State President’s Vote in the Chamber of Parliament.

This is the action taken by a Government ostensibly dealing with the affairs of this country quietly, calmly and with the utmost self-confidence. It made no difference that officials had already had their programmes fully scheduled for Friday, Monday and Tuesday—I am referring to officials of the Department of National Education, officials of the Department of National Health and Population Development and officials of the Department of Transport. They had to cancel their arrangements in order to give an account of their stewardship in the course of the discussion of their Votes. And all of this because of a whim on the part of the Government to comply with the wishes of the hon the State President. That is simply not good enough. That is not how one governs a country!

Surely we know what happened with the Standing Rules and Orders last year. We know that when everything was going smoothly for the Government, the hon Rev Hendrickse played his trump card. We know, do we not, that that same possibility existed this year. So why was normal business suspended and everyone driven into a corner to get the Rules of Parliament in order, when this could have been done quietly, thoroughly and properly during the course of the session so that, if all three Houses adopted them, we could continue, in a calm and orderly fashion, with the Rules, the Standing Rules and Orders and the Order Paper?

No, that does not happen. Everything is done without consideration for others, and without discussing the matter with the hon the Leader of the House in the meeting of the Whips, an effort was made to bulldoze it through this House, to the great consternation of hon members, but particularly the hon gentleman with the trump card in his hand, which he then played to the great embarrassment of the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament, who was still fairly cross with us about what subsequently happened. We want to repeat: The people he should be cross with are the hon the State President and the hon reverend.

Last Tuesday the hon the Leader of the House was terribly upset about an alleged CP strategy. Amongst other things he said:

He was very upset about that. We dispute that, of course. Every time an NP speaker makes a similar statement, he damages his own credibility.

So it is in the story of joint sittings and joint deliberation that the NP’s lack of credibility is demonstrated most clearly. We must place this on record once more.

We begin with the opening address of the then Prime Minister at the NP Federal Council Congress in Bloemfontein on 31 July 1982. On page 13, paragraph (d), the then Prime Minister said:

With that statement hon members on the other side of the House travelled the length and breadth of the country. People were told that they should remember the incorporation of the nice word “separately”, which was music to the ears of the NP delegates gathered there in Bloemfontein. They were told that this would happen “separately”, and that even if they thought it would take place “jointly”, they should rest assured that that would never happen.

This distasteful high-mindedness did not end there. Then we came to the motion of the then hon member for Bryanston, Mr Horace van Rensburg, on 31 August 1983, and here the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is speaking.

†He is an honourable man, as are all of those in the Government benches.

*I quote from Hansard, House of Assembly, Vol 108, col 12806:

He then went further. He told the then member for Bryanston, Mr Horace van Rensburg, who was subsequently appointed to the embassy in Washington (Col 12806):

Then the hon the Minister was interrupted by interjections, and he then said:

So strong was the standpoint of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning! He went on to state:

[Interjections.] Is that an untruth about what the NP says and does, something which the hon the Leader of the House accuses us of being guilty of? These quotations from Hansard once again illustrate to us what the NP says and does.

Now the scene shifts to one year later. The setting is still this House, and the date is 2 July 1984. Again it is the same hon Minister speaking, not still speaking, but speaking again. [Interjections.] He criticised Mr Jan Hoon for having had the privilege of seeing the draft Standing Rules and Orders and then speaking about joint sittings (Hansard: House of Assembly, vol 115, col 10287):

That is apparently an iniquity. How could he ever think that there would be joint deliberations? Those are the kinds of things that NP speakers says and does, but what we say, when we speak about the things that the NP say and do, is apparently untrue.

This brief article by Mr John Scott is too priceless to ignore. It concerns joint debates. The heading is: “Joint debates? Never! Well, hardly ever”. He states:

Is that possible? Then Mr Scott quotes the hon member for Mossel Bay:

That was the hon member. He said “gogga” was scaring the baby. [Interjections.] Mr Hoon was then quoted:

Now all the hon members sitting on that side of the House are “foolish”.

The report states further:

†Then Mr Scott goes on to say:

*The hon the Leader of the House made use of those options he kept open and introduced these new Rules.

The next chapter in this drama involves the debate of 27 August 1986. Actually it is a tragicomedy. Here Mr Hoon is speaking:

He was referring to joint sittings. He went on to state:

That was what Mr Hoon envisaged at that stage, and that is precisely what is happening now.

If the CP states what the NP is saying and doing, and we quote from Hansard, the hon the Leader of the House must not blame us for declaring, from the public platforms of South Africa, that one cannot believe this Government and that their credibility is zero. They must not accuse us of a lack of credibility, because here we have a typical example of the Government’s lack of credibility. Here is proof of the fact that this was a completely correct presentation of this whole affair.

I quote the fine words of the previous Prime Minister: “Die Volksraad sal sy aard en karakter behou.” These new Rules provide for this House of Assembly to be one of four venues in which four different Committees or Houses can sit. We know, do we not, how many general affairs Acts are dealt with each year and how many own affairs Acts are dealt with. In the new dispensation, what is to become of own affairs?

In connection with this matter I want to deal with a few of this Government’s arguments. After the adoption of the resolution … [Interjections.] Yes, that is what the hon the Leader of the House says.

After the adoption of the resolution on joint debates in 1986, we had an election which the NP won. As far as we are concerned, there has been a convincing counter-response in the sense that there is still unprecedented growth in the CP. That growth is partly due to the lack of credibility of the NP.

That is what caused a Washington correspondent of Business Day, Mr Simon Barber, to state on 12 April 1988—

The Government’s standpoints, as stated from time to time—what the NP says and does—have made them “quaintly comic”. That, in a nutshell, is the situation in which the NP finds itself today.

The NP argues further that even in terms of the original Constitution debating was entrenched in section 67 of the Constitution. Our response to that is that it is a clever legal technicality which now suits the Government to a tee, but politically speaking it is not an honest statement, because that is simply not what the voters were promised.

Originally the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning himself argued that joint debates would lead to chaos. He also said that standing committees specifically did not conduct business in the glare of public scrutiny so that ideas could be exchanged in an effort to reach consensus. There is just something I want to say about this argument. It is idle talk to argue that standing committees consisting of eight NP members, two CP members, one PFP member, ie 11 Whites, as against 12 hon members of the other two Houses, can allow for comprehensive debates on a Bill or for consensus to be achieved.

Let me just say the following about this matter: If the public could be a fly on the wall in certain standing committees, they would stand amazed at the time that is so often wasted there, the irrelevancies which come up for discussion, and the inefficiency of the proceedings. How frequently do hon members not hanker for the old committee system, in terms of which meaningful deliberations could be held, and in public too, and in which the chairman of the committee laid down strict guidelines within which the debates had to take place. Our speakers on standing committees will elaborate on this aspect. On this point let me conclude by emphasising that the provisions of section 67 were never presented to the electorate of South Africa as a preview of or hypothesis for possible joint debates.

I also want to point out that we said last year that what was happening here was that the Government was moving further down the road to integration. Last week we heard from the hon the State President about the relevant plans which are to be tabled. We predicted that in the future there would be joint voting; not in the same hat, but in three hats. How long will the NP be able to withstand the pressure as far as that is concerned?

The logic of the PFP’s arguments about voting in the President’s Council taking place by throwing all the votes into one hat, or the value attached to a vote in accordance with the provisions of the Regional Services Councils Act, will in time persuade the NP to make concessions in this sphere too, as matters unavoidably develop towards a situation of one man, one vote. As this development gains momentum, opposition parties will become increasingly irrelevant in efforts to reach consensus amongst the elite of all the groups. As matters unavoidably move down the slippery slope towards integration, equally unavoidably the right to self-determination of the Afrikaner people and the Whites who identify with the Afrikaner way of life and the strivings of Afrikaners will crumble.

It is alarming that the hon the Leader of the House did not understand the implications of his statements when he said last year (Hansard, House of Assembly, col 6513):

Then my friend, the hon member for Pietersburg, said: “Voluntary imprisonment!” to which the hon the Leader of the House replied:

We used self-determination to sign away our own self-determination. That is what the hon the Leader of the House was saying. [Interjections.] That is what they are doing each and every day, and then the hon the Leader of the House is dismayed at the things we say, from the public platforms of South Africa, about their dictums, about what they say and do! It is destructive self-deception, or at least self-hypnosis, to say that one is thus acting with self-determination and still retaining one’s own right to self-determination.

This brings me to a few remarks I want to make about specific aspects of the Standing Rules and Orders. My hon friends on this side will focus on other aspects. Time will not permit me to deal with all the various facets and I merely want to highlight certain facets for which I am responsible.

I want to refer to Rule 3 (1) which provides that a House may suspend a Rule. In terms of the existing Standing Order No 197 this may only be done by motion after notice. The portion “by motion, after notice” has been left out of the new Rule. I want to know from the hon the Leader of the House why this has happened. Does it mean that provision is being made for a quick, unilateral and autocratic suspension of the Rules, without notice, as and when it suits the governing party? The hon the Leader of the House is welcome to give the answer to my question in due course.

What is the Humber of that Rule?

It is Rule 3 (1).

By way of the proposed new Rule 10, the motion of no confidence is being done away with. This provision is repeated in the form in which it was embodied in the draft rules for joint proceedings last year. Last year we also discussed this aspect very extensively. At this stage I merely want to emphasise those arguments once more. It is traditional, it is customary, it is part of a parliamentary way of life, to have a motion of no confidence at the commencement of a session, a motion in which the opposition parties have an opportunity to place the Government’s policy, what the Government is doing, under scrutiny. Then, however, it is not only the hon the State President’s Opening Address that is involved; it is every Cabinet portfolio—the conduct of every hon member of the Cabinet—which is under discussion in terms of the motion of no confidence. For 78 years now this has been the custom in South Africa. It is said that the Opening Address covers a wide field for discussion, and that it is consequently unnecessary to have a motion of no confidence. I do not know whether, strictly speaking, that is a correct interpretation of this Rule 10. Let me presuppose, however, that the hon the State President does not refer to the SABC in his Opening Address, for example, and that when the Opening Address comes up for discussion in the first week of the session, hon members express opinions about Mr Eksteen’s dismissal, which perhaps took place the previous week. Mr Speaker could then tell the hon member concerned that he should confine himself to the hon the State President’s Opening Address. That is theoretically possible. [Interjections.]

The second argument the hon the Leader of the House used was that in Britain there was also the speech from the throne and that that was the basis on which this “speech from the throne” or Opening Address would now also be debated. I would not say it was a “speech from the throne”, because I know that the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament gets extremely upset when I speak about a speech from the throne. It is an opening address. Pre-eminently it is an opening address. [Interjections.]

We say that in every respect this is a deviation from the Westminster system and that here an example from the Westminster system is again being seized upon to justify the proposal being made here.

The hon the Leader of the House then comes along with the peculiar argument about joint responsibility—that in a discussion of a motion of no confidence in the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates, it is not merely a question of resolutions being adopted while the Chairmen of the Ministers’ Councils are present which is being attacked, but the whole existing legislative system for which those chairmen did not accept responsibility when they decided to co-operate within the system. We say that the moment those hon Ministers decided to co-operate within the system, they accepted responsibility for everything embodied in the system. Surely it is ridiculous to argue: Very well, I accept the Ministership or Deputy Ministership under the system, without prejudicing my right to present the system as a defence when the Cabinet is called to account. Surely that cannot be done. It does not prevent any Cabinet Minister—in fact, as the NP Ministers themselves do—from striving for the so-called improvement of the system and for further reform, but it is quite wrong to present a system as a defence when a Cabinet member is called to account.

What is your defence against participation? You are opposed to the system, but you participate in it.

Does the hon the Leader of the House want us to boycott it?

That applies to the others too.

No, Mr Chairman, the position is that they accept … [Interjections.] Is the hon the Leader of the House going to appoint me or the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition to his Cabinet? Is he considering that possibility?

Definitely not, unless you pull yourself together!

Joking apart, I want to know whether, in theory, they would appoint such a person. [Interjections] Are they not going to appoint the hon member for Yeoville, to whom they have just given a medal, to the Cabinet?

Is it a question of sour grapes?

Apart from the CP, he is the only one who knows anything about finance in this House. [Interjections.] Would that side of the House consider that? Then we could discuss the matter. If they really wanted a coalition government to get South Africa out of the mess it is in at present, that could be considered.

Our majority is big enough. [Interjections.]

The hon the Leader of the House went further and referred to section 39 of the Constitution and the right to have a motion placed on the Order Paper by way of a private member’s motion. It is therefore not necessary, at the beginning of the session, to move a motion of no confidence and force a debate on that issue. He dismisses that established practice by saying: “Die publiek hou nie van daardie kultuur nie. Hulle hou van reguit politiek.” I cannot understand how an hon Minister who has been a member of this house for 16 years now can come to light with such an argument. We ask again: Even if provision is made in section 39 of the Constitution for a motion of no confidence, even if there is possibly such a provision in the case of private members’ motions, why deprive opposition parties of this established right too, and why would a discussion of the Opening Address—which has not necessarily been the subject of discussion in a no-confidence debate in recent years—be more acceptable. Why would that be a more outspoken form of debate? [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, I find myself differing on a number of aspects from the hon member who has just sat down. However, I do want to associate myself with his earlier comments about the procedures which have been followed to date and, in fact, about the procedure that is being followed today. Last year when we met to discuss the Standing Rules and Orders we followed what I believe was the correct procedure. We debated them rule by rule. This time, without any consultation with the Whips or the parties, the majority party has decided there can be no detailed debate. It is just a Second Reading-type debate without any opportunity for discussing or amending the individual rules.

Typical!

We want an explanation. Why was it good last year to have a rule by rule debate and why are we being denied the opportunity of doing just that this year?

As the hon member said, that side of the House does whatever it wants to do. It is a steamroller party.

I have made it clear on the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders that I am not happy at all with the way in which this whole matter has been handled over the past month. I could not help getting the feeling that the hon the State President wanted to be the first person to speak in the new Chamber of Parliament and that everything had to be geared to the State President’s Vote which was due to start last Wednesday, 20 April. Come hell or high water, every procedure had to be squeezed in such a way that the hon the State President could be the first speaker in that Chamber. [Interjections.] Is that at all logical and common sense? [Interjections.] Hon members can say what they want, but I am telling them that that is in fact what has happened.

Rules which fundamentally affected the basic rules by which this House and the other Houses were going to operate—it was not just rules for joint sittings but a revision of the rules of the individual Houses—were handed to members of the standing committee a day before the recess and the debate started a day after the recess. There were in fact two parliamentary working days available for ordinary members to get reports from their own members on the standing committee and to consider and debate this.

We all worked during the recess.

There is the clever hon Leader of the House once again. There were no copies available for ordinary members. Copies were made available to members of the standing committee on the day before we left and it was discussed on the day after we arrived. There was no opportunity whatsoever for ordinary members to consider these rules. There was no opportunity for them to make an input or for the caucuses to have a meaningful discussion and debate on the individual rules because the hon the State President had to inaugurate the Great Hall on 20 April. It was written all over their faces that that was what it was all about.

When we came back the major debate of the year other than the No-confidence Debate, the Budget Debate, started on the Monday. On the Tuesday at the height of the Budget Debate and the Wednesday when the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition was speaking most of the senior members should have been closeted in the other building discussing the Standing Rules and Orders. I think the chairman of that committee who happens to be Mr Speaker must have been embarrassed at the attendance. We sat through till, I think, ten o’clock on the Wednesday evening. At one stage I counted the members present and if I remember correctly there were three members of the House of Assembly and two or three members of the other Houses. Apart from the fact that there were very few people there the hon Chief Whip of Parliament was trying to negotiate deals with the Chief Whip of one of the other parties to see whether this matter could go through.

You are talking nonsense now.

The debate on certain rules was even adjourned so that the Whip of one of the parties could go and speak to his leader to see if some arrangement could be entered into.

Not certain rules, only one.

The one was enough.

I was embarrassed, and if the public of South Africa had had a television camera there and had seen how the senior committee of this Parliament sorted out the rules and regulations for the conduct of the affairs of this Parliament they would have been shocked into disbelief. The hurry was that something had to happen on 20 April. I do not want to go through what happened after that. The hon the Chief Whip of Parliament will know what a shambles there was as far as the Order Paper was concerned even to the point that his own party had to be overruled by the presiding officer in this House. I hope he has learnt a salutary lesson. [Interjections.]

I must say that whatever my criticism is, it is not of the officials of Parliament with whom I have sympathy. If ever there has been a group of people who have worked like trojans to do an impossible task it has been those officials. They have slaved in order to try to make this workable. Yet, even today we have the rules without an index. How can an ordinary member follow rules numbering from one to 177 without an index? I do not believe any hon member on the other side of the House can follow these rules without an index.

They have not looked at them.

There is no explanatory memorandum.

They do not know them because they have not studied them.

Last time at least there was a detailed memorandum explaining what we were doing. This time there is no explanatory memorandum. The report just provides for standing rules and proposed amendments. There is no explanatory memorandum or motivation whatsoever coming from the committee which is dominated by the majority party in this House. All there is, is a set of rules without an index or any explanation, motivation or memorandum which has been dumped before the parties. Moreover, one can accept or reject it, but one does not have the opportunity to amend it.

No opportunity is given to this House to amend these rules. I have the preliminary rules here before me. I do not know where we go from here, because there are hon members who say that they have one with an index.

You also had one with an index.

Well, if there is one with an index, it is not the one I am using. Be it as it may, if it is the case that there is an index …

No index!

Well, there you are!

You really must wake up now.

We are discussing rules to which people do not even know whether an index exists or not. I am all for redrafting rules and orders, but I do believe there should be a systematic, orderly and understandable way in which both Government and opposition can make an input, and I want to say that the opposition is being denied the opportunity to make the input that it should, in an orderly and systematic way.

I want to come back to the rules such as they are and the committee’s report, which really leads up to a discussion of the schedule which is attached. Firstly, let us make it quite clear that the report which is being discussed today does not deal with the principle of whether or not there should be joint sittings. I have read in some newspapers that this is a great step forward because there are now going to be joint sittings. The Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, 1983, makes provision for joint sittings. There is no new principle, as the hon the Leader of the House will know. Section 67(1) states that:

Provision has actually already been made for joint sittings. As far as joint sittings are concerned, therefore, the concept that the Houses should meet, has not changed—there is already provision for that. Section 67(5) states that:

To the extent that there is now a cumbersome procedure for taking a decision of some strange kind, there is in fact a change, but as far as the principle of having joint sittings is concerned, that principle was inherent in the Constitution.

You are quoting about joint sittings, while you are arguing joint meetings; there is a distinct difference between the two. [Interjections.]

Sir, I will come to that. In terms of the Constitution no resolution shall be adopted at joint sittings, and because the Government now find that they do want a procedure by which one can adopt resolutions at joint sittings, they therefore, in typical NP style, find a new name for joint sittings—they draw a distinction between joint sittings and joint meetings. I want them to explain to the world and to the public what the difference is between a joint sitting and a joint meeting. I know the technical difference because I have sat in that committee, …

In the one you sit, and in the other you meet!

… but if the Government says that one can do certain things in a joint meeting which one cannot do in a joint sitting, then it makes a farce of Parliament as far as the public is concerned.

Instead of the hon the State President having to ask for a joint sitting to be called, these rules do make provision for Mr Speaker, in certain circumstances, to convene a joint meeting—a joint “beraad”, whether it is a sitting or a meeting. All it says is that Mr Speaker, in terms of these rules, can now convene the meeting, whereas in the past it could only be the State President.

Secondly, these rules make provision for procedures at the joint meetings, not at the joint sittings. Does the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament understand that?

I wish you did!

It makes provision for certain procedures at joint meetings. It also changes the old rules—not the Constitution, but the bigoted, right-wing “verkrampte” rules of the NP which existed before, which determined that even at joint get togethers there could not be joint debates. That was not the Constitution; that was the NP’s option, and to the extent that they have moved away from no joint discussion to having joint discussion, we are delighted that the good common sense of the PFP has prevailed even on the NP, …

Hear, hear!

… because they said it would never happen! The hon member for Mossel Bay was quoted by the hon member for Brakpan as saying that it would never happen.

No, I did not say that! [Interjections.]

Well, it sounded very much as though that was what he intended to say.

Be that as it may, we say the natural consequence of having joint sittings is that one has to have joint deliberations. I can tell the House what the next natural consequence is going to be. We are going to have to take joint decisions.

Of course! [Interjections.]

Say never! Say never! [Interjections.] There is a certain empirical logic on the situation in South Africa. We can either move in one direction or the other. We cannot sit “wydsbeen” on a barbed-wire fence. That is very uncomfortable! [Interjections.] The Government is still going to find out it is trying to sit on a barbed-wire fence. [Interjections.]

What these regulations do not provide for, however, is for joint decisions to be taken at joint meetings. They provide for all sorts of other things but they do not provide for joint decisions to be taken at joint meetings. This is the nub of our objection to these rules. They allow for elaborate procedures for getting together. We can talk, we can meet, we can do all kinds of things, but at the end of the day we cannot take joint decisions. Forget about own affairs. We cannot even take joint decisions on general affairs.

But that is coming, partner!

I will tell the hon member something. It is coming but South Africa does not have time while the NP finds its way into the future. [Interjections.] We do not have time! [Interjections.] We do not have time. The situation in South Africa is too urgent. The failure of these rules to make provision for joint decisions is the nub of the PFP’s objection to these rules. It is fundamental because until there are joint decisions it amounts to an entrenchment of apartheid in the critically important field of decision-making.

The hon the Leader of the House can say we have got rid of apartheid when it comes to deliberation. We are, however, retaining apartheid when it comes to decision-making, somewhere along the line this Government is going to have to face the future and grasp the nettle and say they are prepared to opt for joint decision-making.

Furthermore, stripped of all its verbiage, stripped of all its sophistry, this decision by the Government is a way of keeping political control in the hands of the majority party in the White House. [Interjections.] That is what it is all about. They are actually saying: “Ons is die baas! Ons wil daardie posisie van baasskap behou sover dit die besluitnemingsproses betref.” [Interjections.]

I tell you, Sir, that is the provision. [Interjections.]

The CP is talking about what might happen in the future. I am talking about what these rules are now. [Interjections.] As long as this Government have matters of general affairs and joint debates, but will not take part in joint decision-making, they are going to add to the divisions, the tensions, the pressures and the polarisation which form so much a part of our South African society today. This era of ambiguity, of vaccilation, of obfuscation of the real issues in the life of the NP Government will be remembered as the era in which the NP began to understand that apartheid was wrong, but did not have the foresight and the courage to realise that once one abandoned apartheid one had to go in for collective and joint decision-making in South Africa; one could not straddle the fence.

I must tell the hon the Leader of the House that until the Government grasps this nettle it is going to remain stranded in an ideological no-man’s land, getting the worst of two worlds politically from the White electorate, and getting the worst of two worlds for South Africa in general. We must make up our mind where we are going. The hon members opposite know what is wrong but they are not prepared to face up to what is right in South Africa.

Furthermore, the failure of the rules to provide for joint decision-making, combined with the whole concept of own affairs based on race, means that what should be a fairly simple set of rules for coming together, for making decisions, has now become a procedural labyrinth. A “doolhof”—that is what it is! One only needs to read these rules and regulations and try to understand what they are all about. They place vast, arbitrarily regulatory powers, not in the hands of Parliament itself, but in the hands of Mr Speaker and in the hands of the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament.

They provide further for procedures and structures that are so cumbersome and in some instances so farcical, I would say, that they will detract from the concept of Parliament as the supreme legislative body of South Africa. At times it is going to be embarrassing to go into a debate and then have to wait in order to be told by Mr Speaker how we will have to resolve issues on that particular day.

I want to mention a few of the matters I regard as farcical and cumbersome. I want in the first instance to refer to the concept of deferred voting. This is covered by Rules 104 and 105 in terms of which at the end of debate in a joint meeting Mr Speaker will decide the basis on which a vote, if any, is to be taken. None of the Houses or even Parliament itself will decide. The procedure laid down in terms of Rule 105 at a joint meeting is as follows:

It is not the House but to Mr Speaker who decides what procedure is going to be followed.

If Mr Speaker decides that one or more Houses are not going to vote then, the members of each House then repair to their own Houses.

Which Rules are you referring to now?

Rules 104 and 105. As I was saying, in terms of Rule 105 it is no longer left to a House or to Parliament to decide. Mr Speaker has the sole discretion to decide at a joint meeting whether a vote is to be taken and, if so, the way in which it is to be taken. What kind of place is this, Sir? Have we lost our desire to rule ourselves? Do we have to have a presiding officer decide in regard to something as fundamental as whether a vote is to be taken and, if so, the procedure to be followed?

Should Mr Speaker in his discretion—in regard to which there is no right of appeal—determine that House A should vote on its own, the members of such House on a day determined by the Chief Whip of Parliament will proceed to that House and, without any further debate, save if a division is called and certain members wish to declare the attitude of their party in a three-minute statement, must proceed to vote. There is only that three-minute statement and then voting must take place. I have no doubt what will happen. A day will be set down for deferred voting and we will be voting on, say, 20 Bills. We will be voting in the House like “stemvee” because the Chief Whip of Parliament has decided that that will be a voting day in Parliament. [Interjections.] Can anyone imagine anything more humiliating!

But you are now ridiculing the European system.

Mr Chairman, let me tell the hon the Leader of the House that there is no European system that makes provision for separate Houses based on race and which cannot take all decisions. [Interjections.] If only the hon the Leader of the House would incorporate the European system here and say voters are voters! However, because this Government insists on having apartheid as the dominant factor and non-apartheid as the showpiece, this is what is happening. The Government must come clean one way or the other.

Can anyone imagine those days set aside for deferred voting? [Interjections.] The Houses will not be able to decide how they are going to vote. The Chief Whip of Parliament will place a notice on the Order Paper to the effect that certain days will be set aside for deferred voting in House A, B or C. What is more, we are also abandoning the quorum situation, except at the time of voting. Therefore, it will not be necessary for members to attend debates. As long as they turn up to vote on the day appointed by the Chief Whip of Parliament when they will not be allowed to listen to any debate because the debate will be deemed to have been ended, with the exception of a three-minute statement on behalf of a party, that will be sufficient. [Interjections.] I say that that is making a farce of this Parliament and the whole way in which our proceedings should be regulated.

Moreover, because motions cannot be debated in joint meetings—the motion is only put at the end—no amendments can be moved. Therefore, for a number of days one will be debating a motion moved by a Minister to which no amendment can be moved. The motion may be discussed and arguments advanced but no party can express its point of view by way of moving an amendment to such motion because, as soon as there is an amendment to a motion, there is confusion as to which House is going to deal with it. Therefore, the only time when parties can express their views on a formal basis is after such a joint debate. When members return to their respective Houses after such a joint debate it will then be possible to move an amendment, and then a vote is taken. At a joint meeting, however, when there is broad debate, members are denied the opportunity of moving amendments because, once an amendment is moved, it will be impossible to determine how the motion will have to be dealt with.

There are a number of simple decisions which are to be taken away from Parliament and placed in the hands of officials.

As the hon member for Brakpan indicated, there is going to be no no-confidence debate. I believe that the hon the Leader of the House knows that this could result in constitutional complications. The present law states that conventions apply to the extent that they should apply. That means that at least at the beginning of each session of Parliament, the Official Opposition in each of the Houses has the right to move a motion of no confidence. The Constitution states that one of the ways of unseating the Government is to allow each of the Houses to move a motion of no confidence within a period of 14 days.

This will still be technically possible, but a majority party will be able to block such a motion, because it will be dealt with in private members’ time. In my opinion the opposition parties of this House will have been deprived of the one opportunity they have, by way of precedent and convention, of causing the collapse of a government. I put it to the hon the Leader of the House that he is denying us not only a political right but also, in practice, an inherent constitutional right. I think it is referred to in section 37 of the Constitution.

Let us look at other matters. We can no longer decide when we want the House to adjourn. I would have thought the natural thing would be for the Leader of the House to move the adjournment. but the Houses together cannot decide when they are going to adjourn. Mr Speaker decides, and that is because if somebody were to move such a motion, a joint decision to adjourn would have to be taken, and one cannot take a joint decision. [Interjections.]

In the past, a member could be suspended upon being named. There would be a motion to suspend the member. Now, because that would entail a collective decision, the House can no longer apply that discipline, and it is left to Mr Speaker to apply it.

A joint sitting of Parliament will not be able to decide on a change in the Order Paper, because that would involve a collective decision. So the Order Paper will contain only what the Chief Whip of Parliament decides it will contain.

No guillotine can be applied to a motion, a discussion or the aborting of a debate. Mr Speaker in his sole discretion will decide whether debate can proceed within that time limit. In fact, it is the Chief Whip of Parliament who will decide on the time limit. At present, at least we know that there is a certain fixed time limit for debates, for example 12 hours for a Second Reading debate. A certain number of speeches can be made in the time set aside for the Committee Stage. There will be nothing like that in future. In future, the overall duration of debate will be set solely by the Chief Whip of Parliament, and within that context the sitting …

It will be set by Mr Speaker.

Well, Sir, the sitting times and the time of adjournment are set by Mr Speaker. The House has lost control over itself.

Wednesdays. [Interjections.]

No, he is quite wrong. The time for the sitting is set in that case, but the actual duration of specific debate, that is the time of adjournment, is in the hands of Mr Speaker.

[Inaudible.]

One can go through these proposed rules. Any ordinary, procedural, common-sense measure to deal with a situation which is normally dealt with by way of motion and decision will no longer be dealt with in that way. It will be dealt with by way of a ruling from Mr Speaker.

Finally, I want to deal with the proliferation of committees, joint committees, extended public committees and joint and separate sittings, which are inevitably going to detract from the impetus and thrust of Parliament. They are going to have a major negative impact upon opposition parties in this House and in the other Houses. One should not underestimate what is happening.

Let us simply look at the kinds of sittings which are going to take place in future. Obviously there will still be separate sittings of the Houses at which general affairs or own affairs will be debated. One can therefore have a debate taking place in each of the Houses on a separate item, or they can all be debating the same item. One can have joint sittings convened by the State President and joint meetings convened by Mr Speaker. The Houses can, on the advice of the Chief Whip as stated on the Order Paper, sit separately to discuss general affairs or own affairs. There is the concept of extended public committees, according to which two or more committees of the House can meet either simultaneously or not to deal with various subjects referred to them.

We will still have appropriation committees of each of the Houses to deal with own affairs. We will also have joint appropriation committees of each of the Houses dealing with general affairs. Then we have the standard rule of closed committees, of rules and orders and of ad hoc committees. We also have the standing committees on Bills, standing committees on constitutional affairs, standing committees on public accounts, standing committees on provincial accounts and standing committees on pensions. We still have all the other detailed committees, and in addition to that, we now have joint public committees on the provinces.

Outside of this proliferation of meetings and committees that are going to take place in each of the provinces we will now have a mini provincial council consisting of MPs of that province, meeting at their provincial headquarters in order to have a session to deal with provincial affairs. I believe this imposes an impossible and unpractical task on the legislators of South Africa. I believe it is so complicated, so time-consuming and so inefficient, that it is going to prove so expensive in the end that it cannot be the basis of sound legislative government in South Africa. What worries me is that, in this process, there is only one man that understands what is going on altogether. That is the hon the State President.

And he is not so clear either.

Well, that may be an unkind thing to say. He is the executive. The overall effect of this diversification, of this spread of the legislature and of this dilution of the opposition within the structure of the legislature, with its lack of central thrust, is that it becomes just another phase in which effective political power is moved away from the legislature into the hands of an all-powerful State President. This is the overall procedure. Other hon members will deal with other matters of detail, but I have no hesitation in moving the following further amendment, viz:

1. (1) fails to recommend that provision be made for taking joint decisions at joint meetings;
2. (2) places vast regulatory powers in the hands of the Speaker and of the Chief Whip of Parliament; and
3. (3) provides for procedures that are so cumbersome and involved that they will inevitably detract from the status of Parliament as the supreme legislative body.”.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Sea Point has spoken at length, but the only sensible thing the hon member said was the reference he made to the hard work put in by the officials of Parliament. I wish to emphasize that. I thank the officials of Parliament for the dedication and the hard work they have put into these draft rules.

The hon member for Sea Point indulged in conjecture as to the reasoning behind these draft rules. I believe it was disgraceful for the hon member to allege that the reasoning behind this was the hon the State President’s wish to inaugurate the new Great Hall. [Interjections.] Moreover, the allegation is without any substance whatsoever, because the new Great Hall has already been inaugurated. We have already had joint sittings, if not joint meetings, there. [Interjections.] According to the hon member for Sea Point there is no real difference between joint sittings and joint meetings. What then would the point of inaugurating the new Great Hall in the form of a joint meeting be, if we have already had joint sittings there?

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

My time is not unlimited. If at the end of my address there is time left, I will gladly give the hon member an opportunity. [Interjections.]

Secondly, the hon member for Sea Point also referred to own and general affairs. I believe that his reference to own and general affairs was totally irrelevant, because it is the Constitution that provides for own and general affairs, and not the Standing Rules and Orders. However, the situation being that we do have own and general affairs in terms of the Constitution, the Standing Rules and Orders must obviously accommodate own and general affairs. I maintain therefore that it is absolutely out of place to debate the fact of own and general affairs when we are discussing the Standing Rules and Orders of Parliament. It is unavoidable that the Standing Rules and Orders of Parliament will give effect to the constitutional provision for own and general affairs.

The hon member for Sea Point objected to the proposed deferred voting. Deferred voting is common practice, for instance, in Europe. A chorus of protest went up, however, when it was suggested from this side that this was common procedure in Europe. It was said that we were not in Europe and that we did not use the European systems. Certainly our system differs in many respects from those in Europe, but that does not mean that we should not take from other systems procedures which may be applied in our system to our advantage. [Interjections.] Surely that is no reason why we should not introduce deferred voting into our procedure in Parliament. It appears to me that the hon member for Sea Point should really consider whether he should not join the ranks of the “verkramptes”, because he seems to be so stuck in the rut of the old Westminster system that he cannot get out of it. He keeps comparing whatever is being proposed with the old imperialist Westminster system.

I referred to it once only! [Interjections.]

In conclusion, as far as the hon member for Sea Point is concerned, I wish to point out that the hon member tried to put words in my mouth. I shall react to the reference by the hon member for Brakpan just now. The hon member for Sea Point tried to put words into my mouth, or perhaps he does not understand the difference between the words he used, namely the “natural consequence”, and the words I used, namely the “necessary or essential consequence”. Those two concepts have different meanings altogether. That is where the hon member went wrong when he accused me of saying that it would be a natural consequence of what had been done before.

Then the hon member for Sea Point also suggested that there was not enough time for the NP to find its way into the future. I shall also react to that in responding to what the hon member for Brakpan said.

* At the beginning of his speech the hon member for Brakpan quoted an article by John Scott in the Cape Times in which he referred to my contribution to the relevant debate. Let me say this first: I do not think that the hon member for Brakpan will be able to rise this afternoon and in all honesty question the fact that for the purpose of delivering budget speeches and for ceremonial occasions, which were being discussed in that debate, joint sittings were the correct and practical thing to do. In retrospect, he will not be able to say that.

That is what the debate was concerned with at the time. That was the tenor of my speech that day. I then added that it did not necessarily mean that joint debates would follow.

There is always a little something added at the end.

That is what it was concerned with; it was not added at the end. That is what the argument was concerned with, namely whether or not joint debating would necessarily follow. My argument was that while joint sittings were being introduced for the purpose mentioned, that did not necessarily mean that they would lead to joint debating. The simple fact that we are holding this debate today, the simple fact that the hon member for Brakpan objected to joint debating, surely proves that that was not a necessary consequence; otherwise it would surely not have been necessary to debate it today.

It was simply inevitable!

It was not inevitable either. If this House today in its wisdom were to decide against it, it was surely not inevitable. [Interjections.] The fact of the matter is that the argument on that day was concerned with the inevitability or otherwise of joint debating. Today I am still saying precisely what I said that day. It was not inevitable; it was a development which occurred subsequently and which today we are considering on its merits.

The hon member for Brakpan quite rightly quoted from that article that on that occasion I had said one should never say “never” except when one says that one must never say “never”. That is so, but by that one is not saying the opposite either. When one says that one must never say there will never be joint debates, one is not at the same time saying the opposite either, namely that there will indeed be joint debating.

In the NP one can say that.

No, Sir, I am saying the options are open. Today this House has to discuss the merits of this motion and reach a decision on it. It is not a question of keeping options open, but we are dealing here with—the hon member for Brakpan will surely concede this—a completely new system which has come into operation in terms of the 1983 Constitution. This system has only been in operation for five years—not even five years—and is gradually developing. As we learn from experience, it is becoming increasingly clear where the problem areas lie and where further provision can be made for the sake of practical considerations.

The hon member referred to the statement which was made at the time, that there would be chaos if we were to have had joint debating at that stage. Possibly that was correct; there might have been chaos. Subsequently, however, a lot of water has flowed under the bridge, even within a short period, a few years. A specific style has subsequently developed. Gradually it is becoming clear to what extent adjustments can be made in order to remove problem areas in respect of time, space and availability of members. This motion is one of those intended to cause Parliament to function in a more practical way.

The hon member for Brakpan made the statement that the standing committees which were supposed to be forums for consensus, are not functioning effectively in this context. I am sorry to have to say this today, but unfortunately experience has shown that the hon members of the Official Opposition themselves are the ones who do not assist in a search for consensus on the standing committees.

We adhere to principles. You apparently do not know what principles are!

If these forums do not serve their purpose, I charge the Official Opposition with being to a great extent responsible for that.

Now that is very unfair.

No, it is not very unfair. I did say I was sorry to have to say that.

We are not participating, but it is our fault that they do not work; how is one to understand that?

The argument came from the benches of the Official Opposition, it was stated by the hon member for Brakpan, and that is why I have to say it. The standpoint the hon members of the Official Opposition adopt is the following: We are opposed to this entire system and therefore you must not expect us to help you make this system function satisfactorily. They state their standpoint on a measure and make no further contribution. If the system does not then function as expected, I think it is the height of cynicism on the part of hon members who adopt this attitude to allege that the system is not functioning properly. I am saying that is the height of cynicism.

The hon member for Brakpan said that joint debating was never put to the voters. He is correct, but in the same way many things were not put to the voters because they could not be put to the voters. [Interjections.] Politics, and especially politics in South Africa, is a dynamic activity. Today it is impossible to spell out exactly to the voters what is going to happen in five years’ time. It is not a question of principle but a question of parliamentary procedure. Must the particulars now be spelt out to the voters five years in advance? Oh please, surely one cannot govern a country such as South Africa in that way. Surely that is completely impossible.

The problem of the hon members of the Official Opposition, and specifically of the hon member for Brakpan in this as well as in other respects, is that they cannot distinguish between principle and policy. They cannot distinguish between principle and procedure. There is indeed no principle at stake here at the moment. Only procedure is at stake here. If the hon member for Brakpan, however, wants to continue playing at being a prophet and simply continues to embroider as he has done here, alleging that this joint debating will eventually have to lead to joint voting, then I shall tell him exactly what I said in that debate. I am telling him that that is not necessarily the case.

But it is possible?

It is not necessarily the case at all, because there is a big difference between what happened during that debate, what happened today and what he is predicting. Procedural changes are now being proposed, but there is no change in principle.

If it were to happen as the hon member for Brakpan said, namely that we are going to count heads and vote together in Parliament, it would be a change in principle. For that reason it is a complete non sequitur and the fact that it has been suggested since the previous debate and today that the procedure be changed, does not in any way imply that a change in principle will follow. I am afraid the hon member for Brakpan has missed the boat completely in this regard in that he did not perceive that a change in principle was at stake here.

The hon member for Brakpan objected to the modus operandi. The fact is, these rules were submitted to the Committees on Standing Rules and Orders and it was discussed there in detail on a committee basis as sit were. It is now simply a question of the principle involved and therefore I can find no fault whatsoever with the procedure which is now being adopted; in fact, the speeches of the hon members for Brakpan and Sea Point were to a greater extent devoted to the principle and not to the particulars.

There is no committee stage.

Yes, there is no committee stage, but despite that the hon member for Sea Point did not discuss the actual provisions of the different Rules. He discussed the principle and, to a large extent, matters that were irrelevant. The point that I am trying to make is that if the hon members had been so concerned about the committee stage, one would have expected them to deal with the specific Rules in this debate which they did not do.

I was dealing with that. I was referring to Rule 3 and Rule 10.

I conceded that the hon member for Brakpan mentioned a few. I said that he dealt to a greater extent with principles and not with the particulars. That is why I think the two hon members’ own speeches refute there having been any substance in the complaints of the hon member. Consequently there is no doubt in my mind about the desirability of the proposed Rules.

Mr Speaker, today the hon member for Mossel Bay spoke like an advocate in court, who knows in advance that he has lost his case. He merely stood there and for most of the time tried to score debating points off us and never got through to the essence of this matter. I found it particularly interesting that the hon member never dealt with the essence of the hon member for Brakpan’s objections, namely the Government’s colossal lack of credibility. It is one of our objections and of course the hon member never went anywhere near that point because he knows he cannot get out of that corner.

For example, in reaction to the hon member for Sea Point’s speech he said that the concept of own and general affairs were irrelevant to this debate. It is anything but irrelevant, because own and general affairs are part of the Constitution and part of the game which we as Parliamentarians are playing. We are working on the rules of that game and naturally one must consider these concepts and see how they evolve in the Constitution to be able to see how the rules must be assessed. Since he said that they were irrelevant, I merely want to tell him that there is still uncertainty today as to what exactly own and general affairs in fact are. I wonder whether in our many administrations there is someone who knows exactly what own and general affairs are.

We have to draft the rules for a specific game, and the game we are involved in is an uncertain one. This in turn influences the rules. The rules subsequently become uncertain and therefore it is also fitting that one should also debate the Constitution, because in debating the rules one is also debating the game.

The hon member for Mossel Bay was actually having a dig at us when he replied to the hon member for Sea Point by saying that that hon member was in fact a verkrampte. I felt like saying: Look who is talking! Is this hon member who is now using the word verkrampte not someone who in the period before the split was himself a big verkrampte? [Interjections.] Yes, Sir! Some people said he would have joined the split; he would also have walked across, Sir! He is in fact an old arch verkrampte and then he dares to call this liberal from Sea Point a verkrampte!

Old Tom was a big verligte!

Sir, if the hon member for Soutpansberg was a verligte then I do not know what this hon member is …

As far as the Coloureds were concerned!

… because the hon the Leader of the House once told me in his office in Pretoria that he was neither verlig nor verkramp. He said at the time that that was correct—Mr Vorster also said so. Mr Vorster said to me: “Listen, you must tell F W he must buy himself another pair of trousers; his trousers have become threadbare from sitting on the fence.”

That is an old story!

It maybe an old story, but it is still true!

The hon member for Mossel Bay also said of joint sittings that we surely could not deny that it was a practical arrangement that we now had to sit together for ceremonial and Second Reading purposes. It has now become a practical necessity, but I want to tell him that each time he amends the rules in future, he will have to think out a new argument in order to validate the arguments that were used in the past. Our argument in last year’s debate and again now, is that one thing, within the framework of the Constitution which we now have, leads to another. That is logical! It is impossible to stop it, Sir! One thing leads to another, as we predicted! The hon member can go and take a look at the debates we have held here since 1982. In those debates we predicted that it would be inevitable that a, b, c, d and e would follow. In the same way I am telling the hon member that next time we will convene here to debate joint decision-making. Mark my words, Sir! I am not much of a prophet, but one day we shall also debate that here. If we debate together, and to us that is important … I am glad the hon the Minister of Manpower is also present …

Koos, do not prophesy so much, my friend!

No, I will not prophesy, but I do want to be a mini-prophet and say that that hon Minister will never win in Lydenburg again! [Interjections.]

Come and stand against me!

Yes, I should like to stand against you, but I am not a farmer, and I want to tell you, as far as the chairman and I …

But Pietie is not a farmer either!

He is not a farmer either. I have the chairman of the Agricultural Union—old Driesie Bruwer—sitting there waiting for him. He will win the seat next time, and this hon the Minister will be unemployed.

Order! The hon member must please return to the report before the House.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, Sir. What I was saying before the hon the Minister of Manpower came and wasted my time was that one thing inevitably leads to another, something which we warned against in the past and surely we know the pattern that has emerged. I am now telling the Government that what we are concerned about is the following. When the next step is taken and we have to make joint decisions, the Government will be in a situation—that is what we are trying to prevent—in which we shall have to discuss the report. That is why we are trying to tell the wise men among them to reflect on this today and put a stop to this thing …

Are there any wise men left?

Which wise men?

… because after joint decision-making comes the inevitable proportional decision-making and the Government will not be able to stop that, even though the hon the Minister of Finance says the politics of numbers are the politics of conflict. That is correct of course. The Government is not going to escape it, however, and once they have joint decision-making—against which we are warning them now—how will they be able to prevent a majority of Blacks, Indians and Coloureds in that joint decision-making—a majority of Blacks, Indians and Coloureds that will force their majority will on the minority of Whites?

That is why we are warning the Government today. That is why we are telling the Government that they must reflect on these rules which are before the House today. It forms a logical pattern. It is leading inevitably in the direction of ultimate Black majority rule. That is my answer to the hon members on the other side.

How long are you still going to stay in Overvaal?

Someone is putting a question. I hope he gets a turn to speak. I hope we do not have a repetition of last year’s phenomenon. Then of course we only had one or two members of the NP participating in the debate. I already notice that this debate is apparently going to be sustained by CP speakers only. The hon member for Benoni should go ahead and ask for a turn to speak. The NP requires many speakers to do the talking. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Mossel Bay said something else. He said the CP was not seeking consensus on the standing committees. There the hon member is sitting even now, nodding his head in confirmation. That is of course because it is the truth. Of course it is true. You see, Sir, concession lies at the root of the concept of consensus.

Capitulation!

Surely the NP know that now. We have seen it. We see this in these rules as well. When one wants to reach consensus you have to give something in return. You therefore have to pay for it. We have also seen how the NP has been paying over the past six, seven years, after the split. We have seen how they have been paying from the bank accounts of the Whites. We have seen how one concession after another had to be made to achieve consensus. That is how they achieve consensus. That is why we do not want to make consensus possible. We do not want to sacrifice our principles. We are not prepared to sacrifice principles in order to gain the good will of and consensus with Indians, Blacks and Coloureds. [Interjections.]

Furthermore the hon member for Mossel Bay has the “temerity”—I put that in inverted commas because I do not know whether it might not perhaps be unparliamentary—to say that that is evidence of the CP’s utter cynicism. Cynicism, when we are abiding by our principles, and refusing to sacrifice principles in order to obtain consensus! I put it to the hon member that the most ridiculous of his contributions was that he actually accused the CP of our having sabotaged the system and having caused it to collapse because we do not want to bring about consensus. That, Sir, is our aim! We are determined to make this system founder. We will use every constitutional method, we shall debate these rules and use every rule of Parliament in a democratic way to sabotage the system. [Interjections.] Yes, they know we are going to do it.

The hon member for Mossel Bay also said—to me that was of astonishing significance!—that many things could not be put to the voters, and had not been put to the voters, during the election. That is also something we have been saying for a long time. That is something of which we are accusing the NP, and that is something which also becomes clearly appropriate in these rules. The NP only says what is going to happen in the near future; they bring people up to that point and then the process is repeated. Again, just a little bit further! That is exactly what they are doing. Now the hon member for Mossel Bay says surely we cannot go and explain the procedure to the voters. Only principles are put to them. Of course those principles are not deviated from.

I now want to know from the hon member how, by means of a process—after all, it was not a principle—he deviated from a system of self-determination to a system of power-sharing. Surely that was a decision on principle.

It was explained fully to the voters!

Oh, good Lord! Was it as wonderfully explained as the hon the Leader of the House explained it in his speech in the Northern Transvaal, of which I still have a tape-recording in my possession? There he told the voters that the three Chambers would merely continue to function as in the past. The hon member must not provoke me into reopening that debate. [Interjections.] You see, Sir, they do not spell it out to the voters. In last year’s election they did not explain to the voters these things they are now trying to do. That is my point. Last year they did not spell out to the voters that they were going to bring Blacks in in the way they are going to do so now. Therefore we are accusing the NP of deceiving the voters, of not telling the people exactly what they are going to do and of trying to do exactly the same to us on this side of the House. They are adopting precisely the same procedure with these rules. They come along with us for a step or two but do not tell us what is going to happen in future. Now we are telling the NP, they might as well say that it only entails joint debating. We say that it will also lead to joint decision-making. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Mossel Bay said that joint decision-making would not necessarily follow, because that would entail a change in principle. Before finishing with this hon member I merely want to tell him that the NP’s broken promises in the past, the broken guarantees with which they provided the Whites, are crying out against them now. They cry out against everything they have said here so far today.

What principle did we deviate from?

From the principle of self-determination.

That has never been a principle!

Mr Speaker! This hon member says that self-determination has never been a principle! Can you believe it, Sir?

Order! I think the hon member ought to lower the pitch of his voice a little; in that case I shall listen to him very carefully.

Sir, I shall lower the pitch of my voice, but that hon member really should not say such disturbing things.

He said self-determination had never been a principle. Self-determination is tantamount to sovereignty. It is tantamount to the unimpeded right that a people has to govern itself. Since this is not a principle as far as the hon member is concerned, things are now becoming clearer. If the hon member does not even know what a principle is, how can he draw a distinction between procedure and principles? I think the hon member should go back to Leyden and ask for his school fees to be returned to him, even if he does so in Dutch. [Interjections.]

I now come to the hon member for Sea Point. He is not here now, but his contribution caused me to reflect, and therefore I want to quote an extract from House of Assembly: Hansard, 1987, col 6507, in which the hon the Leader of the House replied to the hon member for Brakpan and said:

What we are discussing here today, is a seized-up gearbox. That is what we are doing.

The hon member for Sea Point very succinctly spelt out the impracticability of this system, and in that regard he adopted to a large extent the same standpoints that we do. He sketched a contributory situation and explained why the Government had made certain Rules as they stand here. I want to summarise it as being lack of discipline on the part of NP members. Surely it is so that we now have a lifebuoy with the abolition of the quorum. We now have a lifebuoy which can be thrown out for the undisciplined NP members.

Look who’s talking!

An hon member said look who’s talking. I want to ask him how many times the bells have had to be rung here because too few hon members of the NP were present.

See how few of them are sitting here now.

How many times are hon Ministers present in the House? How many hon Ministers are present in the House? It is in fact astounding that today there are three, four or five. Where are the hon members of the NP?

Where is your leader?

He is ill and in bed. If one takes a look at this year’s pairing off, it will be seen that he paired off very rarely. Despite the fact that he is the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition he sits here far more often.

I ask where the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs is. [Interjections.] He is never here!

He is working.

Oh, he is working! His work is here. His work is in the House. It is his primary duty to sit in this House, but he is not here.

I want to tell the hon the Leader of the House where that hon Minister is. Does he know where the hon the Minister is?

I did not hear who was being referred to.

I am talking about the hon the Leader of the House’s bench-fellow, the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who is never in the House. I want to warn the hon the Leader of the House about where he is. I have information that he is arranging to oppose the hon the Leader of the House at the next Transvaal congress as NP leader in the Transvaal. [Interjections.] Mark my words and remember what I said.

The reason why the provisions concerning the quorum are being amended is fundamentally because the hon the Leader of the House and the hon the Chief Whip of the majority party as well as the other hon Whips of the NP simply cannot ensure that enough hon members of the NP are present in the House. What a disgrace!

This confused way of operating was raised by the hon member for Sea Point. That is the gearbox I was referring to, the one that had seized. Where is the programme? Sometimes, as happened last week, one would receive the programme for that week—Sir, you will not believe this—on a Monday, when one was already sitting here. That is the confused, “seized” gearbox of the system which has to be circumvented by new rules.

We are now saying that discipline should rather be tightened.

Your head has seized!

The hon member said my head has seized. [Interjections.] I may have gears in my head which may seize or not seize, but I do not have pumpkin seeds in my head as that hon member has. [Interjections.]

Do hon members know in where this confused way of operating is leading us? It automatically leads to autocratic conduct. We are opposed to that, and I want to explain that to hon members. I pity the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament.

It is not necessary!

I feel sorry for him anyway, [Interjections.] He has to co-ordinate the proceedings of three Houses. I do not know how he is going to manage that, because everybody has a say. One says this must be debated, and the other says that. The hon the Leader of the House would like to have one thing done, while the opposition Whips want to have something else done. Possibly the hon the State President might say something else has priority. Do you know what, Sir? He cannot get a programme drafted in this way.

For a competent chap like him it is easy.

Not even the present hon Chief Whip of Parliament or the hon the Leader of the House or both of them together will be able to do it. Do hon members know what is happening now? Now the hon Chief Whip of Parliament will be sitting clutching his hair in his hands. By the way I want to say one thing to the credit of the hon the Leader of the House: He never sits clutching his hair in his hands. [Interjections.] Literally, he does not have a cowardly hair on his head either. [Interjections.] The hon the Chief Whip of Parliament now finds himself in that terrible situation. Everyone is exerting pressure on him and the programme must go ahead. He simply cannot manage, unless he takes decisions forcefully. Surely that is a necessary consequence. Subsequently he has to say: “Look, fellows, I could not care less what you say, but we are first going to discuss this and then that. On Monday we are going to do this and on Wednesday that”. I understand that. It is the only approach which is going to work, but it is autocratic and therefore wrong. Are hon members able to see where the system is leading? It is even going to lead to everyone sitting together in the new dispensation, in the Chamber of Parliament—I can see the hon Minister of Law and Order shaking his head.

You have just rejected consensus.

And now you are fighting about it.

No, I am not fighting about it. The hon the Minister must just listen; he will learn something from that today. [Interjections.]

In the Chamber of Parliament the Speaker cannot allow a joint decision to adjourn, because there will be problems. Now the Speaker has to make certain decisions which are wrong in principle because they are also autocratic. To save the system from foundering the Speaker now has to say: “Look, one person says we must adjourn, the other does not want to adjourn. I am now saying we shall do this”. He then decides whether we adjourn or not. That is autocracy. The consequence of this confused system which we have been opposed to since the start is that it also leads to undemocratic conduct, which is inevitable and wrong. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Sea Point thanked the staff. We thanked them long ago. We almost have a kind of hero worship for these people. If I ever were to die and had to come back to earth, I just do not want to be a Parliamentary staff member, because they are working themselves almost to death as a result of the confusion emanating from the Government. [Interjections.] They have to work right through the night. And added to that they have to get this, that and the next thing drafted as well.

You do not like working!

I like working very much. When it comes to work, I want to tell that hon Minister—but we do not have to weigh up our respective capacities for work.

We are saying once more that it is not fair simply to have the staff of Parliament bear the brunt because of the chaos which prevails here. It is an additional aggravation (aggravasie) as a result of this system.

Order! Could the hon member tell me what the word “aggravasie” means?

Mr Speaker, “aggravasie” is a kind of “aggravation”. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member may proceed.

The hon member for Sea Point said the NP would discover that if one relinquished apartheid, decisions would have to be taken jointly. That is in essence what he said. However, that is what we have always been telling the NP. Since the days of the split we have been saying there is no middle way. If one does not have separate political decision-making, eventually one will decide jointly.

Let us consider this for a moment. The Government has now departed from the “outdated concept of apartheid”. A few days ago I mentioned the same example. The NP that, wherever they go, are saying they are done with apartheid—“we are dismantling apartheid”—and that they are not a racist party, bases the entire tricameral system on racism. It amounts to institutionalised racism. The NP distinguishes between the individuals of South Africa on the basis of race. They call the Act the Population Registration Act. The NP bases the entire parliamentary system on race and apartheid.

Why are you opposed to it then?

That is a very feeble argument. I can take the hon member up on that and point out to him that the NP is on the one hand engaged in playing a game involving apartheid by saying that they are finished with it, while on the other hand they apply it. They do it in a way which, however, makes it inevitable that … I shall tell hon members how. The hon the State President said in reply to an interjection, which I think I made on Friday, that there would be no Black majority rule. Do hon members know what he said? He said there would be White majority government.

Oh, for heaven’s sake!

Now the hon the Leader of the House is saying “Oh, for heaven’s sake!” If one has an undivided South Africa in which 25 million people are Black, and they will never form a majority government against Whites, surely the Whites will have the majority, not so? In other words, the system which the NP propagates, is nothing but naked, White domination! [Interjections.] I oppose it because the CP rejects it with everything in our power. [Interjections.] We support a system of complete self-determination in which only Whites govern themselves and the other peoples in turn govern themselves. We are saying that and we are proving that. The NP says that there will be groups in an undivided South Africa, and that the one will not dominate the other.

According to your hon leader those who do not want to, remain subordinate.

Mr Vorster also said that and so does the NP.

Just explain that against the background of your own statement!

The NP says that the other peoples have the full right to obtain independence in their own fatherlands. We do the same. It is, however, a deceptive pattern which the NP has built up. [Interjections.] The NP think they can carry on deceiving the other peoples in this country. Already the NP can no longer do so because on Friday the hon the State President said there would never be Black majority rule. In other words, Blacks in South Africa must take cognisance of the fact that the Whites will dominate them here forever. [Interjections.] That is what the hon the State President said. That is an untenable statement. Surely the hon the Leader of the House is going to talk now. If I am wrong, he must tell me what the hon the State President meant when he said there would not be Black majority rule. He then told me: “Old Rip van Winkel has now woken up.” He then referred to my big body. [Interjections.] We know his style, however. We know the hon the State President’s style. [Interjections.]

With these new rules substance has been given to certain principles; principles which are unacceptable to the CP. That is the situation. Very clear substance is being given to certain principles; others are merely being confirmed, while others in turn, are being planted like seeds so that they can germinate, thereby allowing the Government to take them further at a later stage.

The rules indicate a number of tendencies of which the most important are a lack of direction, a tendency to deceive and an autocratic tendency. These disquieting tendencies compel me today to ask what is going to become of the constitutional rights of the Whites in this new dispensation?

I am a representative of the Whites in South Africa—and I do not apologise for that and nor am I ashamed of that as other hon members are—and I want to know what is going to become of the Whites in this constitutional dispensation with these new rules and the new direction which is being taken? The rules are in fact the rules of the game according to which a specific game is being played. It is a game which is going to determine the future of the Whites. Therefore for us it is of cardinal importance that the entire scope of these rules be debated. The underlying principles, the particulars and the consequences must be debated. They must in fact be cleaved open to the bone and be discussed in full so that we can point out to hon members what the future prospects for the Whites are.

The rules of the game provide inter alia for joint debating by Whites, Indians and Coloureds. They are no longer concerned with a sitting, but with debating, which precedes decision-making. One is immediately at a complete loss …

Are you going to participate?

We shall participate. Surely my hon colleague for Brakpan said so; the CP are not boycotters.

I asked whether you are also going to participate.

I am telling the hon member for Hercules that I myself am also going to participate. Like various other hon members he unfortunately will not be here to participate after the election. [Interjections.]

Perhaps you will not be here either.

Perhaps I shall not be here either. I am humble enough to accept that I can also lose, but I think the chances that that hon member is going to lose against Mr S P Barnard are about 150 to 0. [Interjections.]

The fact that there is going to be joint debating is a drastic change. It brings about a major difference. It reminds me of last year’s debate on the Standing Rules and Orders, which is contained in last year’s Hansard, vol 16. If hon members were to read that debate now—I think that 90% of all the hon members have not read it—they will merely shake their heads. Do hon members know why? Most of the standpoints which the CP adopted last year remain untarnished, and those hon members did not tackle or supplement them. In vague ways to be sure. Yes, adroitly, with fancy footwork and an egg dance, like the hon the Leader of the House who ran round them and frolicked like a butterfly …

I routed you that day! [Interjections.]

Oh, good heavens! The hon the Leader of the House said that he routed us that day. I will tell him … No, I shall not tell him.

Last year the CP raised a few crucial points, of which the most important one—we are repeating it this time—was the Government’s lack of credibility.

I want to conclude.

Hear, hear!

I can also understand why hon members say “hear, hear!” when I say that I am going to conclude.

The Government has initiated a pattern of deception since 1981, when Prof Huntington made his speech at RAU. That is where they got their recipe.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: The hon member used the word “deceive” (kul) on various occasions. “Kul” is synonymous with deception and fraud, and I ask for your ruling on that. [Interjections.]

Order! This afternoon the hon member referred to deception on various occasions but in my opinion he did so within the rules of the debate. When the hon member, however, embroidered on that and spoke of this “culture of deception” (kulkultuur) which was being maintained by the Government, the hon member was skating on very thin ice. I would suggest that hon members let this suffice and proceed no further with it; otherwise the hon member will most probably go so far that in future I shall have to rule against him. Rather let what has been said suffice and proceed with the debate. I should appreciate that very much.

Mr Speaker, I never used the words “culture of deception” (kulkultuur) I spoke of a “pattern of deception” (kulpatroon).

Order! I beg your pardon, I had the words “pattern of deception” in mind. I gave the hon member my advice, and I think he would do well to accept my advice.

Mr Speaker, would you not advise me as to how much time I have left? I think my time has expired.

Order! No, the hon member can ask his Whip about that. [Interjections.] The hon member may proceed.

Has my time expired?

Order! The hon member may proceed.

Mr Speaker says there is still time left. I have nevertheless had my time. [Interjections ]

Mr Speaker, I find it very regrettable that the hon member for Overvaal’s time has expired so quickly. I think it would have been a good thing if you could have given him a few more minutes.

Order! Well, I must say, the hon member begged me to allow him to resume his seat, and then I gave the hon member for Pietersburg the floor. [Interjections.]

It was already 31 minutes! [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, if there is one thing the hon member for Overvaal pre-eminently managed to do—I think this is very important—it was to have got the hon member for Mossel Bay to state in this House that self-determination was not a principle. [Interjections.] That is an astounding admission. [Interjections.] About the concept “self-determination of a people” we started disagreeing with the Government in principle. As far back as 1982 that formed the basis of our differences with the Government. This afternoon the hon member confirmed it.

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

Mr Speaker, I have only just begun my speech. If there is any time left at the end of my speech, I shall give the hon member an opportunity to put a question.

In his contribution the hon member for Mossel Bay blamed the CP for the fact that the system did not function properly. There are 23 CP members as against 133 NP members, and he is saying that those 23 CP members are the reason why this system does not work. Today the roles are reversed. Now 23 CP members have to keep the debate going, with two CP members having to speak one after the other, because there are no speakers on the other side who can keep this debate going. [Interjections.]

I think the hon members for Sea Point and Overvaal were quite correct in their contention that those hon members had not looked at these 207 Rules over the week-end, because there is, in fact, no table of contents or index as the hon member for Sea Point contended. I think it is a major task to examine each Rule. I am also convinced that very few, if any, of those hon members looked at those Rules—we shall see who participates in the debate today.

One can also understand why the Government had to introduce the Rule about the absence of a quorum, particularly if one sees how many hon members are present in this House. At times there really was an absence of a quorum on the Government side and they had to rely on the presence of members of the Opposition parties.

If there is one matter which comes very clearly to the fore and which the hon members for Brakpan and Overvaal also clearly indicated here, it is the whole exercise involving the Government’s credibility crisis. For example, in regard to the historical background to this situation here this afternoon, ie our sitting here with these latest amendments before us, I want to ask us to cast our minds back for a moment.

It began, after all, as early as 1977 with three parliaments, three Prime Ministers, three Cabinets and a Council of Cabinets which, on occasion, was to consist of various members of that Cabinet, depending on the matter under discussion. There was no question of joint decisionmaking, let alone joint sittings. In no way was it the policy, as the hon the Leader of the House is fond of saying, nor was there ever a possibility that that would come about.

12 April 1978.

The sovereignty, in fact, lay with this House of Assembly. It would transfer, to the other parliaments, some of its powers concerning matters affecting those population groups. The hon the Leader of the House’s predecessor, Minister Hendrik Schoeman, said here on occasion that we would laugh at those hon members; they did not even know that these various Houses would not convene in the same locale. They would convene in different locales. Here I have the information document. My colleague, the hon member for Brakpan, spoke about the federal congress in June. In December of the same year this information document was published. [Interjections.] It is the well-known blue book. What do we read in that book about this situation we are now discussing? It is stated:

That was written as early as 1982:

That could be done simply for symbolic reasons or for symbolic purposes. From then on the people, and in particular the majority party opposite, were conditioned, step by step, to move ever closer to one Parliament, with eventual joint sittings and now ultimately, in terms of these Rules of ours, joint voting. Voting can now take place in the same Chamber, but in three different hats. We foresee this voting ultimately being done in one hat.

We have frequently said in the past—we said so in the previous debate—that this tricameral Parliament consisted of three Chambers with walls, but that those walls could very easily be knocked down. We said that on many occasions. We said so last year during the debate. We then said that these walls had been knocked down and replaced by curtains. With this further step, only seven months later, one can say that those curtains have now become see-through curtains—because not only the sittings and the debates, but also the voting, can take place in the same House in terms of Rules 105 and 106 which I should like to quote:

Rule 106 reads as follows:

In point of fact, joint voting can already take place in the same Chamber in the same House. A mere seven months ago I said the following to the hon the Leader of the House across the floor of the House, and I want to quote …

From what column?

It is in column 6492. The hon the Leader of the House is welcome to read it. I quote the last paragraph:

That is what the hon member for Mossel Bay is disputing this afternoon. The hon the Leader of the House then said:

I then told him:

The hon member for Overvaal then said, by way of an interjection:

That is still the case today. Neither the hon the Leader of the House nor his hon leader can decide when such an election should take place. That is what has now happened to self-determination. I am now asking the hon the Leader of the House seven months later, with about 15 amendments to the Rules we debated here on 28 September 1987, where it is all going to end, particularly against the background of all the announcements the hon the State President made last week. Is he still saying that things will not go any further? Is he still saying that it is not part of NP policy or that the NP does not hold out the possibility of Black people also becoming part of these Standing Rules and Orders now before us after the great indaba has taken place? I should like the hon the Leader of the House to give us an answer to this specific question when he makes his speech, because as was the case last year, it seems to me that he, the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament and perhaps another one or two members will be the only ones making speeches. Today the hon the Leader of the House cannot even say that anymore, because no one, least of all the South African electorate, has a clear picture of where this Government is taking this country. The uncertainty that arises is the reason why the Government is increasingly losing support.

Let us look at the historical pattern directly preceding this debate, in that week in which the Whips still had a completely different picture of the proceedings that were to take place this week. I quote from a report under the heading “Saamsit vertraag deur Arbeiders” in Die Burger of 15 April:

It goes on to say:

What, however, happened that Friday morning? The House adjourned, not on a motion for adjournment, but owing to a lack of a quorum. There were too few members present and the House was adjourned. The reason for that is advanced further on in the report. I quote:

In other reports it was also submitted that the Labour Party wanted more changes introduced to last year’s Rules than the changes that have now been adopted. The other reason which was advanced was that even greater powers were allocated to the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament in terms of these Rules.

We have seen repeatedly, have we not, that the whole system of consensus-seeking creates problems. It cannot work in a multi-cultural community and in a multi-ethnic situation. It is simply impossible to achieve consensus with such a system. What happens, in the process, is that the NP’s image, as the governing party, suffers. A columnist, Harald Pakendorf, said this in the Sunday Times of 24 April 1988. He said that business people should also start thinking for once. I quote:

He is speaking about the CP—

That is what is happening in practise as a result of the events in this House today. I quote what the hon the Leader of the House said during the first effort at initiating a joint sitting. He can check up on it for himself in column 6510 of the 1987 Hansard:

Yes!

“Yes” says the hon the Leader of the House, but we have not yet heard how. We have not yet heard how these wonderful intentions are to be realised. Throughout the debate last week we did not hear anything about that, Sir. Nor did we hear anything about that during the television debate. And when reference was made to that, the hon the Leader of the House said, and I quote:

In regard to the situation he went on to say elsewhere:

We should now like to hear where those constitutional mechanisms are.

Those countless …

Those countless mechanisms. We have not yet heard of a single one.

Here we are now developing a new system—the system of joint meetings and joint debates; even separate and joint voting, but with the ultimate voting power in the hands of the NP, with its majority vote in the President’s Council when making the final decision when consensus cannot be achieved in the joint meetings. In the same debate the hon the Leader of the House said the following (Hansard: House of Assembly, 1987, col 6514):

I now specifically want to ask the hon the Leader of the House whether these joint rules will ultimately be the Standing Rules and Orders which will also make provision for the constitutional participation of Blacks in the legislative authority of South Africa. Will this set of Rules, or the Standing Rules and Orders, also form the basis, in that dispensation which is looming on the horizon, on which such a joint Parliament is going to be convened?

If we look at the new amendments introduced since the previous debate, we see that they clearly illustrate, for example, the obstacles which have, for example, thus far been experienced in regard to the whole question of Standing Committees. When we look at the Rules we see that before the Easter Recess the sitting days of standing committees have been moved from Fridays to Wednesdays, as provided in Rule 11. This creates a further stumbling block, because the hours of sitting which are indicated are 09h00-12h45, but then also 14h15-16h30. These committees will therefore have to sit when this House is also sitting, Sir, and when we read this Rule in conjunction with Rule 58, ie that “a House committee may sit during the sittings of the House from which it has been constituted”, it creates an unacceptable situation, particularly for us on this side of the House. For example, there could be a very important debate in progress here, and then some of our members have to attend meetings of those standing committees. The week before last, for example, the Standing Committee on Standing Rules and Orders sat whilst one of the most important debates in this House was in progress, ie the Second Reading debate on the Main Budget. I want to put a question to the hon the Leader of the House. Since the sitting days of the standing committees are now being moved to Wednesdays, can we not have an inflexible rule providing that this House shall not sit when the standing committees are sitting, so that the provisions of Rule 58 can be restricted to the absolute minimum?

The standing committees should sit in the recess!

I think it is in the interests of the proper functioning of this House. At this very moment there is a technical problem. The Standing Committee on Constitutional Development was to have sat each afternoon for nine days from this afternoon. It will probably still have to do so. What is more, it is a very important standing committee. Is the work in this House not important too? I am merely asking whether it is not possible to make an arrangement to avoid overlapping.

The old Rule 21 providing that no resolution may be adopted by a joint meeting of the Houses or of a House at such a meeting, is now being omitted from the new Rules. This means, therefore, that simultaneous voting can now take place, as in the case of the standing committees. In my view this is another small step in the direction of eventual joint decision-making. I would want to know whether, in the case of such simultaneous voting—I should perhaps be putting the question to the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament—the voting is going to be done electronically. Has the system been designed in such a way that this can, in fact, take place?

In terms of the Rule 29, the quorum requirements, for which section 61 of the Constitution makes provision, are now being relinquished. This means only one thing, Sir. Frequently quorums were not present at the meetings of standing committees, which means, of course, that such a committee’s business simply comes to a standstill, resulting in a very jerky pattern of work for the whole tricameral system. We do, after all, have many examples of this. So to prevent this situation from manifesting itself under the gaze of the public, this new Rule 29 is now being introduced. In practise this will mean, therefore, that only the presiding officer, and probably those members who want to participate in the debate, need be present at a meeting in the Chamber of Parliament. My contention is that this could completely destroy the traditional debating procedure and make a farce of the Parliamentary system.

It is clear that the traditional Parliamentary debate is largely going to be amended, in any event, when the majority of the debates on general affairs take place jointly. We only have to look at last year’s Order Paper to discover that there were 123 general Bills as against only 17 own affairs Bills which were dealt with in this House. The major portion of our business in connection with general affairs Bills and votes can therefore take place jointly with one great disadvantage, particularly to opposition parties, and that is the greatly reduced time available to them in debates such as that of the State President’s speech from the throne, as provided for in the new Rule 10, instead of the traditional motion of no confidence initiated by the Official Opposition.

The importance of a no-confidence debate was very properly and accurately described by the hon member for Brakpan in last year’s debate on this same subject when he said (Hansard, 1987, col 6582):

At a later stage in his speech he stated:

He went on to state:

That was very graphically put in that speech by the hon member for Brakpan. That is equally valid today. It represents our standpoint very clearly and concisely.

The hon the Chief Whip of Parliament was very upset when we rechristened the State President’s Opening Address and called it “The Speech from the Throne”, but it seems to me the as if the hon the Leader of the House was so taken with this that he said, at a later stage in the debate—I refer to col 6729:

By then he himself was using the expression:

On this point I should like to ask the hon the Leader of the House whether the proposed new Prime Minister is now going to become the chief leader of the NP—I think that is important—or whether the hon the State President will still remain the chief leader of the NP. I am asking this question, because as long as the State President remains the chief leader of the governing party, he is in the thick of party politics, a fact which does, to a certain extent, detract from the symbolic status of the office of State President.

The new Rule 66(4) makes provision for a joint committee on provincial affairs which can also sit at a venue other than the seat of Parliament. I take it we could therefore find this taking place in the respective provincial capitals, but then also, in terms of sub-Rule (4)(b)(ii), when Parliament is in session.

For information purposes, let me ask the following: When the respective provincial committees are sitting, will this take place at the same time as sittings of this Parliament? I would find that unacceptable, because large numbers of us would very much like to attend such debates.

The answer is no.

I have said that the nature and the character of Parliamentary debates are largely going to change. This is emphasised, in particular, by the new Rule 88, which entails a very important change to the conducting of debates thus far. That Rule provides for the rules of debate and sets out how a member may speak and when he may speak. It reads:

1. (1) Every member desiring to speak shall stand while addressing the Chair.
2. (2) At a joint meeting of the Houses and in an extended public committee a member may only speak from the podium, except—
   1. (a) to raise a point of order or a question of privilege; and
   2. (b) to furnish an explanation in terms of Rule 97(1) …

To my way of thinking no provision is made here for questions to be put.

Mr Speaker, in a meeting you indicated that you would not attempt to put a damper on debates, and we appreciate that fact, but this depends, of course, on the hon member who has the floor. As the Rule stands here, however, no provision is made for questions. What is more, if a point of order is raised, perhaps immediately after a question, we are faced with a practical situation.

This morning I had a look at the floor of the Chamber of Parliament. The hon the Chief Whip of Parliament said that there would be microphones placed at strategic points. It is true that there are microphones situated at six places in that Chamber, but where are they positioned? They are positioned right alongside the front benches.

Order! The relevant committee has not yet taken any decision about the microphones now under discussion. The hon member is therefore not using a concrete example. Those microphones have merely been installed on an experimental basis. The hon member need therefore not raise the example in the Chamber as a point of debate. If he wants to speak about the floor or about strategic spots, that is something else. I merely want to give the hon member some information by pointing out that no definite decision has been taken on those microphones. The relevant committee of Parliament will still decide about that.

Sir, I am very glad to hear that, because I foresee a practical problem. I merely want to state that the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament indicated, in the previous debate, that the six microphones would be positioned in those spots, but I now gather that that is only being done on an experimental basis.

I immediately want to state the problem. The back benches are 20 paces from the microphones. I can envisage the problem that will crop up in the general course of debates. If an hon member wanted to put a question or raise a point of order, he would have to walk 20 paces from the back of the Chamber up to a microphone to raise his point of order.

Who sits there at the back?

Members sit there at the back.

Which members sit there at the back?

They will probably be back-benchers, but are they not also permitted to raise points of order? Are they not also permitted to put questions?

I really do foresee problems unless, by some or other electronic means, the presiding officer’s attention can be called to the fact that a member wants the floor and that he will have an opportunity to state his case. He would nevertheless still have to walk 20 paces to put his question or his point of order.

The second practical problem involves the time factor. We are now being given a certain overall period of time, say for a specific Second Reading debate on a Budget Vote. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, the hon the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition began his argument with a complaint that we were dealing with these Rules in the form of a Second Reading debate and not, as in the past, dealing with the report in such a debate and then discussing the Rules in Committee of the whole House. The fundamental difference—I do not know whether hon members noticed this—is that the report, which appears on page 131 of the Minutes, consists of only three paragraphs, which really have no substance for discussion. That is why the Rules have been submitted as the report, which also explains why they are being submitted in this form.

Obviously this creates a basic problem for the hon the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition and hon members on his side in that they are trying to effect a lukewarm repetition of an old 1986 and 1987 debate, with numerous quotations extending over a number of years. In this process a mutual admiration society has developed between the hon the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition and the hon member for Pietersburg. Each of them quotes the speeches made by the other last year in order to give a bit of substance to his own speech. [Interjections.]

I also find it amusing that despite the fact that I was in the midst of all those debates, I would not have been quoted even if I had said something that could be to the detriment of the party.

I spoke about your horoscope.

I can give the hon member a very good horoscope today. [Interjections.]

On the one hand I am pitied, but the next moment it is said that in terms of Rule 1031 shall autocratically wield the big stick.

We discussed and agreed to the principle of joint debating in this House in 1987, and for that reason the NP is not going to repeat arguments ad nauseam in this debate, as is the case in the opposition at present.

The hon member complained that the sitting of the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders continued on Tuesday afternoon and was again continued on Wednesday afternoon. That committee went on with its sitting upon its own resolution, however, without inconveniencing the CP in any way. An hon member of the CP was present, and he made it very clear to the Chair that the CP would not take part in the debate, because they were against joint sittings in principle, and consequently did not want to waste the time of the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders by taking part in the debate. I really cannot understand why such a fuss is being made, in these circumstances, about this having inconvenienced the Official Opposition, but because I shall ultimately be responsible for a large part of the execution and possibly the implementation of these rules, I really have no compelling desire to join issue with anyone unnecessarily this afternoon.

On the other hand this is the last time that one will be able to comment publicly on certain aspects concerning these Rules.

The evolution of the parliamentary process is a sensitive matter. That is why it is so important that we, as participants, must guard against making a political plaything of the rules of the game. This was pointed out to certain parties in practical terms at one stage. Hon members need only look back at a week as recent as last week. Notwithstanding the derision from that side, I say with conviction today that it is a tragedy that the debate on the hon the State President’s Vote, as well as the authoritative policy speeches of the hon the State President, could not take place in a joint sitting. It is a great pity that members of the other two Houses could not experience this, but will have to read about it instead. [Interjections.]

We had the privilege of the presence of a very eminent foreign group in this gallery last Friday. They do not understand Afrikaans, but told me afterwards that it had been an exceptional experience to have been able to witness the hon the State President’s participation, because the feeling this evoked in them was completely different from the image they are generally presented with.

It is all very well to refer rhetorically to the cross-pollination of political ideas, as it is sometimes called in other Houses, if one restricts that possibility oneself. Let me say today, however, that the delay of the programme in a critical stage is having such a disruptive effect that one can hardly envisage joint debating during this session.

The hon member for Pietersburg complained because the programme for that week had been changed at short notice. Hon members know the circumstances. The House of Representatives did not discuss the Rules on that Friday according to the programme, but for their own reasons elected to have the discussion on the Monday. Hon members will also understand that in the circumstances we could not use the time of the House of Assembly for a debate unless a decision had been taken by the House of Representatives on the basis of last year’s decision.

After last year’s deadlock on the Rules, the Labour Party did take the initiative once again, after a great deal of speculation, in getting a discussion going on the Joint Rules. Despite what is generally believed, that initiative really only took shape towards the middle of March this year. At that stage we received a request that the Joint Rules should make it possible to conduct debates on provincial appropriations in the provinces.

At the time the secretariat was involved in dealing with an instruction which had ensued from the previous report of the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders, viz that the Rules of the three Houses, viz the Standing Rules and Orders and the Joint Rules, be consolidated with elements of the 1987 report which had been adopted by two Houses.

Within the broad framework, therefore, it was possible to accommodate the request of the Labour Party, because the principle of joint debating had been agreed to by two other Houses in 1987.

Although joint debating in Parliament seems improbable this year, as I have said, we shall at least be able to make a start with these provincial appropriations in the form of extended public committees, as spelt out in the Rules, in the provincial capitals.

I want to tell hon members that those meetings have been planned for 23 and 24 May, and in terms of Rule 66 (4) (c) (ii) they may take place at a venue other than the seat of Parliament.

In further reply to the inquiry of the hon member for Pietersburg, I may say that it is envisaged that those four provincial committees will take place simultaneously on these two dates, and that Parliament will not be in full sitting on those two days. I want to add that the discussions of the provincial appropriations will be the only opportunities on which joint debates will take place this year. For that reason they will have far greater meaning than they would normally. We all have a great responsibility to make a success of this. We can also accept—the indications have emerged in this debate, especially on the part of the Official Opposition, which indicated through the hon member for Overvaal that it was going to sabotage this—that the opposition would do everything in its power to cause embarrassment and to prevent the success of these debates.

These Rules make it possible for the administrators of the respective provinces to deal with these debates in public sittings themselves, and if necessary they will also be able to enlist the aid of their MECs in this connection.

In addition, these debates are going to make it possible for the House of Representatives as well as the House of Delegates to demonstrate their presence in provincial government. Of course, this also places an enormous responsibility on those two Houses. For the present all the other Votes will be dealt with in separate meetings of each House or in appropriation committees of each House.

Since we are not going to receive any assistance from the opposition parties in making this system work, and since it is clear that they are going to do everything in their power to make it unworkable, the Government cannot enter into this procedure overhastily after what has happened. I spent some time this morning on discussions at whips’ meetings of the other two Houses. When eventually we have agreed to all these rules tomorrow, the day after or whenever, we shall have the book which contains the theory, which will have to be tested in practice. To make this procedure succeed in practice, we shall of necessity have to have certain advance exercises.

We shall grope our way through the darkness!

I am inclined to agree that one will have to grope one’s way as one enters the unknown, instead of careering headlong into the unknown, as would seem to be the habit of certain other hon members. [Interjections.] We and the whips of this House and the other two Houses will therefore have to reflect on and discuss a number of practical measures. Together we shall have to reflect on how we are going to decide, in terms of Rule 103, what is going to take place where. More particularly, we shall have to discuss how to decide on the procedure in terms of which time will be allocated for certain debates. When an overall period of time is allocated for specific debates, obviously that time will be allocated to the three Houses on a proportional basis, according to the number of members, and in turn that time will be subdivided according to the respective parties in each House.

We shall also mutually have to work out the order in which members will speak. We can accept that this cannot be a rigid order, one House after another in a specific order, since because the other two Houses qualify for less time, on the strength of their smaller number of members, the number of speakers in those Houses will have been exhausted at an early stage, thus making the debate a House of Assembly debate, which is hardly the idea of a joint meeting.

These are just a few of the arrangements that we shall have to work out with one another. We shall have to gain clarity on our movement in that Chamber, because there must be a certain discipline in the Chamber so that there will not be a constant movement of 308 members across the floor of the House.

As far as the hon the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition is concerned, to try to bluff the world that the Government is being pushed around by the Labour Party on the question of joint debating because Rev Hendrickse first has to play his cards, is just as ridiculous as the Cape Times’ political report last Tuesday which started with this sentence: “Thwarted in their bid to introduce joint debate on Wednesday for the State President’s Vote, the Government suffer … ”, If it were true that the Government had been thwarted, surely the easiest solution would have been simply to defer that debate.

We are dealing with a set of Rules today which, once the index has been added, as it appeared in the copy that was discussed by the Committees on the Standing Rules and Orders—this will not necessarily make up part of the Rules—will be a set of Rules that is so simplified, so logical, so comprehensible that even the political reporters of the Cape Times should understand them. I pray that the hon member for Sea Point will understand them too. [Interjections.]

Earlier last week, for example, they could not find in the Rules—the hon member for Sea Point referred to this again today—that a House cannot split up to discuss Votes in appropriation committees. When something has been put so clearly in the existing Rules, and yet one cannot find it, we must make it even clearer in the new Rules, as we have done.

I do not want to say anything else about that arrangement, because hon members who serve on the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders are aware of a decision that was circulated among them, which is merely an affirmation of an existing practice. To claim here that the arrangements of this place are a shambles, a mess and, as the Cape Times says in its wisdom, that no provision has been made in the Rules for such splitting up of an appropriation committee, is enough to make one wonder. [Interjections.]

I want to express the exceptional appreciation of this House to the secretariat as well as everyone who was involved in the enormous task of consolidating all the Rules and Standing Rules and Orders under the competent direction of Mr Speaker. What is more, I want to congratulate them. I believe that we have taken the best of our existing Rules and reconciled them with the best we could take from the European system in order to provide for our own unique situation.

In summarising the debate at this stage, I would say the standpoint of the Official Opposition in its overall argument was that Parliament existed primarily for the opposition and that the Rules should be worded to suit the opposition.

If I may refer to certain hon members without going into too much detail, because of a lack of time, I shall say nothing about the motions of no confidence and the discussion of the State President’s opening address, because hon members on this side will elaborate on those points.

The hon member for Sea Point, after complaining bitterly about endless circumstances that supposedly prevailed, said in his discussion of the Rules that everything was “farcical”. The use of such words indicates that one lacks a good argument. My honest feeling is that the hon member’s greatest fear is that the PFP may become irrelevant in a process of joint debate.

It is already.

They are irrelevant in any case, and joint debates will simply underline that fact much more clearly. To try and say that joint sittings and joint meetings, as opposed to one another, are farcical because provision has been made for joint sittings in the Constitution, is to talk about two totally different concepts. In his amendment he said that they could not support the report, because we had failed to recommend that provision be made for joint decisions to be taken at joint meetings. This hon member is not advocating a change in the Rules. He is advocating a change in the Constitution. I am in no position to say that the Constitution is never going to change, because that is not part of my vocabulary. After all, I do not know whether or not the NP is going to be in power forever.

The hon member also complained about the question of deferred voting in terms of Rule 105. He said:

He did not even say “the hon Speaker”, but—

… when and how the voting takes place. I am really at my wits’ end, because we have explained so often that we have given as much scope as possible—also to answer the question of the hon member for Pietersburg—because there is an electronic system in the new Chamber of Parliament. If we should include in these Rules that voting will take place by means of an electronic vote, and perhaps that machine is not working on a particular day, it means we cannot vote. The hon member would say this was a shambles, because the electronic system was not working. In other words, the only thing that can happen is that Mr Speaker will determine how the vote is taken.

Not the hon Speaker?

The hon Speaker!

The hon Speaker will then decide how the vote will be taken.

Let us take a look at last week’s debate on the hon the State President’s Vote. In concluding this Vote after a lively debate, the question was put by the Chairman of Committees. No amendment was moved, and therefore no vote was taken. This is normal practice. Now those hon members want the Rules to specify that an electronic vote will be taken about these matters, irrespective of the circumstances. Two Houses may be completely satisfied to support a subject under discussion. If a third House were to disagree in that case, Mr Speaker would be able to decide that they could vote in that Chamber in a way prescribed by him. He could even decide not to use up the time of the other two components unnecessarily, by instructing the Chief Whip to arrange a deferred vote for that House so as to dispose of the voting at a later stage.

Mr Speaker, you can see how a simple matter, which has a simple explanation, which this hon member has heard time and time again, is being presented as if the Government has some sinister intention.

The hon member had a lot to say about deferred voting, which I do not want to say much about. Naturally there will be days when quorums will be present and deferred voting will take place. The hon member said this may be general practice in Europe, but there it has no racial connotation. Deferred voting is precisely what makes it possible, in this system, for us to dispose of the debates on four provincial appropriations simultaneously. It will be possible for debates, which would otherwise have lasted for days, to be disposed of within the space of two days, because only the debate will be disposed of, the decision being taken here. This is regarded as a sinister (sinistere) …

“Sinistere”!

I was taught that it was “sinister”, but these days I hear everyone pronounces it differently. [Interjections.]

The fact that the presiding officer will decide when a House adjourns and when the debate is concluded has acquired a sinister interpretation. Hon members know, however, that this is a half-truth. After all, the Rules provide that the duration of a debate will be determined by the Speaker after consultation with the Chief Whip of Parliament. The Chief Whip of Parliament will not suck the duration of a debate out of his thumb. It will be determined after negotiation with parties about their requirements. For the sake of argument, we shall then make two days available for a specific debate. Each House will have a specific amount of time at its disposal and will decide how much time is to be made available to each party. The further implementation of the Rules in terms of which the parties will submit a joint list of the speakers and the duration of their speaking turns to the presiding officer will indicate when that debate will adjourn. This makes it possible, when there are delays because of points of order and so on at a joint sitting, for debate to continue for five minutes after six o’clock, the normal time of adjournment, so that a joint debate need not be convened at great inconvenience at a later stage.

Mr Speaker, may I put a question to the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament?

Mr Speaker, I have only two and a half minutes left, and there are a few matters that I should still like to mention.

I do not want to ignore the hon member for Overvaal, because he would not be able to cope with that. [Interjections.] He made a good political rally speech. I am afraid, however, that at his next political rally he may talk about the Rules. Since he and his party have a monopoly on Afrikanerdom, I want to tell him that he is really an annoyance to the Afrikaners. Where in the Rules is there any provision that that hon member has to be given a programme of the week’s Parliamentary proceedings in advance?

Have you ever heard of convention, decency or good manners?

That is a good convention, which results from good manners, about which I can teach the hon member a great deal, and he has received the programme from a good Chief Whip for a long time now.

The hon member for Pietersburg complained that the standing committees would probably still be sitting on Wednesdays before the Easter recess, whereas the House could meet at 14h15. The intention of this was—I think the hon member was a member of the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders when we discussed that aspect—that standing committees would be compelled to sit on a Wednesday if there were a Bill on their agenda and no obvious reason why they could not proceed.

For argument’s sake, however, since we cannot determine a period up to 17h00 during which there is no agenda for any standing committee on a given Wednesday, this will empower Mr Speaker to determine an earlier sitting. There is nothing sinister about this, and it is implicit in the Rules that the standing committees will no longer be sitting when the House starts sitting, because that is precisely what is going to determine when the House can begin with its sitting.

I have half a minute left, in which I do not wish to talk about the electronic voting, except to say that these new Rules are providing exciting possibilities for an ordered debate in which people who are not afraid to talk to one another will have an opportunity to do so. I think it is high time the Official Opposition was given this opportunity for exposure. There is no desire on this side of the House, however, for a confrontation between the Labour Party, or whatever other party, and the CP, because I really think that it is inherent in the CP to know that one will not seek unnecessary confrontation in a joint debate. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, I listened with great respect to the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament. Allow me to say at once that the hon member for Sea Point made it quite clear that we in this party welcomed the idea of a joint sitting of the three Houses. What he is opposed to is the following. Because an amendment to the Constitution is being envisaged in any case, as the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament knows, the question that naturally arises is why there cannot be joint decision-making by the three Houses. I think the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament knows that it was our standpoint from the outset that there should be joint decision-making, even if one were to differentiate between general and own affairs. However, there is no fundamental reason why there cannot be real joint decision-making with regard to general affairs.

Does the hon member concede that this would destroy the entire basis of the tricameral system?

No! No! Mr Speaker, in all honesty, this is not necessarily the basis. The basis is the differentiation between general affairs and own affairs. This is the underlying principle of this tricameral system, and it is also the underlying principle of the tricameral system that each House has an absolute say as regards own affairs. Whether or not we agree with it, this is the case. However, there is no fundamental reason why the three Houses cannot vote and take decisions jointly on general affairs. It is not an underlying principle of the operation of the tricameral system that this should not take place. In this regard I disagree with the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament.

I do not want to comment at this stage on the somewhat perverse references made by the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament to the PFP and its possible role in these joint sittings. After all is said and done, whether the PFP will have a contribution to make on those occasions will depend on the quality of the PFP’s contribution, and not necessarily on how many members the PFP has. In this regard I merely want to say that because I believe that the principles spelt out by the PFP are such that they do, in fact, represent the views of a very large section of the population, including that section which is not represented in this House, I am not afraid that the PFP will become irrelevant in that kind of situation, in spite of the remarks passed by some of my hon colleagues on that side of the House.

The hon the Chief Whip of Parliament said, with reference to the hon member for Sea Point, that the attitude of the opposition parties seemed to be that Parliament was made for the opposition, if I understood the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament correctly, that is. I think that was an unfortunate remark he made. It is, after all, an essential element of …

I said that was primarily the case!

What is of primary importance to the operation of parliamentary democracy is the recognition of the right for and of the opposition parties. In that sense it is a primary part of parliamentary democracy. Unfortunately the impression which the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament created was that the spirit which emanated from this—I do not want to interpret him incorrectly—actually wanted it to be a mere coincidence that the existence of opposition parties also had to be taken into account in our Parliamentary procedure.

All he said was that you were not the only ones here! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I do not think we would ever be so arrogant as to think that we were alone in this House.

What I cannot understand about the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament either, particularly in view of the statement he made that he considered it unlikely that we would have joint sittings during the present session of Parliament, is that he alleged that the reason why we did not deal with these new Standing Rules and Orders in a Committee of the whole House was because we had already discussed this matter last year. I do not want to take his words out of context. He nevertheless spoke about rekindling an old debate and said he did not want to repeat the same arguments ad nauseum. If there is no urgency—if I understood him correctly—for joint sittings, and the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament quite rightly said that as far as he could see this was unlikely to take place this year, I definitely associate myself with the crux of the objection raised by the hon member for Sea Point. He argued that these Rules should be discussed here in a Committee of the whole House. What the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament said in reply to this gave me every justification for advancing this argument. Whether or not there is a repetition of the same arguments which were advanced last year surely does not matter. What we do want to do is to create Rules and Orders which will function as well and as smoothly as possible in this new dispensation.

For that reason I want to say that the reasons advanced by the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament as to why this Report and Schedule are not being dealt with in a Committee of the whole House, but rather in the way in which we are dealing with them, is totally unconvincing to us. I am saying this in all honesty.

At the same time I also want to point out that the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament said that we were engaged in an evolutionary process in the overall operation of the Parliamentary system in South Africa. If I understood him correctly, he said that this was a sensitive process which he did not want to turn into a political football. This gives me all the more reason to feel compelled to contend that the entire process in terms of which these matters are formulated, as well as the fact that we are not going to discuss this set of regulations one by one here, indeed amounts to prejudicing the entire Parliamentary system. Indeed, this is not in agreement with the fundamental viewpoints of the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament as he explained them to us here.

The hon the Chief Whip of Parliament went on to talk about the provincial system. Of course this now comprises the extended public committees. He said those committees would sit on 23 and 24 May—presumably elsewhere, at least as far as the other three provinces are concerned. These committees will be sitting to give attention to provincial matters. That is, of course, assuming that these two days will be sufficient. This in fact brings me back to one of the fundamental points which the hon member for Sea Point raised, namely that it was not the committee or this House itself which decided how much time was going to be devoted to a specific debate …

Discuss that with the Party Whips! There are other procedures which are adopted as regards the determining of times.

The hon the Leader of the House will nevertheless concede that as the Rules now stand, there is a specific person who has the final say, namely Mr Speaker who, in conjunction with the Chief Whip of Parliament, takes the final decision on the times there and here.

This point in fact illustrates one of the problems which the hon member for Sea Point raised, namely that the power to decide is being taken out of the hands of the committees and even of the Houses. I shall return later to a few other aspects of these extended public committees.

I think the general accusation which the hon Chief Whip of Parliament levelled when there was a general discussion on the opposition parties who wanted to do everything in their power to make the system unworkable, was not true as regards this opposition party; on the contrary, I think the hon Chief Whip of Parliament will concede that as far as we are concerned, we have remained constructive in our ideas on and contributions to these matters. The hon member for Sea Point very clearly stated that we had problems with some of the Rules.

I want to say in general that I feel, also with reference to what the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament said, that what we have to consider will actually be an entire restructuring of the organisation of the Parliamentary process. It is already difficult to achieve a lively flow of debate in this House. I am saying this in all honesty.

In addition I want to say that we are aware that the governing party has sometimes treated opposition parties and also this party Very reasonably as regards the times set aside. One appreciates this.

Sir, you will have noticed in this debate that sometimes the next speaker from this opposition party—I am not even talking about the other minority groups now—only gets an opportunity to participate in the debate after five or more speakers from other parties have participated. This is how long that speaker must wait to enter the debate and react to what other speakers have said.

I foresee that this is going to create an impossible situation in a joint sitting. What the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament said confirmed this.

I therefore think the time has come for serious consideration to be given to whether the entire Parliamentary process should not be arranged on another basis, for example that Parliament sits throughout the year or that there are two sessions in the course of a year or whatever the case may be. I am afraid that if we stick to the conventional procedure of the past, I cannot in all honesty see how fruitful debates can be held in joint sittings—i.e. if the intention is for the general procedure to be that there will be joint sittings on general affairs—and how, at the same time, justice can be done to the quality of debating.

I associate myself with what the hon member for Sea Point said and, in spite of what the hon Chief Whip of Parliament said, I want to associate myself with the objections he raised. What is worrying me, apart from the procedure being adopted here, is the sober fact that joint decision-making can create serious problems. Let me illustrate what is at issue.

At issue here are those deferred decisions. We have heard that voting may possibly take place on the relevant occasions by way of electronic equipment. We shall have to see how this works in practice, and I do not simply want to say that it is not going to work. I nevertheless foresee big problems in this regard.

One of the points which the hon member for Sea Point raised here was the matter of the no-confidence debate. In this regard we again come back to the initial points raised here regarding the role of the opposition.

It is the convention in Parliamentary democracy, as we know it as participants in the Westminster system, that there shall be a no-confidence debate in which the opposition parties are afforded an opportunity to debate the question as to whether confidence in the Government is justified. I honestly want to say that it is not clear to me how, in view of the circumstances set out in these Rules, we can comply with the provisions of section 39 of the Constitution Act, in terms of which the normal duration of each Parliament is five years, and according to which the State President:

I would appreciate it if the hon the Leader of the House could inform us how this is going to work in practice. If the Official Opposition in this House decided that it wanted to move a motion of no-confidence in the Government, that motion—the hon member for Sea Point pointed this out—could be negatived by the majority party in this House. Let us assume it was not negatived; then the Order Paper must, within 14 days, be constituted in such a way that this debate would also take place in the other Houses.

That is why the disappearance of the conventional no-confidence debate is a fundamental deviation from the Parliamentary procedure and tradition as we know it. A discussion of the State President’s Opening Address simply cannot take the place of the traditional no-confidence debate. In this regard I merely want to say that the objections of the hon member for Sea Point would seem to be quite valid. At some stage or other, and in some way or other, we shall have to get back to the no-confidence debate, as was conventional and traditional in this House. I shall not say anything about whether it should take place immediately after the discussion of the State President’s Opening Address, but we must get back to the position where it is automatically a part of the Parliamentary procedure as we have known it over the years.

The next matter which is worrying me has already been mentioned by the hon member for Sea Point. What we are doing here will harm Parliament as an institution and the character of Parliament as a combined unit.

With the new Rules?

Very well, I do not mind admitting to the hon Leader of the House that the holding of joint sittings confirms this. However, I want to go on. Rule 14 reads as follows:

In four ways. This in itself is important, and particularly in view of the fact that it was emphasised here that even if it were theoretical at this stage, the meetings of each of those other three institutions could take place while Parliament was in session.

I want to mention the extended public committees as an example, and here I am referring specifically to Rule 34 et seq. If I am interpreting those Rules correctly, the extended public committees will comprise the members of the standing committee involved with the Bill under discussion plus any other members of Parliament, and the voting in respect of the discussion will take place immediately afterwards in the separate Houses.

What does this mean? It means that the entire concept of consensus is being thrown out of the window. Let me explain. The fundamental principle of a joint standing committee …

It remains the same!

Is it remaining the same? But is a Bill going to go to the standing committee first?

As always!

Does this standing committee take a decision?

As always!

Does the Bill then go to this extended public committee?

Not necessarily!

It can also be referred to a House, not so?

Yes, for the same debate for which legislation is referred here at the moment. However, up to the debating stage legislation still follows the same path.

Order!

Mr Chairman, I am grateful for the explanation, because I could not ascertain from the Standing Rules and Orders whether the discussions in the extended public committees were going to take place after the standing committee stage.

That goes without saying!

I am grateful for the explanation which has been given. The fundamental approach of the standing committee is that an opportunity must be afforded to discuss legislation informally and in a limited circle in order to reach consensus. I am glad to hear that these public committees are not going to affect this process.

The fact of the matter is that the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament said that he and Mr Speaker would arrange proceedings in such a way that sittings of those extended committees would not take place at times when Parliament was sitting, except of course on 23 and 24 May, when the provincial committees will be sitting elsewhere. He can do so if he is willing, well-disposed or whatever, but in the present Standing Rules and Orders there is no restriction on this.

It stands to reason that the Delegates component cannot be in more than four places at once.

Order! The hon Chief Whip of Parliament must not explain so much.

Mr Chairman, this is a good thing. If we had met in a Committee of the whole House, there could have been a smoother flow to the debate.

Accept my amendment!

However, this is not the case now, and for that reason one appreciates the degree of guidance on how the Rules work in practice. The fact of the matter is that it can be decided that the extended committee should meet while Parliament is sitting; we have experienced this problem here time and again.

Extended committees cannot take decisions.

That is quite correct. The final decision cannot be taken by joint committees either. The Houses must do this. However, we have found, time and again, that joint sittings meet while the House is sitting, as is the case again this afternoon. I beg your pardon, I understand that it has meanwhile been decided that the Committee on Constitutional Affairs is not going to carry on with its deliberations today. However we have the position that notice has been given that on five afternoons of this week and four afternoons of next week, there are going to be meetings of the Committee on Constitutional Affairs, in spite of the fact that the House is sitting. [Interjections.]

This is in terms of the present Rules.

However, these Rules are not being changed. We really have a problem. I can set out all these Rules and indicate all the powers which have been given to Mr Speaker and the hon Chief Whip. I have done my homework, and I think part of the problem is that ordinary members of this House find it extremely difficult to make a thorough study of this text which has been made available to them because no index was made available.

In this regard the hon member for Pietersburg referred to Rule 88. I think the point he raised was a valid one. I am therefore definitely asking that attention be given to this matter, although the die is already cast at this stage, and I am therefore afraid that nothing more can be done about this.

I contend that the powers of Mr Speaker which are determined in these new Standing Rules and Orders are so far-reaching—and this is my honest opinion—that they very seriously detract from the Parliamentary process. I want to refer, for example, to Rule 2(1), which reads as follows:

If we had dealt with these matters in a Committee of the whole House, we would definitely have put forward an amendment to this Rule to the effect that Mr Speaker shall, within 14 days, submit such a ruling to the Joint Committee on Standing Rules and Orders. We cannot do this now, because this matter is not being dealt with in a Committee of the whole House. As the relevant Rule reads at the moment, Mr Speaker has every right, at any time, to make a ruling or frame a rule with regard to a matter for which provision is not made in the Standing Rules and Orders.

I also want to refer to Rule 63(2), which reads as follows:

In terms of this Rule Mr Speaker is therefore authorised to rule that even if the other Houses have not yet appointed bodies, the committees of the Houses which have appointed bodies may continue with their deliberations as if they were, in fact, representative of the whole of Parliament. I am referring here to the powers which have been granted to Mr Speaker in terms of the new Standing Rules and Orders.

I now want to refer to Rule 66(4)(b)(ii). This Rule reads as follows:

1. (b) A committee established in terms of this Subrule shall have the power—
   1. (ii) upon its own resolution or by order of Mr Speaker to sit at a venue beyond the seat of Parliament also when Parliament is in session; …

In terms of this Rule Mr Speaker can decide, of his own volition, where a committee shall sit and that a specific committee may sit beyond the seat of Parliament.

I want to draw the attention of the House to Rule 66(4)(c)(iii), which reads:

Yet again it is Mr Speaker who has the power and the authority to make these rulings.

I now want to refer to Rule 66(5), which I do not actually want to elaborate on. It is actually of lesser importance, but nevertheless still relevant. Rule 69(4) provides:

One of the problems we are really faced with here is that of the entire matter of quorums. This in fact mean that a quorum is only necessary when a decision has to be taken.

Prior to that a quorum is not necessary, but let us look at Rule 69(4):

Has to decide a question—

In such cases this therefore negatives the entire quorum system, also as regards decision-making.

That is the situation at present.

The fact that it is the situation at present does not change the fact that this is an unhealthy state of affairs. We now have the present Rules, and I know this appears in them.

This is the only way to settle a conflict.

That argument was also raised in respect of the establishment of the President’s Council, but I do not want to talk about the President’s Council now.

If the point of departure is the reaching of consensus, then consensus means what it does mean; in other words, if there is no consensus, the deliberations do not continue.

I want to draw the attention of the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament to what happens in the Swiss Parliament. If the two Houses there cannot reach an agreement after messages have been sent to and fro, a joint committee comprising an equal number of members from the two Houses is appointed, and the deliberations only continue once consensus has been reached. If consensus is not reached, the measure is not continued with. This is what consensus means. If the point of departure is therefore consensus, there is no place for the kind of machinery for which provision is being made here.

I want to go further. There are so many of these Rules, but I want to refer specifically to Rule 105:

[Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, earlier in the debate reference was made to CP speakers, who allegedly said that the intention was to adopt these Rules so that the debate on the hon the State President’s Vote could be conducted jointly in the new Chamber of Parliament. Now the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament has just told us, however, that it is unlikely that further debates will be held in joint meetings this year since these Rules first have to be considered and their implications studied. I find it strange that after a vehement debate on these Rules on the 17th and 18th, there would have been time on the 19th for the consideration of the practical implications of these Rules if the debate on the hon the State President’s Vote were to have started in the joint meeting on that day. It is therefore clear that it was in fact the object, merely for the sake of that debate, to force the Rules through and that any practical implications that that might have had would then not have mattered. However, there is at present time to give attention to them.

The hon the Chief Whip of Parliament also referred to the possibility of allocating times to parties. I want to refer at once to Rule 90:

I want to submit that in this Rule time is not being allocated to parties, but to individual members such as the hon the State President, the Leader of the Official Opposition or the Chairman of a Ministers’ Council and to any other hon member. Ten minutes are allocated, or whatever the position may be. Nowhere in these Rules, however, is time being allocated to parties as contemplated in Rule 90, because Rule 90 is the rule which is being quoted here, and in terms of this Rule no times are, in fact, being allocated to various parties.

There is another question I should like to ask, and I am pleased the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament touched on this matter and said there would now be time to reflect on the practical implications of Rules. After the opening address by the hon the State President I assume that it will be possible to hold a debate, and the question which would then arise would be who would be able to participate first in this debate. What would the sequence have been last week when the debate on the Vote of the hon the State President was to have taken place? Would Rev Hendrickse have participated first, and then Mr Rajbansi? In other words, three members of the Government corps. Or would the first speakers have been a member of the Government corps and a member of the opposition? We should like to know, because we do not want any embarrassment to arise in that three or four members rise simultaneously and Mr Speaker has to call upon one of them to speak, and the hon members do not know which of them should be called upon to speak. Where would my hon leader, as hon Leader of the Official Opposition in this House, figure in the sequence in which a debate can be conducted, if he should want to participate in the debate?

Last!

Someone said “last”.

That is quite true, you know, because I think he will soon have to make his reply because at that stage he will be the State President. [Interjections.]

There is something else in these Rules which I find particularly, I am almost inclined to say, comical. Actually it puts me in mind of the definition someone once tried to give of a chicken. I am referring to Rule 18 which gives us a definition of a joint meeting. This definition, in fact, puts me in mind of this attempt on the part of someone to give a definition of a chicken, namely that it is a two-legged, living creature, which consists of meat compacted around bones, and surrounded by a blanket of feathers, but if there is no life or meat or bones or a blanket of feathers, a feather is deemed to be a chicken. [Interjections.] Here something is being deemed to be a meeting, which can never be a meeting in the wildest flights of anyone’s fancy. I am quoting from Rule 18:

If it had ended there, it would make sense if one were to say a joint meeting of the Houses is a meeting which takes place by the application of these Rules. It is, in other words, not merely an attempt to have a meeting take place, but a meeting which takes place after it has been convened on the Order Paper as a joint meeting. If we go further and read what follows, it changes:

One then comes to the conclusion that irrespective of whether there is meat or bones or whatever, if there is a feather, there is a chicken! [Interjections.]

In fact I want to suggest that we analyse this Rule. What is a meeting? If one looks at it normally a meeting is surely a gathering of two or more people. One person cannot hold a meeting, not even an NP meeting, because a meeting cannot be held by one person who turns up and says: I propose myself as Chairman, I second myself and I elect myself. There must be at least two parties in a meeting. It is therefore a gathering or a getting together of two or more people or entities for a specific purpose. One has various kinds of meetings. That is true. The normal one consists of one or two or more people who get together for a specific purpose. One does not then refer to a joint meeting, but merely to a meeting.

It would be tautological then to speak of a joint meeting if one is merely speaking of a meeting at which two or more people get together. The concept “meeting” is already a collective noun. The mere use of the word indicates a getting together of more than one entity. There can never be a gathering of only one person. In contrast to a meeting of people, there is also a board meeting or a council meeting of a specific council, body or party. These bodies or entities can also get together, and there one would have to have two or more to be able to speak of a joint meeting. If we therefore speak about a joint meeting of Houses, there must be two or more Houses at that meeting. Just as one person cannot constitute a joint meeting of people, one House cannot constitute a joint meeting of Houses.

If we proceed from that standpoint—I think it is an indisputable standpoint—we must establish what becomes of this definition of a joint meeting. We must establish what can take place, by definition, at this joint meeting. The premise is that a meeting is convened at which three Houses will be present. Let us forget that there are three Houses, but as I have already said, it is a prerequisite that there should be at least two in order to constitute a joint meeting. According to Rule 18 there is a joint meeting even though members of all three Houses are not present at the meeting.

What happens if no member is present?

Yes, I am still coming to the aspect of what happens when no member is present. [Interjections.] If there are not members of all three Houses present, but only members of one House, it cannot, as I have already said, be a joint meeting of Houses. That is wrong by definition. If there are members of two of the Houses, it is all very well, because then there is a meeting of Houses as represented by those specific members.

Rule 18 goes on to state that a joint meeting may take place irrespective of the number of members present. What happens if there is no one present, as an hon member asked in an interjection? Surely it will still be a joint meeting of Houses, because the number of members present is irrelevant. [Interjections.] The meeting does not merely continue regardless of the number of members of the House of Representatives or House of Delegates present, but also regardless of the number of members of the House of Assembly present. The situation can therefore arise that only the presiding officer turns up, and that it is deemed to be a joint meeting of Houses, although there is no one in that Chamber. However, that can never be a meeting of the House of Assembly.

How quickly one will arrive at consensus then!

Order!

There is one rule that applies in the interpretation of laws, and that is that one should not expect the absurd. One must not proceed from the standpoint that the legislature is contemplating an absurdity. This definition permanently refutes that presumption, because it is absurd to say that one can have a joint meeting of Houses while two Houses need not be present and even one member can constitute a joint meeting of Houses. [Interjections.]

Order! I cannot allow these interjections.

The feather has become a chicken. That is what this definition conveys in the long run.

FW, it is a feather in your cap!

Order!

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

Mr Chairman, that hon member was so busy that he was unable to reply to any questions, and the same applies to me. [Interjections.]

Next I want to point out just one aspect. It is also a requirement at a meeting that there should be a form of physical presence or proximity and cohesion of people. In court cases it is frequently stated in this way:

It is no use my being outside the hall when I want to attend a meeting. If I want to attend a meeting of this House, I must be in the House. It is no use my sitting on Jan Smuts Airport after I have just missed a plane. Even though I wanted to be present in this House, I do not form part of this meeting if I am not here. It is therefore no use saying that the people who are outside form part of this meeting. That can never be the intention. [Interjections.]

Order! The conversations in this House are far too loud. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, it may be that many people have a heart-felt desire to form part of this meeting, but unfortunately they fall by the wayside, as in by-elections in Schweizer-Reneke or elsewhere. Then they no longer form part of this meeting, although they would very much like to. Their presence here is required.

That has nothing to do with your argument.

Now I will be told that it is not necessary for all 176 members to be present here—the quorum is at present 50 and we can reduce it. That is correct, and we will be able to reduce it to two, but so help me not to one! As I have already indicated, if you, Sir, were the only one to turn up, unfortunately a meeting could not be constituted here.

One would then be able to reach consensus!

I want to discuss a few other aspects. I think it is clear that we are dealing here with a definition in terms of which an effort is being made to create a meeting, while the entire wording is in stark contrast to what a meeting in fact is.

I should like to refer next to Rules 124 and 125. These deal with matters of “public importance” and matters of “urgent public importance”, respectively. Rule 124(1) provides:

Rule 124(2) provides further:

Such a request can therefore be made to Mr Speaker, and Mr Speaker will then be able to make the further necessary arrangements to place this matter of public importance on the Order Paper. If that House of which I am a member is not sitting, however, but only a joint meeting is taking place at that stage, I cannot place the matter of public importance or even urgent public importance on the Order Paper of the House of which I am a member. I could possibly place such a matter on the Order Papers of the Houses for discussion at a joint meeting, but Rule 124(3) then requires that such a request shall be signed by the member himself and by a chief whip or senior whip in each of the other Houses.

I just want to point out that this Rule is perhaps to a certain extent unclear, because it provides that such a request “shall be signed by the member and by a chief whip or a senior whip in each of the other Houses”. If it is signed by a chief whip, is it also necessary that it shall be signed by a senior whip in each of the other Houses? That is if one interprets the “or” to mean that a chief whip and a senior whip are alternatives. However, I think the intention is that it may be signed by any senior whip, including a chief whip, as long as it is also signed by a whip from every House. It is not very clear who that “or” refers to precisely, or whether it merely entails an alternative between a chief whip or a senior whip.

Yes, that is correct.

Yes.

Should they not want to sign it now, I cannot have it discussed by a joint meeting, nor can I have that matter of public importance discussed by my own House because my own House is not sitting at that stage.

Mr Chairman, I should like to make a correction and bring it to the attention of this House that a report which appeared in various newspapers that I had made an announcement to this House is incorrect. Proceedings had already been suspended on Friday when I made an announcement to those hon members who remained behind. In other words, the House was not in session at all at that stage.

Furthermore, I wish to state that the announcement was based on a note which I had received from the hon the Deputy Minister of Population Development who, in turn, had received a note from the hon member for Border which was signed by him.

I want to appeal to the House that when we pass notes, particularly notes which contain important information, the facts be ascertained before the information is passed on, because it could place us and this House in a precarious position. Our approach should not be a lighthearted one in matters of a serious nature.

Mr Chairman, may I react to what the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has said?

Order! No, I am not going to permit the hon member to enter into a discussion with the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council now. The hon member can react to what appears in the Minutes.

Mr Chairman, since the hon member for Bosmont, who serves on the committee and is the Official Opposition’s chief spokesman, is not here, I shall begin.

In the first place I want to thank the hon the Minister, the hon the Deputy Minister and all other interested parties, and express my appreciation to them for the unselfish and valuable service they rendered during the recent flood disaster. This House has already discussed the matter by means of a motion. Consequently it is not necessary to elaborate any further today. I hope that there will not be any more disasters, because then the hon the Minister of National Health might jokingly be known as the Minister of Disasters one of these days.

Workers’ Day has been instituted as a holiday, and I have been informed that the nursing staff are not getting this day as a holiday. By the very nature of their work, some of them have to work on holidays, and they cannot take Workers’ Day off. My request is that they should also get this day as a holiday, because that is their right. Nurses cannot boycott or strike to get what is legally theirs. I trust, therefore, that the hon the Minister will have the matter investigated so that these people can be assisted.

The objective of the LP is to improve the quality of life of all people in South Africa. That is why we support the population development programme. Sir, if we fail here, we shall be failing South Africa’s future.

I should like to tell the House a little story that was told to me by a nursing sister from Valkenberg Hospital. It concerns two patients who improved to such an extent that they were permitted to walk around in the garden. Every morning when they got back from their walk, however, they were full of cuts and bruises. She asked them what was going on and why they looked the way they did. They told her that they had played “paw-paw”. She asked what kind of game it was, but they did not want to tell her. One morning she watched them. They would climb a tree and go and sit on the first branch. Then the one would say to the other, “I am a ‘paw-paw’.” The other one would then say to the first one, “I am a ‘paw-paw’.” Then the first would say, “I am a ripe ‘paw-paw’,” and drop from the branch. The other would then say the same thing and also drop from the tree. Sir, we must not gamble with health in South Africa; we must not damage it. We must not play games.

The young people of the LP in Malmesbury have a song that they sing, and the words are as follows:

Sir, we must assure a future for the young people and the generations after them in this beautiful country of ours.

I now want to confine myself to family planning, the most important component of the population development programme. If the population continues to grow at an average of 2,3%, the required balance between population figures and the available resources of the country will be disturbed, and this could have far-reaching social and economic consequences for South Africa and Southern Africa which would seriously threaten stability and progress.

Sir, poverty and high fertility form a cycle, which becomes more and more difficult to break the longer the high population growth rate is maintained. This vicious circle of poverty is going to increase progressively.

In order to increase the general standard of living, a method of breaking the cycle will have to be found. If that does not happen, the whole country and all its people will ultimately be drawn into the vicious circle.

The present family planning programme has definitely obtained good results, but evidence indicates that the programme as it is implemented at present, reaches mainly those people who live in large urban areas, who have reached a certain degree of socio-economic development, and who have already accepted family planning to improve their quality of life.

Sir, the whole community must become involved and, in the first place, made aware of family planning and the services that are provided.

Secondly, the advantages family planning has for the family and the community must be emphasised. Family planning facilitates the promotion of a better family life and the restriction of unwanted pregnancies and their consequences, for example, and corrects the socio-economic iniquities, which are aggravated by a high birth rate.

Sir, although the birth rate has dropped, it is still high, and this can be ascribed to an important factor, viz the failure of responsible people to recognise that effective family planning in South Africa is South Africa’s salvation, viewed in the light of the available resources in the country and the present poor quality of life among a large section of the population.

The low acceptance rate among certain groups is alarming, but the figure will probably rise as ignorance is eliminated.

Sir, here I want to praise our Ministers’ Council for the wise decision of introducing sex education at our schools.

Hear, hear!

I trust that other education departments will follow our example.

Sir, I now want to focus on tuberculosis—the illness of the poorest among the poor.

The increase in cases of tuberculosis is a clear indication that an accelerated tuberculosis epidemic is raging. Sir, tuberculosis is still one of the contagious diseases that creates the greatest problems. It looks as though this disease is wreaking havoc.

One must expect a high incidence of tuberculosis where there is poor accommodation and malnutrition. Sir, it is well known that there is an enormous backlog in respect of housing in our community. In most areas this gives rise to over-crowding. [Interjections.] Overcrowding is one of the main causes of the tuberculosis epidemic that is being experienced at present.

A poor socio-economic system has existed for decades, and this is another major cause of the present epidemic.

The world is full of the wrecks of liberal people whose so-called good intentions have gone wrong. The Cape Flats is a classic example of that. In a world surrounded by the most beautiful scenery, we have row upon row of little boxes today, houses that have become the coffins of our community.

Take a look, Sir, at the increasing incidence of tuberculosis on the Cape Flats and elsewhere. But, Sir, these very same liberal city fathers of Cape Town have also allowed a whole nest of little houses, made up of the wrecks of motor cars, to build up in homes’ backyards. [Interjections.] These motor car “homes” must certainly contribute to the socio-economic conditions in which diseases such as tuberculosis flourish.

Add to this the effect of apartheid by the forced removal of people under the Group Areas Act which further aggravated the overcrowding and the existing backlog of housing.

When one sees reports on the tuberculosis epidemic in newspapers and on TV, one wonders whether the authorities in fact realise what is going on. If they do, are they powerless to fight tuberculosis? The time has come for this tuberculosis epidemic to be tackled seriously.

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

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

Sir, I should like to refer to Rapport of 17 April 1988, and I quote:

It is a disgrace that so many people are dying. The disease is already being called the plague of South Africa. If a plague of locusts afflicts the country, positive action is always taken. Why can the same thing not be done in this case? Santa goes on in the report to say that the time has come for us to say that things can go no further. We should like to know the hon the Minister’s reply to this. I quote from the report in Rapport:

Sir, the extent of the disease makes one shudder, and the hon the Minister will have to do everything in his power to clamp down on it.

I now want to refer the hon the Minister to the annual report, pages 63 and 64, annex 1, under the heading “Filling of Posts”. With regard to nursing staff, there are 12 781 posts of which 3 301 are vacant at present. If the hon the Minister advertises these vacant posts and fills them, these people can be used to crack down on the tuberculosis epidemic. There are a number of other posts that are not filled at the moment either. With regard to our artisans, for example, there are 46 vacancies. In addition there are 44 vacancies for drivers, 221 vacant posts for community liaison officers, 148 vacancies for health and welfare administration clerks, 34 vacancies for seamstresses, 25 vacant posts for caretakers and 764 vacant posts for advisers and family planners. Have the vacant posts ever been advertised and if so, in which newspapers? If not, why not? My major question, however, is whether these posts are reserved for only a certain group. I can assure the hon the Minister that if he comes to us we shall help him to fill the posts. I trust that these posts to which I have referred, and not only the top posts, will be advertised. I have referred to only a few areas in which vacancies exist. If the posts are filled, we can provide our people with employment, because there is a lot of unemployment in our communities. According to the report, there are almost 6 000 posts still to be filled.

Mr Chairman, I request the privilege of the half-hour. On behalf of the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare, I want to express our thanks to Dr Francois Retief for the service he rendered. He meant a great deal to us, and I should like the hon the Minister to convey our thanks to him. In the same breath we want to congratulate Dr Slabber on his appointment as Director-General. We hope and trust that we will receive the same co-operation from him. We wish him everything of the best in his term of office.

Sir, we must remember that the South African population increases by an average of 2,3% per annum. Projections show that if the growth rate remains unchanged, the present population of 28,4 million will have increased to 47,16 million by the year 2000, to 80 million by 2020, and to 138 million by 2040.

[Inaudible.]

Order! If the hon member for Northern Cape wants to put a question, he must rise and do so in the correct way. I am warning the hon member for the last time. The hon member for Britstown may proceed.

Our natural resources in South Africa are limited. According to the Department of Water Affairs it is estimated that the country has sufficient subterranean and surface water for only 80 million people. If, therefore, the growth rate of 2,3% per annum remains unchanged, it will be very difficult to maintain an acceptable balance between the population and the existing water and other natural resources. Sir, what it amounts to is that we are going to drink ourselves to death—on water. [Interjections.] That is the implication.

I want to concentrate on the question of population development. What do we understand under “population development”? It is a matter of improving people’s and communities’ quality of life, and satisfying the basic needs of people and communities. This is no simple matter; it is an enormous task. The Government has committed itself to making the establishment of dignified living conditions possible for all people and groups in South Africa. Hon members know that a number of institutions have been mentioned in this connection.

We can only establish a stable, prosperous and progressive community if we recognise and protect the human dignity of all people, and if we succeed in creating opportunities for all people and communities to develop their full potential. This implies that we have to maintain a balance between population development and constitutional development. These two aspects, viz population development and constitutional development are the focal points as far as South Africa’s future is concerned. It appears that the best and most successful way of maintaining this balance is to encourage people and communities and give them an opportunity to become involved in the development process and to accept responsibility for such development themselves.

We must move away from the idea of standing begging, of merely asking for things to be done for us. We must accept the responsibility of doing things ourselves, of developing ourselves and of utilising development opportunities to the full. The attempts can be initiated by Government bodies, but then they should take place within the framework of a national, social, economic and physical development programme. Development should not be planned and implemented only on a national and regional level, however. It should gain substance on the local level in particular, because after all, it is the people on this basic level who have to make adjustments at the final stage.

We have also lost view of the fact that women play a very important part in the community. In this connection I want to say that the status of women in the community should be improved. There is an expression that says: “When you educate a man you educate an individual, but when you educate a woman you educate a family and a nation.” [Interjections.] Hon members can see, therefore, what an important part women play in this development plan. It is the women in particular who must be supported in carrying out this important task. That is why the place, role, status and development of women is one of the focal points of the population development programme.

The positive influence women exercise on the education and development of a family and the population is determined by women’s level of education, because the higher a woman’s level of education, the higher her status in the family. This means that the level of their development will contribute to women’s not having distorted ideas. It will contribute to women’s role in society being acknowledged to an increasing extent, and they will be regarded as inspired people. They will also have a greater say in money matters, the education of children and family planning in particular, because as soon as one educates that woman and improves her status, she knows what the label on the bottle says. She will know how the pill is to be used, but if she is not educated, everything will be in vain. [Interjections.]

The influential role of women can be used to an ever greater extent. They can act more positively and meaningfully, because their ignorance is being reduced. This also applies to our men who have to move away from the idea that women are good only for the kitchen and the bedroom. By believing this, men are denigrating women’s human dignity. That is why I appeal for women to be given improved status. This would contribute a great deal to the success of our programme.

There are certain radical groups in and around the Republic of South Africa which have made a concerted effort to upset the existing order. I want to state categorically that these groups are not only involving themselves in the development of our community, but that it is their purpose to exploit those grievances. They do nothing to improve people’s and communities’ quality of life. They want to discredit and denigrate the positive development that is taking place. It is unacceptable to these groups that we are involved in a programme to improve our people’s quality of life. What they want is the perpetuation of these miserable conditions, because that will form the breeding ground for these diabolical forces.

These poor socio-economic conditions, poverty and frustrations are exploited and manipulated to the advantage of their own revolutionary objectives. To a great extent the onslaught is in the psychological sphere—on reason and emotion. The revolutionaries believe that if they can control the thoughts of people and create a spirit of pessimism by means of intimidation, violence and negativism, this can become the breeding ground for revolution. That is why we must make a serious appeal to the Government to supply more funds so that we can release those who are still caught up in the clutches of poverty. In this way we can deal the revolutionary forces the death-blow.

We are also experiencing problems with the implementation of our population development programme. We need money in order to achieve our objectives with reference to population development according to the time scales. The Department of Health and Welfare received an additional R85 million in the 1985-86 financial year. We are working according to a time scale, and if we do not reach the target in a specific year, our continued existence will come into question. We are going to drink ourselves to death. [Interjections.]

Africa has shown us that if one eats all one’s food and uses one’s money to import weapons, one’s country looks like Africa does today. There is no point in importing tons and tons of food to Africa, because starvation has already taken its toll. What is going to become of those crippled and injured people? What are the descendants of those who have just made it going to look like? We must learn from the lessons of Africa.

I cannot imagine that other countries will send us food. Instead attempts have been made to annihilate us. They are not going to supply us with water, and that is why we must take precautions now. The Treasury does not have the money. The private sector is demanding that Government expenditure be dramatically curtailed. They are appealing for services to be privatised—including those in the population development programme. Our experience thus far has been that all business groups support the population development programme, but that they do not want to make a direct financial contribution. The private sector agrees that we are going to annihilate ourselves if we do not take precautions now. They agree wholeheartedly, but if one asks them to contribute some money for our continued existence, they do not want to do so. [Interjections.] These institutions tell one that the Government must not ask them for money.

We get very good advice about what we should do to make the population development programme succeed. We think we know what we must do, but to do that costs money. The business community can support the population development programme in an indirect way, however. It is essential that we get this support on two levels in particular, viz the socio-economic development of workers and support for our family planning programme. In my opinion this support can come from both inside and outside the work situation. I can give the following practical hints of what can be done in the work situation: Training aimed at productivity in particular; better utilisation of manpower; improvement of the self-image; the involvement of workers in decision-making processes; winning workers for the free-market system; offering promotion opportunities; the creation of careers; good increases and wage packages; integrating the importance of family planning in training; incentive programmes with the emphasis on small families and an improved quality of life in particular; better care of children and more available sources for own requirements.

Facilities must be made available in factories or on business premises where family planning services can be offered. That is very important. It must be possible for workers to attend family planning clinics during working hours. The establishment of the following incentives could be considered, for example: The establishment of a school or training fund for staffs children, in which assistance can be considered for only the first two children in a family; the cancellation of all maternity leave benefits after the birth of the first two children; a bonus of R300 for women who have themselves sterilised voluntarily or men who have a vasectomy. [Interjections.] Give a worker a television set after a year of loyal service. That has great value.

With regard to company housing, parents with two children must receive preference. Company housing or housing loans ensure that the workers have good living conditions. The provision of electricity is very important, as is the provision of fresh water and sanitary facilities. Recreational facilities are very important as well. Extra-mural activities and club sport facilities are important. One should concentrate on the workers’ wives in particular. I cannot overemphasise the importance of the women, because they are the pivotal point of family life.

Employment opportunities are just as important, and it is essential that they be created. We have learnt that when the husband does not work, he has time for all kinds of mischief at home. That is usually when families are started. The husband is rested; he is not overworked. That is when these things happen. As soon as employment opportunities are created, however, and the husbands work every day, they will be too tired for games at night. [Interjections.] That is why the importance of employment opportunities should be emphasised. This would improve the status of the women.

Mr Chairman, the root cause of our country’s health problems—the same applies to any other country—is the lack of proper housing. Proper housing would create a healthier community and a better environment. As long as the people’s need for proper housing is not met, we will not solve all our health problems. It does not matter how long we go on debating about this, the fact is that the health problems are a direct result of a lack of proper housing.

I believe that if we are to solve the health problems of our community effectively, our own affairs Minister responsible for housing should be given the health portfolio as well. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member should please give the hon member for Tafelberg an opportunity to deliver her speech. The hon member for Tafelberg may proceed.

Mr Chairman, we cannot divorce national health and the national environment from local health and local housing. As I see things, Sir, the portfolio of the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture and that of the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development are running along parallel lines, and it is imperative that these two portfolios run along the same line. That is essential for the co-ordination of planning for better housing, better health and a better society for South Africa.

Finally, Sir, I should like to apologise to the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development for not saying much today. I am not feeling well at all today, but I felt that it was important that I speak, even if only for one or two minutes.

Mr Chairman, I also want to associate myself with the hon member for Britstown in sincerely congratulating Dr Francois Retief, who relinquished his office on 30 November 1987 after a period of five years to accept the post of Rector at the University of the Orange Free State. I knew Dr Retief very well and I wish to extend my very best wishes to him in his new office.

Because the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development shares my constituency with me—we both operate in one constituency—I should like to concentrate today on an organisation that is doing wonders in my constituency. That organisation is the Rural Foundation, which also plays a part in the hon the Minister’s constituency. Sir, I modestly want to concentrate on this organisation which, as I said, is doing wonders in my constituency. I want to start by congratulating the general manager and all his assistants—his field workers, his office workers, anyone who has anything to do with the Rural Foundation—on the good work they are doing for the new South Africa.

Hear, hear!

Are hon members aware of what these people are doing? The Government ought to award that organisation—the Rural Foundation—a medal or a certificate for meritorious service for the work they are doing, because they are indeed performing miracles. Never in the history of this country, South Africa, has an organisation done as much for the farm labourers as these people have done.

It is not always pleasant to negotiate with certain farmers, because there is always the problem that they may think one is trying to lure their workers away from their farms. That is why, on 23 December 1982, the Rural Foundation was registered as a utility company. The Foundation is a nonpolitical and nonracial organisation which aims at improving the quality of life of the approximately 6 million people on the approximately 60 000 farms.

Organised agriculture and also the private and public sectors are involved in the campaigns for the promotion of rural community development. The Foundation has grown with a target growth rate of 20 projects per annum for the first five years, to 90 community development associations or areas. They did all that in only five years. Now that is what I call “human development”, because the Rural Foundation is working with people who possess the will to keep abreast of change under the necessary leadership.

Change, Sir, plays a major part in today’s South Africa because as far as I am concerned, our farm folk are the lifeblood of the new South Africa which we are developing.

Life on a farm can be described as a working and a social life. The Rural Foundation reaches approximately a quarter of a million people annually, but according to the latest information available to me, there are still roughly 70 areas which are waiting to be integrated into the Rural Foundation. The problem, however, is that there are not sufficient funds available to accommodate these 70 areas. I have also been told that an additional R3,5 million will be required annually in order to accommodate these 70 areas. Two years ago the Rural Foundation ceased marketing its services and at present it has a staff of 160, of whom 49% are working in the Western Cape, 16% in the Southern and the Eastern Cape, 15% in the Free State, 15% in the Transvaal and 5% in Natal and the Northern Cape. In the 1986-87 financial year the Rural Foundation received R3,45 million from the Department of National Health as well as the fine amount of R103 000 from the private sector. This year R6,66 million was appropriated by the relevant department. We want to thank the hon the Minister and his department sincerely for this. These people are performing a major task in the new South Africa of today and we want to thank the hon the Minister sincerely. During the past financial year the Rural Foundation received more money from the private sector and it is a pity that the hon member for Britstown said that the private sector had not done its fair share. In fact, they contributed more than in previous years and it is a pity that I have to differ with the hon member in this respect.

The Rural Foundation operates its services on an economic basis as far as possible. The costs per farmer presently run to R30 per family per year. That means that the farmer pays for the upliftment of those people on his farm by means of education. The farmers pay for services and therefore I want to encourage other farmers and appeal to every farmer in South Africa to join the Rural Foundation. If that happens we shall not experience the kind of problem I still have in the Robertson constituency, with farmers who have their workers fetch and drink water from the dams or who do not provide suitable housing. The problems will be eliminated, because the Rural Foundation sees to it that these matters are rectified. I want to point out to the farmers that such an investment in the development of people can only be to their own advantage.

Farmers have always accepted responsibility for their workers’ housing. In 1987 farmers who had joined the Rural Foundation spent nearly R3 million on upgrading existing houses or building new houses. It has become customary to build decent houses of a good standard. Nearly all farm labourers’ houses are well furnished nowadays, the floors shine and in some cases there are even two TVs in one house, one in the living room and one in the bedroom. As far as I am concerned, those farmers—unfortunately not all farmers as yet—are definitely doing their fair share. On more than 10% of the farms involved in the Rural Foundation there are pre-school facilities which take care of almost 4 000 children annually and prepare them for school.

In this process approximately 500 new employment opportunities were created. That means that work is being done on a daily basis with regard to the employment of people in the Republic of South Africa. Not one of us would have thought that five years ago.

We all know how miserable circumstances on certain farms were before the Rural Council came into being. As I said earlier, they are no longer able to promote their own case today because they have too much to do. There are too many farmers who want to join them, and they do not have sufficient funds to accommodate those people. I continue to appeal to farmers to join this organisation, however.

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

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

Thank you. I have also been told that the pass rate of Sub A pupils on farms where the Foundation is active, has risen from 53% before the organisation became involved to 84% at present. One cannot but call this major success a miracle.

Sir, we are dealing with an exciting programme of human development in South Africa. In this regard the active support of the private sector as well as the public sector is necessary, as is the support of every member of Parliament who represents a constituency, be it in the cities or in the rural areas. I also want to appeal to the Foundation, wherever they are operating, to co-operate with the local MPs. That can only be to their advantage. Thanks to the work of the Rural Foundation a new rural generation is being built, a generation that South Africa can certainly be proud of.

I do not want to make unnecessary exceptions, but I would be neglecting my duty if I did not mention the names of one or two people here. I want to thank Messrs Boland Coetzee, Okkie Bosman and Herman Bailey sincerely for the selfless service which they have rendered in the farming community. Should they not receive the appreciation which they really deserve here, I hope that one day they will receive it elsewhere.

With these few words, Mr Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity I have had to participate in the debate.

Mr Chairman, I rise to speak in support of this Vote of the hon the Minister.

I personally believe that cleanliness is next to godliness. That means that in order to enjoy good health, one needs to live in a healthy way. I am sure that the hon the Minister, his two hon deputies and the senior officials in the Department of National Health and Population Development have, like me, travelled the length and breadth of the country, and would have noticed that the conditions under which people of colour live in some of our subeconomic townships definitely pose health hazards. In those areas there is a serious need for population development. We have solved the poor White problem. I do not know of any White area where people live under such appalling subeconomic conditions as those under which people of colour still live in South Africa in the year 1988.

In order to live healthily one must live under sound conditions, with proper housing facilities and amenities, such as running water, electricity, a sewerage system and a healthy environment.

I want to reiterate that too many of our so-called Coloureds still live under Third World socioeconomic conditions. It is very difficult to isolate health from economics, education and politics in South Africa. One cannot treat health, health services and population development as separate entities. They go together. The vast socio-economic backlogs experienced in our Coloured communities have given rise to all kinds of social evils such as unemployment, the spread of tuberculosis, alcoholism, and drug and sexual abuse. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister and his general affairs department must today launch an in-depth investigation into the living conditions of the subeconomic areas in both the urban and the rural areas of South Africa where people of colour live.

Health and its related affairs should be a general affair. In this regard I do not intend treading on the toes of the own affairs hon Minister, but I feel that health ought to be a general affair, controlled and administered by one Ministry and one controlling department. [Interjections.] I have said in the past, and I am repeating it today, that health, like death and human tragedy, is a common denominator in society. Death knows no colour, health should know no colour and human tragedy, as we have seen it in the floods recently, should know no colour. It knows no colour—its hits all and sundry.

The great evangelist, Dr Billy Graham, in his book The Seven Deadly Sins, quoted drunkenness as one of the seven deadly sins in the world. Our people, the so-called Coloured people, are caught up in an epidemic of drunkenness. When in the past I asked the hon the Minister and his department about the “dop” system and when I alleged in this House that the “dop” system was alive and well in South Africa, I did not—and up to now I have still not—get a satisfactory answer from any Minister or State department in which that was disputed or denied. Is the “dop” system on our farms still in operation? If so, what is the hon the Minister and his department doing about eradicating that evil amongst our people? At grassroots level, drink and drunkenness are destroying the so-called Coloured people in South Africa, whom this House and I represent here today. [Interjections.]

I wish to tell the hon the Minister and his department that I was personally appalled as a Christian when I originally learned that the trading hours of the sale of liquor had been extended. [Interjections.] As a Christian I want to say that drunkenness is a sin, it is harmful to others and it ought not to occur to the extent that it is occurring in our community and society. The extended hours might be good news to the liquor barons, but they are bad news for our people. Our people are becoming a nation of drunks, and too many people, especially the youth, are finding it too easy to obtain liquor. Alcohol is a soul and body destroying drug, which must be curtailed, not only in this country, but in other countries of the world as well. Steps have been taken to curtail the sale and use of liquor. I want to ask the hon the Minister why liquor trading hours in South Africa have been extended, and what he is saying and doing about this.

I want to quote from a letter which I received in the post this morning from the Alcohol and Drug Concerns—Southern Africa. They appeal to all MPs:

Here is living proof of what alcoholism or drunkenness is doing worldwide and among our people in South Africa. Therefore, I want to hear from the hon the Minister today what the Department of National Health and Population Development is doing among people of colour to stop this evil. This is an evil which must be addressed and arrested. Let us leave alone the question of the apartheid laws, group areas, separate beaches and separate amenities for the moment and let us do something about the evil of drunkenness among our people. If nothing else, if we can do something about this today, we shall have achieved something in this Parliament. Let us arrest the spread of alcohol abuse among the so-called people of colour in this country.

Liquor is more than a social evil—here I speak again as a Christian—it is endemic among our people. Drunkenness, besides being an evil, is a spreading disease which must be arrested. My time is drawing to a close and I have one more subject to touch on today, so I hope to hear from the hon the Minister what he intends doing about this.

When I spoke in 1985 about sexually transmitted diseases, some people in this Chamber thought that I was joking about sex. Sex is not something to take lightly. One does not play about with it and one does not dabble in it like one dabbles in horses—it is a serious thing. Since 1985 when I spoke in this House about sexually transmitted diseases and when there was one death because of Aids, this terrible disease and worldwide killer of mankind has become an epidemic.

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

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

Mr Chairman, it is amazing. After my long speech that day during which I quoted from a lengthy article—I think it was from the Reader’s Digest—there was no response from the hon the Minister and his department or any other department about what they were going to do among the so-called poor masses, the Coloured community. I am saying here that the hon the Minister has at his disposal a reservoir of talent, knowledge, finance and manpower, but all that is of no use to us in the poorer areas unless we have access to it and know what the hon the Minister intends doing about addressing the serious spread of Aids in South Africa.

Now that Aids has the attention of the entire world I do hope that the hon the Minister and his department will tell us today what they are doing, what they have been doing and what they intend doing among the subeconomic masses in general as well as in particular, to educate and warn them about this killer disease against which advanced medical researchers have no solution.

I want to quote again from material I received from the South African branch of the World Federation of Doctors Who Respect Human Life. We get many of these clippings through the mail and one can see it is not junk mail when one examines it. A number of people have felt that the distribution and the use of condoms may check the spread of Aids. This federation has the following to say about safe sex, and I quote:

That is despite the use of condoms.

Nevertheless, I want to suggest to the hon the Minister today to make available to certain sectors of the community these contraceptives commonly known as condoms, especially in situations such as prisons where sodomy and other sexual acts can take place. I am prepared to assist by distributing leaflets in my constituency or visiting schools or distributing any information which the hon the Minister and his department may have available to check this killer disease. I know that it is an enormous and expensive task, but the State must set the ball rolling. The State must address this problem at grassroots level, and although this may not be the best solution, we have to get to the masses in order to warn them, to educate them and instruct them in the greater use of contraceptives to combat this killer disease. The enormous increase in the cost of these things lately, despite the tremendous rise in supply and demand, should not deter us from making this our first line of defence. These contraceptives can be made available cheaply to people who have to use them.

It has been proved medically and scientifically that condoms are not the answer. In the article by the World Federation of Doctors Who Respect Human Life the writer concludes:

That the condom can prevent Aids—

This is the line of action open to us as members of Parliament who represent our people, and to the hon the Minister and his department. There must be an honest, straight line of communication between the department and the people at grass-roots level in order to combat a disease which, if it is not checked, would kill off innocent people whose care is entrusted to us as MPs and to the hon the Minister, his hon deputies and his officials in the Department of Health and Population Development. They must see to it that this problem is arrested. I am looking forward to hearing something very definite and positive from the hon the Minister as to what he and his department are going to do to stop the abuse of alcohol and to combat the spread of this deadly disease, especially amongst people of colour in South Africa.

Mr Chairman, if one listened to the speech of the hon member for Ottery, one could sum it up in a few words, namely that he spoke about Aids and health. However, in listening to the hon member for Britstown, one thought about the old Latin forefathers who spoke about mens sana in corp ore sano. After that hon member’s speech, however, it is mens Sana in corpore sano and “women’s” too!

The hon member for Ottery spoke about an important matter, namely Aids. I want to ask the hon the Minister when legislation is going to be introduced to make it compulsory for medical doctors to report all cases of Aids. Furthermore, I want to ask when legislation will be introduced which will authorise the hon the Minister to remove such people from the community. If such a person is allowed to remain in the community, the disease will simply spread, as no cure has been found for it yet.

I agree.

Another matter that was touched on by hon members was the question of tuberculosis—especially on the Cape Flats. Many hon members spoke about the existing socio-economic conditions. However, there is one aspect that the hon the Minister should be held responsible for and I am going to blame him for the spread of tuberculosis on the Cape Flats. After the unrest began all doctors withdrew from the affected areas. Most of them were elderly White doctors who no longer went into those areas to provide services. The clinics were therefore left in the hands of one or two sisters. There are many doctors on the Cape Flats who are only too willing to join a programme, provided the hon the Ministers’ department launches it. They would like to provide a service there. The hon the Minister should launch such a programme so that our doctors from the Cape Flats can be included in order to bring relief with regard to this problem.

There were many doctors who wanted to do this. I am thinking in particular of Dr Mahlati of Guguletu who wanted to provide a voluntary service but who was not accepted. I want to know why the hon the Minister is so selective. Why are a doctor’s services refused? The reason was—and this is disturbing—that he could not read X-rays. Surely any doctor can diagnose tuberculosis. He need not be able to read X-rays to be able to do it. I want to ask the hon the Minister to investigate the matter again and perhaps to launch a new programme so that the medical doctors on the Cape Flats can make their contribution. I can give the assurance that they are prepared to make their contribution.

A further aspect that I want to discuss and one that occurs throughout the country—in particular in East London and in Cape Town—is that a person who earns less than R275 per month may obtain medicine from a hospital. I want to know whether the figure is still R275. Or has it been increased to R475? Why should a person who earns more than that have to obtain medicine at a pharmacy? Why cannot the hospital provide the patient with the medicine? I can mention an example of what happened to a person that I knew on the Cape Flats. He earned R1 000 per month and had a son at university, one at high school and one at primary school. The medicine that he had to use every month for his asthma and a weak heart cost on average more than R190. However, because he had the other expenses of his children at school, he was unable to obtain his medicine from the hospital. For two or three months he did not have the money to purchase his medicine at a pharmacy. Because he did not take the medicine, he died. I firmly believe that that man would still have been alive today if he could have obtained the medicine from the hospital. Why cannot the department take steps to ensure that patients are provided with medicine? If a person’s income is higher than a certain amount, the cost can be recovered from him. Then the department will be providing a service for the people. However, what happens now is that a patient is not treated because he does not have the money to buy the medicine from a pharmacy.

A further matter that I want to touch on, is one that happens time and again. When a person who has been seriously injured in a motor accident is taken to a hospital and it is found that he is a member of a medical aid scheme, he has to wait until his own doctor arrives. Why cannot people who are members of medical aid schemes receive treatment immediately? Why should they suffer and wait until their doctors arrive—if they arrive at all? Why can the doctor on duty not attend to such a person’s problems?

The other aspect—and this is an important aspect—on which I want to address the hon Minister is that when a doctor, especially where I come from and also here on the Cape Flats, refers patients to either Groote Schuur or a free hospital or another hospital by means of a letter, he does so because he believes that he cannot cure that patient of that illness and that the patient needs the help of other people. However, what happens when the patient arrives at the hospital with his letter? Usually there is an ordinary nurse who opens and reads that letter. That sister or nurse then decides whether that patient is going to receive immediate attention or whether he should return at a particular date. Sir, if a doctor writes a letter to a hospital I think it would be unethical for any person except a doctor to open that letter. The other doctor can then decide himself whether that patient should receive treatment immediately or when he should come back. However, I am asking the hon the Minister to ensure that it is not the nurse who opens that letter and then decides whether or not that patient should be treated immediately.

A further aspect on which I wish to address the hon the Minister concerns all these committees that are being formed throughout the country. Sir, are we now being governed by committees that are being created throughout the country? For example, the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture also recently announced that he was going to form his committees to deal with certain problems. In these cases we get a man who does not belong to our community, who is studying at university and who sets about his task full of idealism. He is idealistic, but his idealism is no answer to the problems of our community, and just because he has a White skin, everything that he says is shot down, because that negative attitude to everything that comes from a White person has already taken root in our community. Nothing that a White person says is any good. Why can someone else not be used, a person who will use exactly the same words, but who will at least have the co-operation of the community? I am asking again, why can such people not be used to implement this programme? Why should White people come from elsewhere to address these people? Even if they have good ideas, the people simply reject those ideas because they come from a White person. The programmes that these people want to launch in our communities are good programmes. They will change negative people into positive people. However, the manner in which the hon the Minister and his department operate is going to ensure that those programmes will never be successful, because as soon as our people realise who those programmes come from, there will be problems. Therefore, those programmes should be examined and made to work.

I feel that the communities need upliftment. However, if the hon the Minister and his people come forward with ideas of upliftment, they should also come forward with the money. It is no good telling a poor man how to improve himself if not a cent comes from hon the Minister. The man is trapped in his poverty; he needs help to be able to get out of it. Therefore, if the hon the Minister wants to launch his programme there, he must please bring his money as well. If the hon the Minister came to this committee to ask for money for those programmes, I am sure that every hon member who was sitting here would make a contribution so that the hon the Minister would be able to obtain the necessary money. I conclude on that note, Sir.

Mr Chairman, there are various forces which erode and destroy a nation. One of the most subtle and most dangerous of these forces is alcohol. I wish to quote from a publication by Dr Charles Rickett of Paris. He is a Nobel prize winner in physiology. He writes:

Sir, it is true that alcohol plays a large part in all personal, social and economic problems in South Africa. Alcohol is also a health hazard and one of the big killers in the world. A car driven by a drunken driver becomes a coffin. Alcohol contains no minerals or proteins and 90% of it goes directly into the bloodstream. It requires no digestion and has no beneficial effects on the body. Alcohol is a major factor in heart diseases, cirrhosis of the liver and diseases of the stomach and pancreas. Alcohol depresses and brings about the most devastating changes in the brain. It is the cause of more than 70% of divorces, broken homes, and spouse and child abuse in this country. Many other forms of crimes are also alcohol related.

The cost of alcoholism in this country is estimated at over R600 million per annum, without taking into account the more than R500 million in lost production. Children born to women who drink are usually mentally retarded, have genital defects and holes in their hearts. They are also smaller and weigh less than normal babies. In this regard I want to quote Prof Harry Seftel, head of African Diseases at the University of the Witwatersrand. Addressing a congress on alcoholism, he said:

A certain Dr McCabe also told the congress that she was “witnessing the White man’s alcoholic problem in the urban Black patient at Tembisa Hospital”. She said people ran the risk of early death from gastric, liver or pancreatic failure, or cancer, or even all four, if alcohol abuse was not stopped.

South African Blacks are spending R1 000 million a year on alcohol or R90 for each person aged 16 or over. These figures have been calculated from details published in the latest publication of the All Media Products Survey. That R1 000 million per year equals more than R2,7 million per day and the money—or even half of it—could be used more effectively to help feed the approximately 50 000 Black children who die every year of hunger—kwashiorkor—and other diseases, or to provide the bare essentials to thousands of deprived children. It could also be used to provide clothing in our severe winters, school text books and transport. Thousands of children could do with good, nourishing food, medicines and medical attention.

It is about time people realise that alcohol leads to a false sense of values, aimlessness, lack of character, destitution, beggary, adultery, fornication, drunkenness, stealing, gangsterism, murder, rape and so forth.

Alcohol causes sexual impotence in men. In the USA more than 90% of regular drinkers are sexually impotent at the age of 40. In other words, booze equals castration! The Americans solved their Indian problems by making them drunk and the Australians solved their Aboriginal problems by making them drunk. It is conservatively estimated that there are 355 000 alcoholics in South Africa and it has been stated that each alcoholic affects between eight and 16 other people. Millions of rand are spent annually on liquor advertisements. In 1985 more than R37 million was spent advertising liquor containing the chemical substance alcohol which is a habit-forming drug and a threat to one’s health.

There is a direct relationship between the quantity of alcohol available in a country and the general level of consumption by the population. There is also evidence to suggest that the higher the average consumption of alcohol, the higher the incidence of at least some of the problems considered to be alcohol related, particularly high rates of overall mortality, cirrhosis of the liver and carcinoma of the oesophagus.

Sir, we must constantly be aware of socio-environmental forces which encourage great acceptance and widespread availability of alcohol and drugs. Once we are aware of these things, we must be prepared to act to strengthen those mechanisms which reinforce reason and control.

It would not be possible to prevent the use of alcohol and drugs, but we must be prepared to act in order to strengthen those mechanisms which reinforce reason and control. Control is very important, for once the use of alcohol and drugs has become a right and a source of national income, it will be too late to do something about the problem. Without doubt, Sir, alcohol is the most dangerous drug of all.

Mr Chairman, I want to confine myself to the high cost of medicine, and a few factors which give rise to this.

In this life there is a great deal one can do to cut down on one’s expenditure, but one of the things one can do very little about, when one is ill, is the price one has to pay for the medicine that one needs to get better. If one tries to cut down on that, one simply gets worse.

I found it very encouraging to study the speech which the Director General of this department, Dr Slabber, made in Johannesburg last weekend. I am referring specifically to that portion in which he referred to the escalating costs of health services and to the effect of the rising costs of medicine. He expressed his concern in this regard.

†Sir, we know that it has largely been the Coloured and Black communities in this country who, because of socio-economic and other factors, have been the prime users of our hospitals over the years. They have been the ones to whom all the medicine has been handed out at these hospitals. We are concerned when Dr Slabber says, for instance, that the increase in medicine tenders has in some cases risen by 40%, because the implications are tremendous. We know that departments are always being instructed to cut down on costs. It is a normal tendency to try to cut down on what is seen as unnecessary expense. I am just afraid that, in their eagerness to cut down on the cost of running State hospitals, medical administrators may be inclined to want to cut down on the supply of medicine. I am concerned about the effect that could have on the health situation in the country.

As I have said, the ever-increasing cost of medical services and medicine is a cause of extreme concern for the poor and the middle class. It is also a particularly worrying situation when one considers the growing number of people from our community who are making use of medical aid schemes. When people move into better jobs, they register as members of medical aid schemes and, they too, are faced with ever-increasing medical costs and rising medical aid contributions. Over the past two years the increase in the medical cost of these societies has been almost 30% per year. In 1986, for example, no less than R538 million was spent on medicine by the various medical aid societies.

*Let us consider for a moment the price index of medication from 1982 to 1986. What do we find? It appears that there was a worldwide increase which varied from 14,5% to 18%, with an average increase of approximately 15,9%. The lowest increase, approximately 12%, occurred in West Germany. The highest increase, 24,6%, occurred in South Africa.

†It is therefore extremely disturbing that the medical price index in this country is as high as 24,6%.

*A second phenomenon that is disturbing—I am thoroughly aware of the enquiry being conducted by Dr Wim de Villiers—is the deteriorating relationship between pharmacists and dispensing doctors. I, as a plattelander, am thoroughly aware of the role played by a doctor in a community in which there is no pharmacy or in which the pharmacy is not open at night. I realise how convenient it is to have a pharmacy, and I am also aware of how much it means to a community if a doctor visits a patient and not only makes a diagnosis, but also provides the necessary medicine, and does not merely prescribe it.

I now want to come to a city which I think the hon the Minister is very fond of, namely Pretoria. At present there are approximately 15 pharmacies in Pretoria East and Pretoria West. These pharmacies each used to make up an average of between 30 and 40 prescriptions per day. At this stage they are only making up between three and four prescriptions per day. Something is amiss. Something tells me there is screw loose somewhere. We must remember that the pharmacist, like the medical doctor, performs an important task in this country, because we spend thousands of rand annually on the training of pharmacists. The tendency is, in my opinion, that in the end they are being turned into glorified shopkeepers. I know that the proportion between the sale of medication and other commodities should be approximately equal, but at the moment the toothpaste and aftershave lotions which pharmacists sell in the front sections of their pharmacies make up approximately 80% of their daily business. Let me say at once that I have no irons in the fire as far as the pharmacy industry is concerned. It is merely a situation that gives rise to concern, one to which I think we should give the necessary attention. We must obtain clarity about the role of the pharmacist. What role should he play? If we think they ought to play a different role to the one they play at present, we must say so, and we must adjust our training programme accordingly.

†I would like to give some statistics in order to illustrate my point. It is estimated that roughly 5 500 articles are normally kept in a pharmacy. The dispensing doctor, on the other hand, does not have to stock that much. In the pharmacy it is the task of the pharmacist to indicate the exact dosage and how the medication should be taken. I would like to ask who is responsible for the labelling and the counting of the capsules in the case of a prescribing and dispensing doctor? The tempo at which these medicines are handed out in many smaller places is unbelievable, and I have seen this. Are these things prepared in bulk? If so, we must say so. We must also ask whether that is legal.

*The schedule 2 situation in pharmacies is a cause for concern. The other day I saw how people gave any name and address when the register for the purchase of schedule 2 substances was being filled in—and here I want to admonish the pharmacist as well. How do we know that the right people received those substances? It could be that the same person went to ten other pharmacies, merely furnishing a different name each time. If that is done, we are not complying with the requirements of the Act, and that Act is not serving its purpose.

†I was somewhat perturbed by a decision taken by the South African Medical and Dental Council last week. They decided against a proposal that a professional fee for the supply of medicines by doctors should only be applicable where there is no pharmacy available or when it is supplied in an emergency.

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

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

As I said, the South African Medical and Dental Council rejected the whole concept of a dispensing fee’s only being applicable in case of an emergency or where there is no pharmacy available. In the long run this cost is passed on to the consumer. If doctors say that they are doing the community a service, if they say the only reason why they keep and dispense medicines is that there is no pharmacy or whatever available, they should also be fair. On the platteland there is no problem; they can charge a dispensing fee, but when there are many chemists in town they must be clear on that matter. Something should be done in this regard.

I want to give hon members an example. I find it puzzling—as did the director—that it is often possible for a wholesaler to buy medicines cheaper from a medical practitioner than directly from the manufacturer. I want to take a certain drug as an example. I spoke to people about this drug called Hostecyteline—it is a tetracycline. The medical practitioner can buy a pack of 5 000 at a cost of R57,50 for a thousand, which amounts to about R287,50 for 5 000. However, if a pharmacist buys it from the wholesaler, he will pay R11,37 for 20. He then sells it at about R17,06 for 20. However, one can see the major difference in the price the dispensing doctor pays for the product and the price the chemist pays. Let me make it clear that I am not moaning here today because I see work being taken away from a chemist. I am concerned because nine times out of ten this rebate is not passed on to the consumer. This is the problem. The rebate is not passed on to the ordinary man in the street who should be the one to benefit from all this.

*If the medical doctors of South Africa want to become “glorified shopkeepers” they must say so. They cannot be both. Either they are there to diagnose people’s illnesses and prescribe the treatment for these people, or in exceptional cases, when there is no alternative, to provide people with the necessary medicine.

I want to ask to what extent it is justified, as Rapport recently reported, that the manufacturers of medicines should hold large conferences which cost a great deal of money and entertain medical doctors. For example, Rapport reported that a number of them had been invited to a conference at Sun City. According to the Browne Commission 22% of the money of these large firms was spent on promotions such as these. This is perturbing because in the long run it is the man in the street who is going to pay for them.

†I want to reiterate the words spoken over the weekend by the Director-General when he said that it was incumbent upon all participants in the supply chain to re-examine the pricing structure with a view to lowering of the price of medicine. We cannot tell people to tighten their belts and not to ask for increases due to inflation and then go and put up the prices of these essential services.

In conclusion I want to call for a committee to investigate the high cost of medicine which the public has to pay, with special reference to the role played by transfer pricing by the major companies, rebates given to but not passed on to consumers, and promotional practices. Secondly, I want to call on the hon the Minister to use his good offices to try to stop the present undesirable situation where the pharmacists are going for the necks of the dispensing doctors and vice versa.

Mr Chairman, I should like to elaborate on what my hon colleague has just said. For the information of hon members I want to indicate that here in greater Cape Town we have four large urban areas, with a population of more than 20 000, that do not have a pharmacy. I am not even going to mention our other areas that are even worse off. The position here in Cape Town, however, is deplorable.

†The quality of a nation’s health corresponds with its economic and political environment. A nation’s health depends on whether it has suitable housing, employment, adequate food, good sanitation and access to clean water. To the above-average South African these amenities are considered as the norm and taken for granted. However, because of a lopsided distribution of South Africa’s economic resources, most of these “taken-for-granted” amenities are out of the reach of the majority of our fellow South Africans. Thousands have no roof over their heads. Thousands more live under the most appalling conditions. A quarter of the houses in which some people are forced to live cannot even be called a roof over their heads. Furthermore, thousands with roofs over their heads live in overcrowded conditions, sometimes four families or more in a four-bedroomed house.

*Mr Chairman, much has been said about unemployment. Some breadwinners have been unemployed since 1979. These are people in the 45 to 60 age group and they now have no hope of getting another job. Hon members can imagine the additional burden that rests on the shoulders of our community as a result of this. Other families and friends who are already struggling are now obliged to care for these people.

Is the hon the Minister aware of the fact that many South Africans do not know what a flush toilet looks like? Does the hon the Minister know that in many communities up to ten families have to use a communal toilet? Think of all the germs and diseases that people in our community are exposed to. It is a pity that most of the health services in South Africa are concentrated in the urban areas and that the remaining rural areas are being neglected. Furthermore, the services in the urban areas are for the most part available only to Whites. Does the hon the Minister know how many people in our communities do not share our luxury of running water? Does he know how many families cannot afford to turn on their taps?

Does the hon the Minister know how many families are evicted from their houses because they cannot afford the water and electricity accounts?

In South Africa too much emphasis is placed on curative instead of on preventive aid. The hon the Minister should tell us how much of his department’s budget is being spent on preventive aid in comparison with what is being spent on curative aid.

Some hon members have referred to cases of tuberculosis in South Africa, and I now want to come to that. According to the 1987 report of the department, each case of tuberculosis in the country cost R848 in 1985; in 1986 it cost R978 per person, which is an increase of 15%. On the other hand, fewer people were cured. In 1985, 79 people were cured of tuberculosis; in 1986 only 77% of the tuberculosis cases were cured. This shows that we should not only concentrate on curing people, but that we should also concentrate on helping people to avoid contracting the diseases.

More people discontinued their tuberculosis treatment. In 1985 15% discontinued their treatment and in 1986 17%. The hon the Minister should ask himself why this happens and order an investigation in this regard. The tuberculosis cases who live within the community infect other people. The greatest cause of tuberculosis—and of most of our other diseases—is poverty. It is one of the main causes of our people’s misery and it is the problem we must address. It is also the problem the hon the Minister and his department must address.

In 1984 alone 7 633 people died of tuberculosis. That represents 7% of all deaths between the ages of 15 and 64. That is a large number of deaths from a disease that can be prevented by good nutrition, good housing and a healthy community. What hurts is that most cases of tuberculosis occur among our so-called Coloured people.

I can tell the hon the Minister that poverty must be his department’s greatest enemy. I hope the hon the Minister is able to understand why we in this House and our hon Ministers in particular are putting up such a big fight to get an increase for our elderly people at least.

When one thinks of everything that is said here about the conditions in which our people live, one remembers that in many cases those elderly people support families as well. Then one asks oneself: How can our Government, our Cabinet, still deny our people an increase? The hon the Minister, who is part of the Cabinet and of the governing party, should listen closely to all our speeches.

To conclude, Sir, I want to say that history will take the hon the Minister and his Government to task if this present unfair political system is maintained.

Mr Chairman, to begin with I want to associate myself with the hon member for Robertson—the hon member who is sleeping so peacefully now—who welcomed the new Director-General to his post. We should like to wish him well.

The LP recently held a by-election in the picturesque Boland village of Ceres. We all have pleasant memories of Ceres, in particular because it is the hon the Minister’s constituency. However, there is one unfortunate incident that occurred in this beautiful village that I shall always remember. I am mentioning it because it falls directly under the hon the Minister’s department. Everything at the hospital in Ceres is divided in two—into White and non-White. I should like to appeal to the hon the Minister to do away with those unsightly notice boards in that beautiful town.

I should also like to confine myself to two aspects that have already been discussed in detail in this committee this afternoon. I want to address the question of Aids and that of tuberculosis. Aids is beginning to assume almost epidemic proportions in certain African countries. However, there is no reason for panic in South Africa at this stage, but Southern Africa and in particular South Africa is in danger of becoming a victim of the spread of Aids from Central Africa.

According to the latest report of the World Health Organisation, Africa has one of the highest numbers of reported cases of Aids in the world at present, namely 10 995 cases as opposed to 10 677 cases in Europe. When I say that Aids is beginning to assume almost epidemic proportions in Africa, I am referring to the fact that there are 2 369 known cases in Uganda, 1 608 in Tanzania, 1 250 cases in the Congo, 946 in Kenya and 705 cases in Rwanda.

In South Africa, Sir, there are between 92 and 100 cases of Aids at present. I say between 92 and 100 because the different sources give figures between 92 and 98. However, I read the following in the department’s annual report:

However, these figures do not reflect the number of people who are infected with the so-called human immunity deficiency virus that causes Aids. Experts believe that the number of Aids cases can be 100 times more. I therefore want to know from the hon the Minister whether the R81 000 that was budgeted for research into Aids is sufficient. Here I am thinking in particular of introductory and information campaigns to make the general public of South Africa aware of Aids, since this fatal disease poses a real threat to South Africa.

Thousands of migrant labourers enter South Africa looking for work and the fear exists that Aids could be spread from Zambia and Zimbabwe to the neighbouring countries of Angola and Mozambique. Thousands of apparently healthy migrant labourers could be carriers of the virus and the spread of the deadly illness, especially among the uneducated population in our rural areas and even in our cities, will be virtually unstoppable.

There are people who object to migrant labourers being tested for Aids, but in a country like India, one of our biggest critics, Aids tests on all foreign students are compulsory. As a result of this, several students have already been refused entry into India. Therefore, it is necessary for the Department of National Health and Population Development to launch a purposeful advertising campaign to combat ignorance about Aids. It is essential that facts about the dreaded disease, and not fear, are brought home to all inhabitants. Much has been said about tuberculosis this afternoon. The hon member for Swartland concentrated on the causes of tuberculosis and I agree with him wholeheartedly. I noticed that the department indicates in its report that there are many cases of malnutrition in the constituency of the hon member for Southern Free State in particular. Of course, that is one of the direct causes of tuberculosis.

At any given time there are an estimated 10 million infected people in South Africa. Most cases of tuberculosis occur in the Cape Peninsula and according to a speech made by the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare in the House of Representatives during the opening of the Western Cape Symposium on Tuberculosis, altogether 383 people died of tuberculosis in 1985, 386 in 1986 and no fewer than 460 in 1987 in the Peninsula alone. These figures are shocking.

Equally shocking are the figures I received from the Department of Health this morning concerning the situation in my hometown, Klerksdorp. According to the sister in charge in the town, no fewer than 1 433 people from all population groups were treated for tuberculosis in 1985.

During 1986, 1 206 people were treated, and as many as 1 947 in 1987. However, what is disconcerting is the fact that the number of new cases treated during the years mentioned was 278, 244 and 277 respectively.

If one looks at the statistics in the department’s report it is clear that there was a decrease of 20 000 with regard to reported cases of tuberculosis. According to the report there were 54 870 cases in 1983 while the figure levelled off to 38 704 in 1987.

The Government will, however, have to reconsider the withdrawal of the BCG serum. Since 1973 inoculation against tuberculosis has been compulsory in South Africa. However, the Government decided to do away with it in October last year and to emphasise inoculation against polio instead. As far as I am concerned, that was definitely a retrogressive step in the campaign against tuberculosis. That vaccination is particularly effective in the fight against tuberculosis-meningitis, and in a country in which the overwhelming majority forms part of the Third World, compulsory inoculation is the best way to prevent epidemics. It is no use suggesting to people that they have themselves inoculated; they are simply not going to turn up at the clinics. I mention that because it has been estimated that in an area such as Soweto almost 100 new cases are reported every month, and also because it has been estimated that ten to twenty people die of tuberculosis every day.

In conclusion I want to congratulate the department on its Santa advertising campaign, which ends this weekend. However, I want to suggest that a more extended campaign be considered.

Mr Chairman, once again it is a special privilege for me to be able to participate in this debate. I want to start by thanking hon members for and congratulating them on their contributions. Every hon member spoke with authority, and a diversity of subjects was raised.

I am of the opinion that population growth is the biggest single problem South Africa has to contend with. In the course of my speech I shall give attention to the points raised by hon members. In the long term the future of South Africa is going to depend on the extent to which we are going to succeed in maintaining a balance between the sources of subsistence of this country and the size of its population. It goes without saying—everyone finds it easy to understand—that if there are more people in Southern Africa than we are able to provide with employment, food, water and money, we are going to have serious problems.

Many countries in Africa—the hon member for Britstown referred to this—the Far East and South America are already grappling with this problem. The facts indicate that millions of people are already dying of hunger in countries such as Bangladesh, Ethiopia, India, China and Biafra, and that these countries have deteriorated into absolute poverty and suffering. To my mind the statement made by the President of the Democratic Republic of Madagascar, President Ratsiraka, was very striking. He said:

If we do not gain control over the population growth in Southern Africa we are definitely headed for a disaster. South Africa just does not have the sources of subsistence and the economic and social capabilities for accommodating, in a way commensurate with human dignity, a population which is growing at a rate of 2,3% per annum.

In this connection I associate myself with the hon members for Britstown and Swartland. Consequently I want to mention a few facts to emphasise how serious the situation is. According to the latest population projections of the HSRC, a total population of R65,8 million is considered to be a high estimate and R59,6 million a conservative estimate for the year 2020. Our present population is 27,7 million. According to the HSRC the South African population is capable of multiplying by as much as 38 million people during the next 35 years, an increase of one million people per annum. If the population and the economy continue to grow at the present rate, eight million people could be unemployed by the year 2000, and ten million children under the age of 15 years would still have to enter the labour market. The hon member for Britstown also made this point. I agree with him when he says that we will have to keep working on this problem. [Interjections.] The youthful composition of the population of the Republic of South Africa indicates that by the year 2000 we will have approximately 1,65 million more school-going children than any other developed country with the same number of people. The educational obligations will total an astronomical R1,7 billion per annum and that is calculated at a cost index of 1982.

It is important, however, to consider what has happened during the past decades in South Africa as far as population growth is concerned. This gives us a good framework to indicate what, demographically speaking, we can expect in the near future.

In 1960 the average number of children per White woman in her fertile years was 3,52. By 1970 this had declined to 3,12 children, and in 1980 to 2,08 children per woman. At present it is two children per woman and we expect it to decline further, possibly to 1,75 children per woman, as in many countries of the world.

In 1960 the average number of children per Coloured woman in her fertile years was 6,47. By 1970 this had declined to 5,05, and in 1980 to 3,29 children per woman. At present it is 3,2. In 1960 the average number of children per Black woman, according to the estimates of Prof Jan Sadie of the University of Stellenbosch, was 6,57. By 1970 this had declined to 6,10, and in 1980 to 5,2. At present it is 5,1 children per woman.

Hon members already know that before the year 2015 we must arrive at an average number of 2,1 children per woman, if we want to ensure a balance between our sources of subsistence and the size of our population.

We are convinced that we will only be able to achieve this objective if we are able to enhance the quality of life of our people dramatically, particularly those in the developing communities. I refer to developing communities because I do not like the terms Third, Fourth or First World. From a demographic perspective we must concentrate particularly on the following areas: Education, manpower training, primary health care, job creation and raising the per capita income of developing communities in particular, better housing and basic services, as the hon member for Tafelberg also indicated; and, equally important, family planning, as the hon member for Britstown said. We must provide these services in rural as well as urban areas.

Hon members are thoroughly aware of the tremendous efforts various departments have made during the past year to enhance the quality of life of our people. At present liaison officers of the Population Development Programme, in close co-operation with various offices of other departments, the private sector and also various voluntary non-governmental institutions, are working in 700 communities, representative of all population groups, while the Rural Foundation is already active on 3 000 farms.

†I would like to pause at this point to convey my best wishes and congratulations to Dr Slabber on his appointment as Director-General of this department. At the same time I would like to welcome him to this Chamber. Ironically this is probably the last time we will appear in this Chamber to debate this particular Vote.

*What are the results of all these efforts? Hon members are aware that we are monitoring progress on an annual basis in accordance with nine indicators. What does the 1987 report, compared with the 1986 report, tell us in respect of the Coloured community? There was definite progress in improving the quality of life. According to the 1986 report 47,5 babies per a 1 000 live-born babies in the Coloured community under the age of one year died. According to the 1987 report, this figure dropped to 40,7. That is very good progress.

According to the 1986 report the life expectancy of Coloureds was 57,9 years. In the 1987 report this figure had risen to 61,7 years. Once again this is a remarkable improvement. According to the 1986 report 16% of all births were babies born to teenage mothers. These are young women or girls under the age of 20 years. According to the 1987 report this figure had declined to 15,1%. This also testifies to an improvement.

The literacy level, in other words, the percentage of persons 13 years or older who have passed Std 4 at least, also improved remarkably. In the 1986 report this figure was 67% and in the 1987 report 74,5%. Good progress is being made in this area and I want to express great appreciation to my colleagues, other departments co-operating in the population development programme and liaison officers of the Chief Directorate: Population Development for their support, zeal and hard work to make a success of this programme.

†Again, Sir, I would like to pause just there and pay tribute to the Chief Directorate which is under my particular control. I say without a shadow of doubt or fear of contradiction that within the entire public service there is not a better or more professional group of people. They carry out their work with integrity and are goal orientated.

*However, I shall have to concentrate particularly on improving the economic position of our people. Although there was a slight improvement in the personal per capita income per month, it is still too low.

†Demographically speaking our main problem is the rapid population growth of our Black population. From a population development perspective, therefore, we must concentrate on the improvement of the quality of life of our Black communities, both urban and rural. At present we are working in the 190 Black communities in the Republic of South Africa where we have succeeded in getting them involved in population development related programmes. We are convinced that if political, social and economic conditions were to improve rapidly in the coming decades and Black South Africans were to become a largely prosperous urban population, the possibility of a collapse in fertility taking place within the next generation exists. I agree with Prof Willie Mostert of the HSRC, when he says that economic growth can be stimulated by a rapid decrease in fertility, as has been proved by an increasing number of developing countries.

Apart from the importance of implementing a population development programme in the Republic of South Africa, it is also important to establish similar programmes in each of the self-governing areas and the TBVC states. The reasons for this are as follows: The TBVC states and the self-governing areas experience the same developmental programmes as the Republic of South Africa; the Republic of South Africa, the TBVC states and self-governing areas are interdependent. An imbalance between the population size and the socio-economic resources of these areas or states will therefore affect the quality of life of Southern Africa as a whole. For any nation, it is absolutely imperative that population growth does not outstrip the potential growth of supporting systems like educational and health services, housing and job creation, as well as depleting our natural resources like water.

*The hon member for Britstown, who comes from that area, raised this matter and pointed out how serious it was, and also referred to the utilisation of subterranean and surface water.

†It is indeed a pleasure to mention that meaningful progress has been made regarding the establishment of population development programmes in the TBVC states and the self-governing areas. Evidence of the good progress made regarding population development in the TBVC states is proved by the fact that meetings with Ministers involved in population development take place on an annual basis. At the last meeting held in February 1988, the Minister decided on the “Year of Action” as a theme for 1988. A highlight of this meeting was the agreement on the implementation of a joint marketing strategy on population development in the Republic of South Africa and the TBVC states.

Multilateral and bilateral meetings regarding population development programmes take place on a regular basis. I recently had the pleasure of attending an SA-TBVC multilateral committee meeting in the Wilderness. This gave me the opportunity of having fruitful discussions formally and informally with the leaders of the TBVC delegations, during which mutual interests were shared. I should like to bring to the attention of the House that a similar meeting will take place in Transkei tomorrow morning.

As a result of continuous population development discussions between the Republic of South Africa and the TBVC states, each of the TBVC states has already identified a department in which a central co-ordinating body for population development will be situated.

The nine objective indicators were accordingly accepted by each of these states. Surveys to quantify these indicators are at present being undertaken.

The secondment of a Republic of South Africa population development official is also a matter which is being attended to. Officials have already been seconded to Ciskei and Venda, to assist with and to advise on the implementation of population development programmes in these states.

During January 1988 I had the opportunity of visiting three of the TBVC states in the course of which I had the pleasure of meeting with my TBVC colleagues.

You may also be aware, Sir, that the Bophuthatswana Cabinet decided to establish a separate department for population development. This is a laudable initiative. During my visit to Bophuthatswana I was fortunate to have discussions with the newly appointed Minister and Deputy Minister for Population Development. It was most interesting to visit some of the projects on population development that are being implemented in Bophuthatswana.

My visit to the Republic of Ciskei was just as meaningful. Apart from having discussions with the Ministers and senior officials involved in population development, I had the opportunity and the privilege to meet the president of the Ciskei, his Excellency Dr L Sebe. It is encouraging to note that President Sebe is giving his full support to the implementation of a population development programme in his country. I also had the opportunity to address 200 tribal leaders during a seminar on population development in the Ciskei. That, Sir, was no easy task.

I concluded my visit to the TBVC states with a visit to Venda. This visit commenced with a meeting with the Venda Council for Population Development. This meeting was also attended by several ministers and heads of departments who are involved in population, as well as the private sector. Fruitful discussions took place on matters of mutual interest. The ministers also accompanied me to visits of population development projects in Venda.

My visit to the different TBVC states was an important aspect of my involvement with population development in Southern Africa.

Progress has also been made with the implementation of population development programmes in the self-governing areas. Meetings with those Ministers who are involved in population development also take place on an annual basis. Two successful meetings have already taken place. At the last meeting, held during March 1988, it was also decided to implement a joint marketing strategy of population development between the RSA and the self-governing areas.

Regular multilateral and bilateral meetings are also taking place to discuss important matters regarding population development, and the following progress has been made: The cabinets of Lebowa, KaNgwane, Qwaqwa and KwaZulu have already taken formal decisions to implement population development programmes. Lebowa, KaNgwane and Qwaqwa have also accepted our nine development indicators. A population development official has recently been seconded to Qwaqwa to assist them with the implementation of their population development programme.

Finally, due to the importance of population development in the Southern African region, the RSA Government has made funds available for the implementation of population development programmes in the TBVC states and the self-governing areas. This gesture was well received.

Mr Chairman, we have also launched a national population development marketing campaign. The goal of this is to create a favourable climate within which the population development programme can be implemented. This marketing campaign was launched in October 1987 and some of the major components of the campaign are the following: An amount of R1,2 million was spent on this campaign during the 1987-88 financial year; three advertisements appeared in a wide range of magazines and newspapers. These advertisements were aimed at opinion formers or what we call the A target group. Via these advertisements, we attempted to make people aware of the consequences should the present population growth be allowed to continue. In the advertisements people were also encouraged to become personally involved in our efforts at population development.

A brochure entitled “Population growth, South Africa’s ticking time bomb” was prepared and distributed to opinion formers. This brochure was sent to every hon member of Parliament. Originally 10 000 copies of the brochure were printed and distributed by the end of January. A further 20 000 copies were then printed, of which 7 000 copies were taken by the Department of Foreign Affairs to be distributed by South Africa’s overseas missions. This brochure has already proved to be a very valuable document in our marketing campaign.

In collaboration with the Council for Population Development a total of four seminars have thus far been held in Potgietersrus, Durban, Port Elizabeth and Bloemfontein. Another one is to be held in Johannesburg on 28 April 1988. These seminars are mainly aimed at business people of all population groups in order to make them aware of the population development programme and to discuss ways in which they could become involved and could help in solving the problem.

We were also honoured to have Dr Tung-Tong Sun from the Republic of China (Taiwan) to address the seminar in Durban. Apart from this he also took part in programmes like “Good Morning South Africa”, “Network”, “Radio Today” and “Women’s Forum”.

Finally, a film was produced by the department in which the problem of population size outstripping our resources was highlighted.

In the case of the reactors or what we call the B target group, the campaign was of limited extent and comprised the following: Radio flashes in Afrikaans, English and eight Black languages on almost all the services of Radio South Africa on a daily basis, which urged people to visit the local clinic and to get advice and information on primary health matters; and a film in which the advantages of a smaller family were highlighted. Let me stress that we are by no means satisfied with these efforts I have mentioned.

For the next financial year the campaign will concentrate on the following: An intensified report aimed at opinion formers to enhance awareness and comprehension of the problem which will also include practical hints as to how to go about solving the problem; and an effort to get people to change hardened attitudes with regard to family size and to make them aware of the advantages of a smaller family, particularly with regard to the ability to afford better health care and better education, the ability of women to enter the labour market and the better opportunity of getting a proper job.

Mr Chairman, the overriding impression gained by the members of the President’s Council who investigated this problem was that the only answer to the problem of too rapid population growth is the vigorous implementation of a population development programme, and that is the responsibility of all of us.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure to speak after the hon the Deputy Minister of Population Development who made an outstanding contribution here this afternoon and who occupies himself with affairs of cardinal importance every day.

I immediately want to add that I think he does his work in this regard in an excellent manner. Even if we came forward with the most attractive proposals for a constitutional solution for this country, and even if we had all the plans to make this country a beautiful country, and we did not succeed with this population development programme with which the hon the Deputy Minister occupies himself every day, the whole course of events would be futile. I want to wish the hon the Deputy Minister the best of luck and I hope that this marketing campaign will be crowned with success.

During the debate I also want to touch on an affair that the hon member for Britstown referred to. It concerns the workers in this country. I should like to associate myself with the important theme which has come under discussion here today. It has come to the fore repeatedly. It concerns services with limited means which have to be given to too many people. Much has been said in this regard this afternoon because the hon members of the committee realise how important it is. The greater the number of people, the greater the demands that are made on assistance from the State Revenue Account.

The question which emerges is if we need those funds, how do we go about obtaining those funds? In the course of my speech I shall refer to a few of these matters.

I believe the hon members of this Committee should give a moment’s attention to an affair that I believe is of cardinal importance. It concerns the South African workers in general and, especially those workers who are exposed to hazardous work, no matter what their trade may be. I want to link a few of my thoughts to the draft legislation on industrial medical care and occupational diseases as well as the amending Bill concerning compensation with regard to occupational diseases. This amending Bill is being distributed to interested parties and persons at present with the aim and request that comment be given so that the legislation can be completed and refined at a later stage. This is not the time or the place to discuss that amending legislation. We can do that in the standing committees or when it is debated in the different Houses or possibly in a joint sitting.

The discussion of a Vote such as the one we are dealing with gives us an opportunity to report on the progress which has been made, and that is what I should like to do today. I can tell hon members that progress has been made in this connection since we were here last year. The amending Bill concerned ensued from the investigation into compensation in respect of occupational diseases which was carried out by the Nieuwenhuis Commission. Hon members of this Committee must take cognisance of this because they form part of the legislature. It is especially important that hon members who represent workers in hazardous occupations are properly informed. I want to invite members to study the legislation concerned comprehensively and to come back and make inputs so that eventually we shall have a neat and acceptable Bill before us. I invite hon members to do this because the voters, or the workers whom hon members represent here, can quite justifiably ask whether their representatives are taking care of their interests properly and thoroughly. In other words, they want to determine whether or not hon members are good representatives.

Hon members are also aware that decisions concerning compensation for occupational diseases which workers can contract under certain conditions are often controversial and can give rise to great unhappiness. For this reason it is important that the decision-making body must have the confidence of the employer as well as the employee. Inevitably we will not be able to satisfy everybody, but we must nevertheless attempt to limit dissatisfaction to a minimum. That is why we are asking hon members to help us to draw up the best possible legislation in this regard.

I want to go further and assert that those people whom hon members represent here and whose interests are at issue, viz the workers who will be affected in terms of the legislation, are a very important group of people. I will discuss this in more detail in the course of my speech. They are not only important, but their numbers are great, and will increase drastically in terms of the new legislative proposals. In the new legislative proposals which are being considered at present, attempts are being made not only to involve all those already doing hazardous work in what are controlled mines and controlled occupations at present, but to include all industries in which workers are doing hazardous work and which will have to be registered in terms of the new legislative proposals. We are talking about a strong work force—voters who voted for hon members—which can in future be affected by the amendment of the legislation.

One can justifiably ask why the spectrum of workers which has to be covered by this has to be extended so drastically. The answer is simply that a responsible government should look after all its workers properly. For the purposes of this discussion, as I said, the concern is those workers who have been exposed to hazardous situations in their work environment which can lead to permanent and incurable diseases. Consequently this does not concern only a single group of privileged workers in a specific industry, but all workers who do hazardous work. That is why this Bill deserves the support of every one of us.

One can justifiably ask why we want to or must take care of the interests of this group of people so carefully. Why are we so concerned about their safety and health? The answer to that is very simple. It is because each one plays a key part in his industry as well as an important role in our country’s development.

It is the workers who have to keep the wheels turning. It is the workers who have placed our country on the world map in many spheres and who are keeping our country on the world map. It is the workers who have made us a giant on the African continent. It is the workers who, through their labour, are generating money for further development and who often have to perform their day’s work under difficult conditions. It is the workers, therefore, who can justifiably ask whether their health and safety are being well looked after in their work situation. The logical question they can ask is: “Will I be compensated fairly if I contract an incurable occupational disease which leads to permanent damage?”

A positive answer to this question, Sir, is but one of the many factors which contribute to a situation in which the worker feels happy, satisfied and protected. Then he will do good work and his sense of responsibility will start growing. He will experience a sense of security in the knowledge that he is carving a solid niche for himself in the labour field and in the community. What was discussed to such an extent here this afternoon then takes place, viz that we can indeed talk about an improvement in the quality of life of the people in this country. Positivism will begin to replace negativism and only then will the worker realise that what South Africa can offer him is much better than what the ANC or other organisations can offer him.

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

Sir, I want to finish this point, and then the hon member may put his question.

The worker will then realise that boycotts and sanctions are futile exercises in a world where people are striving for prosperity, health, progress and happiness.

When we talk about the worker, about compensation and the employment opportunities people have in this country, there is one thing on which we are ad idem-. We all know—we do not need to say this to one another—that inequality exists. Hon members also referred to that this afternoon. It is no longer necessary to remind one another of that. [Interjections.] Sir, there is indeed inequality in many respects. The important point is that we know where and to what extent this inequality manifests itself in our daily lives. We see that and hon members have justifiably reminded us of it this afternoon.

What is just as important is that we have irrevocably committed ourselves to removing the inequality. The will to do so is not lacking, therefore. Many of us may not be here any more, but the day will come when that inequality will have been eliminated. [Interjections.]

Much has been said in recent times about what must take place to eliminate this inequality. During the Budget debate in the House of Assembly this past week, several speakers referred to the size of the financial cake from which allocations have to be made as part of the campaign to eliminate that inequality.

There is only one answer and that is that the cake must be made larger, but how is that to be done? I return to the worker and his role. The worker forms part of the people who, through dedication and diligence, help to build the country’s economy and a better South Africa. Part of his task is to be involved in the creation of prosperity. This will result in the growth of the financial cake. The worker must not underestimate his importance. He must not doubt his collective responsibility to help build the success of his occupation. The responsible worker will practise his collective right to negotiate responsibly in the context of his trade union. He will practise his right to be allowed to strike in a responsible manner. He will know that there is more good in discussion and negotiation with his employer than with the troublemakers on the factory floor. I believe that with hon members’ contributions to this amending legislation, we shall be able to prove that we are indeed interested in putting right this inequality which exists.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Deputy Minister whether there is any possibility of all workers who have occupational diseases receiving free medical treatment?

Mr Chairman, as I said, I do not think this is the occasion to go into detail about this amending legislation. The point we must keep in mind is that we must understand that the investigations which have to be done there require the services of specialists, and this involves expense. One will have to ask who will be responsible for those expenses. We are also addressing that in the Bill. I do not want to pre-empt this; we shall have to see what inputs come from outside, and the hon member will have an opportunity to do so. He is welcome to visit me in my office so that we can talk about this and so that he can make a contribution in this regard.

Mr Chairman, it is a privilege and a pleasure to reply here this afternoon to a constructive and exceptionally knowledgeable debate which was conducted on a very high level. In fact, this was undoubtedly the best debate and the one conducted on the highest level that I have had the privilege to reply to in this House. [Interjections.]

I should like to associate myself with hon members who welcomed the new Director-General, Dr Coenraad Slabber. He received both his undergraduate and postgraduate training at the University of Stellenbosch. His academic career has been excellent. In addition he was dean at the University of the Orange Free State, he has experience in administration of the public sector, and at present he is the Director-General of my department.

He and all the members of my department who have sat here listening so attentively today were deeply impressed by how knowledgeably and pertinently hon members of this House addressed matters of national importance and health. I shall convey the good wishes hon members expressed in respect of the former Director-General, Dr Francois Retief, to him.

I am also very grateful for the contributions of the two excellent hon Deputy Ministers on my right. I shall come back to them again later when I reply to the debate chronologically.

I should like to avail myself of the opportunity to make a short announcement about the finer details of the implementation of the national plan to prevent and combat alcohol and drug abuse. This department co-operated with the National Advisory Board on Rehabilitation Matters and the subcommittee on drug and alcohol abuse for months in order to draw up a national plan for South Africa, because we feel that this is of the utmost importance for our country. What the hon member for Griqualand West said was true: There are approximately 353 000 alcoholics in South Africa today. The total cost of alcoholism in this country in 1985 amounted to no less than R1,7 billion. The hon member for Ottery referred to this as well.

It is especially alarming that there has been a marked improvement during the past year—if we look at the 1984 figures and compare them with those of 1985—in the seizure of Mandrax tablets. Where at first it was not even half a million, the figure increased to more than a million in 1985-86. We are very concerned about the seizure of cocaine which increased from 437g to 652gin 1986. That is why this plan is so important.

I know that hon members are aware of the abuse of drugs of all kinds and the great danger this has for both the present and the future generation. If this phenomenon is not controlled purposefully, it will have a destructive effect. Although the abuse of narcotic and psychotropic substances has not reached epidemic proportions in South Africa yet—as has been the case in many countries abroad—we know that South Africa will be no exception in respect of world statistics and trends unless we take positive action now.

A further problem is that drug abuse is showing progression from soft to hard drugs. A cross-dependency could even develop, in which alcohol would play a significant part. This progression shows the following trend: Drug abuse begins with inhalants such as petrol and glue, followed by dagga, then amphetamines, barbiturates and finally depressants. The possibility of this progression is an indication of the danger linked to the apparently harmless use of dagga, since this habit can eventually lead to the abuse of morphine and heroin. I merely want to say that there is excellent proof today that dagga also has a greater effect on the lungs—regardless of the addiction—than tobacco.

As we are all aware, the present magnitude of and increase in the incidence of alcoholism is alarming. In view of this the Cabinet recently approved a national plan for the purposeful prevention and combating of alcohol and drug abuse. All kinds of dependence-producing substances, whether they be alcohol, dagga, Mandrax, the so-called “designer substances” or even chemical inhalants—incidentally, this is a problem among our schoolchildren today—are included in our plan of action.

The main objectives of the national plan are the following: The prevention of alcohol and drug abuse, as well as alcohol and drug dependency; control over the availability of alcohol and drugs; the promotion of human development programmes; the co-ordination and extension of effective measures for the treatment, rehabilitation and reintegration of the drug dependant; and the collection, processing, interpretation and publicising of relevant knowledge and information.

It should be clear from the preceding remarks that this plan has been instituted as a countermeasure in lives that are being controlled by drugs, with the chief objective of creating an environment in which a constructive lifestyle, based on a sound system of values, self-actualisation and responsible citizenship can be maintained. This detailed plan includes the following categories: Objectives, aims, ways of achieving the aims, the responsible institutions which can participate in this campaign, and the applicable target groups.

†In our campaign the emphasis will be placed on preventative measures especially to reduce the demand for alcohol and drugs. The main aims in this regard are, inter alia, to equip the youth and the community with a more positive and constructive lifestyle; to make the public aware of the health, social and economic dangers of alcohol and drug abuse; and to educate the community to timeously identify problem drinkers and alcohol and drug dependants in their community.

The main methods to be implemented in the preventive action are educational measures; the media to reach the broader public; detailed courses such as human development courses; in-service training courses and employee assistance programmes. I personally consider educational measures to be the crux of the preventive action. In this regard attention must be given to the development of a balanced value system, the reinforcement of coping skills and the creation of a healthy and balanced lifestyle. This can be achieved by means of effective teaching approaches, the meaningful integration of drug education courses in school curricula and health education programmes.

While the positive elements are usually realised, it must be borne in mind that law enforcement continues to play an important role in supporting preventive efforts, and in controlling the availability of alcohol and drugs. Furthermore, in the action plan an inventory will be made of the modalities and techniques available at the national level for undertaking the treatment and the rehabilitation as well as the social reintegration of alcohol and drug dependants into the society. It is important that the treatment should be carefully planned and properly co-ordinated in order to make better use of existing resources. Most important, however, is that attention be given to professional counselling, outpatient treatment, compulsory and voluntary treatment, after-care services and the effective reintegration of drug dependants into society.

There is no doubt that this is of the utmost importance and we must be successful in this action plan. We have earmarked inter alia the following responsible bodies to be involved: State departments, private welfare organisations, educational institutions, employers, religious denominations, the liquor trade, local authorities, the National Road Safety Council, the health and legal professions and youth and women’s organisations.

But why are you extending the hours for selling liquor?

I will come to that if the hon member for Border will just bear with me.

The target groups in this campaign mainly comprise children, the youth, parents, persons attending alcohol safety schools, learner drivers, educationalists, employers and personnel officers, professionals dealing with drugs or drug dependants, judges and magistrates, in fact, the total community.

*I now come to the hon member for Swartland and I want to thank him on behalf of my staff and department, as well as the chairman of the disaster fund board who is present here today, for his congratulations on our handling of the flood disaster.

The hon member for Swartland said it would be Workers’ Day (Arbeidersdag) soon. Naturally this day was named after the Labour Party (Arbeidersparty). [Interjections.] Unfortunately there will be accidents and knifings on that day, and for this reason there must be nurses on duty in our hospitals. I can tell the hon member, however, that there will be no outpatients or ordinary routine operations on this holiday. The theatre sisters and nurses who serve the outpatients therefore have Workers’ Day off. The hon member for Swartland is quite correct that the hospitals will provide only the essential services on this day.

The hon member for Swartland said the LP agreed that an improvement in one’s quality of life was important to all people. The hon the Deputy Minister of Population Development emphasised this competently, and in fact proved that the parameters in terms of which quality of life is measured today have improved. The hon the Deputy Minister pointed out that the child mortality rate has dropped, that teenage pregnancies have decreased and that life expectancy has increased. As hon members know, men do not get as old as women do. This leads to the question of why women get older than men, and the answer is very simple: Men take better care of women than women do of men. [Interjections.] That is a fact. What I mean is that that appears to be the case, because men do not get as old as women do. Yet men are getting older these days. The hon the Deputy Minister also pointed out that the literacy level has improved. That is very important. These are all parameters in terms of which the quality of life is measured.

The hon the Deputy Minister also said the per capita income was not as high as it should be. Room density has decreased, however, as has the economic dependency rate. These are two very important parameters of progress and improvement in the quality of life.

The hon member for Swartland then spoke about the relationship between poverty and population growth. I agree with him. The lower the per capita income, the more children are born. We must remember, however, that family planning is important. In Kenya, for example, life expectancy increased whereas family planning is not applied. This meant that the average number of children per woman was 7,3. Among the Blacks in South Africa this figure is 5,1 children per woman. The Department of Health Services and Welfare in this House does wonders to improve the quality of life of the people in South Africa. I am pleased that the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare is here, so that he could hear this too.

The hon member for Swartland rightly said that better progress was being made in the metropolitan areas than in the rural areas. The number of children per Black woman in her fertile period last year was 2,7 in the PWV area, whereas in the rural areas it is 5,1. In addition there is a very good sex education programme in the schools of the Department of Education and Culture in the House of Representatives. I want to congratulate the department on this programme. It looks as though it is reaping benefits.

The hon member also spoke very knowledgeably about tuberculosis. I want to come to that now, and thank the hon member in the first place for his good wishes in respect of the Santa programme. It is an important programme.

Before I talk about tuberculosis, however, I want to refer to the number of vacant posts mentioned in our annual report, to which the hon member referred. Many of those posts have been frozen. There is also a very large staff turnover. The figures show the situation at the end of the financial year.

I want to tell the hon member that all posts are filled, irrespective of race, colour or creed. The posts are also advertised. If, therefore, the hon member has someone in mind that he wants to appoint, he is welcome to contact me.

I now want to refer to tuberculosis, to which a few hon members also referred, including the hon members for Swartland, Border and Alra Park and the hon member Mr Douw. In the first place I want to tell hon members that I have great appreciation for their taking the initiative in arranging a symposium about this subject recently, which was reported on in Rapport Ekstra. If we look at our present expenditure with regard to tuberculosis, hon members will notice that we budgeted a total of R153,5 million for infectious diseases for the 1988-89 financial year. Of this amount R133,4 million, which is 86% of the total amount budgeted for infectious diseases, was budgeted for tuberculosis. An amount of R19,5 million, 14,6% of the total tuberculosis budget, was allocated for the Western Cape. When we look at funds in the Western Cape, hospitalisation costs will amount to R12,3 million in the coming year, whereas subsidies for local authorities and outpatients amount to R4,6 million. The amount budgeted for medicines and X-rays was R2,5 million. We have a total of 1 613 available beds in the Boland and the Western Cape. I want to tell hon members, however, that we have phased out beds.

†The hon member for Ottery made reference to this. This phasing out was done in line with the World Health Organization’s recommendations, because ambulance treatment is preferable to hospital treatment. The important thing, however, is that the introduction of more effective short courses of refampicin, outpatient treatment regimes, etc, really made the treatment much shorter, but also more difficult. Patients now feel better sooner, but then stop their treatment and do not go back to the clinic. That is one of the most important reasons. I must add that the injections are painful and also that the patient has to take a large number of tablets. For this reason the therapy is not too pleasant for the patient. Long absences from work are also necessary when the condition normally only requires hospitalization during the first few weeks. This is another reason why we do not hospitalize all the patients at present. Outpatient treatment in co-operation with and with the assistance of the employer is preferable in modern therapy.

I also want to point out that, despite the reduction in beds and the increasing incidence of tuberculosis in the Western Cape, the cure rate of 78% in 1986 and the cost effectiveness of the service compares very favourably with that in the rest of the country. This is very important.

The other point I want to make is that we will make a concerted effort as far as immunization is concerned. I hope we will be able to tackle this as a joint effort between my department and the Department of Health Services and Welfare in this House.

*I now want to refer to the speech made by the hon member for Britstown. It is always a pleasure to listen to the hon member. He is the chairman of the standing committee and he spoke very knowledgeably about the population development problem in South Africa. I am in full agreement with him. There is no doubt that we in South Africa must find a balance between resources on the one hand and population growth on the other.

In fact, I think his speech was so important that hon members will really find it worth their while to go and read it again in Hansard. It was an excellent speech. I agree that an improvement in people’s quality of life is one of our best antirevolutionary weapons. I am in complete agreement with the hon member. He said we should get more money; I agree fully.

The hon member made an important point when he said that those who undergo vasectomies should get R300. The hon member for Britstown said India had tried this. Sir, in India every person who underwent a vasectomy was given a transistor radio. [Interjections.] The problem is that the little cut that is made is so small that one cannot see it. People then went back repeatedly to get another radio! Some of them got up to five transistor radios, which they then sold. This was a serious problem. [Interjections.] We do vasectomies free of charge. No one in South Africa needs to pay for a vasectomy or sterilisation. I do not know whether payment would work in this regard, however. People might come back repeatedly. The money could become like a monthly salary. The hon member’s proposal could cause some problems, therefore. I thank him for his contribution which, as always, was very good.

†The hon member for Tafelberg proposed that the department should be the Department of Health and Housing. There is at least alliteration in the name—there are two “h’s”—but I think housing matters should rather remain the concern of my hon colleague here, while we can deal with health and welfare. In the long run I think that will be better. There is no doubt about the fact that housing is important. I have, however, mentioned the fact that the problem of room density has to some extent been alleviated in the past year.

*The hon member for Robertson made an excellent speech. He praised the Rural Foundation. He spoke so well about the Rural Foundation, that once again I can recommend that people go and read his speech in Hansard. It is one of the best speeches I have heard about the Rural Foundation. Sir, I should like to say that I am pleased that the hon member and I have neighbouring constituencies. The hon member said we should get an additional R3,5 million. I agree with him. As hon members know, R6,6 million was allocated for the Rural Foundation this year. I wish I could make it R26,6 million or even more, but at this stage there simply is not that much money available. There is no doubt, however, that it is an excellent and important organisation.

†I come to the hon member for Ottery. I think I have already referred to the national plan with regard to alcoholism. As far as the hon member’s comments on sexually transmitted diseases and Aids are concerned, I would like to give the following information.

*This is also applicable to what the hon member Mr Douw said.

†In keeping with international trends in health care and education, and in view of the current status of the Aids disease in this country, the department launched a mass media anti-Aids campaign to complement the use of other media. There was also a liaison programme on 25 January 1988. The international campaigns and research data were evaluated in the design of this campaign, which we intend to communicate to all levels of the South African society. A strategy was designed to address high risk behaviour rather than high risk groups. The campaign objectives were the following: To create an awareness of Aids, to detail its causes, and to outline the means of prevention. The message was at all times a positive one, namely that faithful, longstanding, single-partner relationships were safe. There is, therefore, only one kind of safe sex: One has to lead a monogamous sexual lifestyle. There is no other kind of safe sex.

Except no sex!

Yes, except no sex, but, Sir, I do not think that no sex is practical. [Interjections.]

*I am not talking about the hon member for Britstown’s worn-out people; I am talking about normal men! [Interjections.]

†This monogamous sexual lifestyle conforms to high Christian and moral standards.

People have been warned against the dangers of promiscuity. They have been warned against it; we live in a real world and know full well that promiscuity cannot easily be eradicated. It is also a fact of life that the use of condoms is recommended as a secondary means of protection, but it is not foolproof. [Interjections.] We use television, radio, and the Press in both the Black and White markets, with the radio as the main thrust for the Black market, while the White market employs TV to reach the majority of the population.

The current belief among the heterosexual sector is that the disease occurs only amongst homosexuals and—this point is important—that heterosexuals are therefore safe from infection. This is wrong. A very high percentage—between 10% and 50%—depends on where in the world one is measuring. Prostitutes, for example, have a positive Aids test. It depends where one is measuring. It was important that the message be handled with sensitivity and the facts presented clearly, concisely and with credibility. At the same time it was also vital that a solution be provided so as not to cause panic.

From research it was found that for the Black man Aids is regarded as a White man’s disease, from which Blacks are immune. It was essential to emphasise that Aids is a new sexually transmitted disease, and it is important that Aids is incurable.

*Let me tell hon members that no treatment against Aids exists, and as yet there is no possibility of vaccination. Once one has that virus, it never leaves one. It stays there. [Interjections.]

Then one is a goner.

The problem was—and this is important—that we also did research before we started this campaign. In addition to exploratory research both in the Black and White markets, this was also pre-tested comprehensively, and the results indicated that the communication was highly effective and that the campaign impact has been successfully balanced with the need for sensitivity.

Benchmark research was concluded at the end of 1987 and after three months of exposure the communication recall is currently being evaluated to track changes in market perceptions and attitudes. During the first week of this campaign we had more than 1 000 enquiries and we are now progressing into another field. Posters for all markets have been produced and are going to be distributed nationally. So far they have been distributed with a high level of acceptance. Telephone lines were manned by trained staff and liaison, including contact with church leaders, and women, cultural and labour organisations has been set up.

I would like to tell hon members of this Committee that the campaign is now being evaluated and that we will start on a pamphlet. The aim is to reach every household in South Africa with this information, because we are dealing with an aspect of sexually transmitted diseases. Those who contracted Aids before 1983 have a mortality of 87%.

*Those who contracted Aids before 1983 have already died.

While I am talking about Aids I want to give the latest figures in South Africa to the hon member Mr Douw; then we shall have concluded the matter. Subsequently I want to come to the hon member for Border. At the moment there are 118 people in South Africa who are suffering from Aids. The mortality figure is 75. Of these 118, 96 were RSA citizens. Of them 61 have died. There are 22 who are not RSA citizens, and 14 of them have died. Our mortality rate thus far is 63,5%. Seventy-seven of the 96 were homosexual; 10 were heterosexual; four contracted the disease through blood transfusions, and five suffered from haemophilia.

We are well aware of the fact that we always have to obtain the latest information in South Africa. That is why a national congress on Aids is being opened in Johannesburg later this week—on Thursday—at which we shall share the latest information with one another. I think that answers the questions of the hon member for Ottery.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister how much money was earmarked for the campaign?

It was R4 million and we have another R1,4 million available. We have additional money available and we are now consulting with certain private sector companies. They also want to contribute, because it is important as far as their employees are concerned. The hon member for Ottery should be aware of the fact that this is only for the campaign. There are 65 000 outlets for condoms. Condoms have been distributed free in South Africa since 1973 as part of our family planning programme. If we add up everything we have spent on combating Aids, it amounts to millions of rands. Somebody said we only spent R81 000 on research. That is wrong because the Medical Research Council and the South African Institute for Medical Research of this department spent more than R2 million on research last year. So, if we add it all up we have spent more than R5 million on the Anti-Aids Awareness Campaign. I think that answers the hon member’s question.

*We now come to the hon member for Border. He said there should be legislation for these people. It should be a notifiable disease. I want to tell the hon member that there are only a few Eastern bloc countries behind the iron curtain which make this a notifiable disease. If one makes the disease notifiable, one immediately drives it underground. What we want is for people to feel free to have themselves tested at any hospital or by any private doctor, so that they can be treated by means of psychological support and counselling on how it can spread. We do not want the people to disappear, because that is dangerous. That is why we decided not to make this disease notifiable.

The hon member for Border said we should remove the people from the community. I ask hon members how we can remove these people from the community. There are between 1,5 million and 2 million people in the world today who have undergone Aids tests and blood tests for HIV and whose test results were positive. How are we going to take those people out of the community? Are we going to put them in concentration camps? What can we do with them? Let me tell hon members that there is not a country in the world that is even thinking of that. We admit TB sufferers to hospitals and within a short period of time they are no longer infectious. Aids is a fatal disease and we have to treat these people psychologically as well as support them and inform them on how dangerous it is.

There are people who say we should put all the prostitutes in the world in concentration camps. How is one going to get hold of them? The important point, however, is that the client should realise that he is going on a dangerous visit. It is a visit which can cost him his life. These are the simple facts.

The hon member for Border said that during the unrest doctors did not go to work, but I want to tell him that our medical services functioned very well during the unrest. The Cape Flats doctors are very welcome to apply to work there. They must be able to read X-rays, however, because tuberculosis is diagnosed by means of X-rays of the lungs. That is the most important way in which tuberculosis is diagnosed. If a person cannot read a lung X-ray, therefore, he cannot diagnose tuberculosis.

The hon member for Border also said that the medicine costs per person had increased from R275 to R450. It does not matter what a person’s income is, however. If he cannot afford medicine—as in the case quoted by the hon member—such a person can go to the superintendent of a hospital to be reclassified and to get all his medicine free. There is no one who cannot get free medicine. The only thing such a person has to do, is to go to the superintendent and tell him that he has too many expenses and that he cannot afford to pay for his medicine; or that his medical aid fund has been exhausted.

When patients who belong to medical aid schemes are admitted to private hospitals, the rule is very clear that they must get emergency treatment. One cannot tell such a patient that he must simply lie there, waiting, until such time as his doctor comes. No such thing exists, and that rule is very clear.

With reference to the letter about a patient that a doctor writes to a doctor in the hospital, I agree with the hon member. The rule of provincial hospitals in South Africa is that on admission a patient has to be examined by a doctor, whether he has a letter or not. Unfortunately the patients who get letters are sometimes in rooms outside the hospital. It is not correct, however, when a doctor has written a letter to a colleague in the hospital, for that colleague not to receive the letter.

An investigation is in progress concerning the possible overlapping of population development committees with other committees on the local level. I am convinced that the population development committees are going to be the most effective committees on the local level. We appoint other people to these committees as population developers. In fact, we have appointed a number of Blacks. For the information of anyone who is interested in this, I want to point out that we merely take their qualifications into consideration. I think the hon the Deputy Minister of Population Development knows that that is how we deal with the matter.

†I have dealt with the point raised by the hon member for Griqualand West in regard to alcoholism. The hon member also referred to the question of malnutrition in South Africa.

*In this connection I want to tell the hon member that with the very competent assistance of the Department of Health Services and Welfare in the House of Representatives, the department has spent almost R2 million since 1985 on emergency food supplies in South Africa. That is merely one figure. We distributed 607 000 kg of maize-meal. We distributed no less than 31 000 kg of samp and 82 000 kg of sugar beans. The department therefore has a clear-cut emergency food supply programme.

The hon member for Diamant spoke very knowledgeably about the high cost of medicines. I mentioned a few points, and I hope I shall be permitted to elaborate on them. I am just as concerned as that hon member about the high cost of medicine. In fact, it is a matter of concern to all of us. In 1986 I had consultations with the Pharmacy Council about the high cost of medicine and in 1987 they supplied me with a report. †According to the Pharmacy Council the following factors are important in determining the price of medicine: Transfer pricing; customs duty on raw materials, especially active ingredients; a 10% surcharge on raw materials; general sales tax; lack of control over price increases in the pharmaceutical industry; wasteful promotional practices—which the hon member has mentioned; the State tender system; supply of medicine by mistake to private patients and members of medical schemes; the registration of medicine; the legal restrictions of bulk dispensing and the medical schemes themselves.

*It is very clear that there are many reasons. That is why the Cabinet appointed Dr Wim de Villiers to investigate the high cost of medicine. I want to tell the hon member for Diamant that all the points he so expertly referred to will definitely be investigated by Dr Wim de Villiers. It is not necessary, therefore, to appoint a special commission. The Browne Commission reported on the matter in 1986 and the recommendations of that commission will be implemented during the course of this year. Of course inflation is an important further aspect which must be considered. The Pharmacy Council and the SA Medical and Dental Council have taken two important decisions this year of which I want to inform hon members. The first decision was that no profit may be made on medicine by a dispensing doctor or pharmacist. That decision is definitely going to be implemented during the course of this year. The pharmacist, as well as the doctor who dispenses medicine, may not make any profit on dispensed medicine. The pharmacist will receive a professional fee and will be compensated for his shelf costs. This means that he will be compensated for his expenses, but that he may not take any profit on the medicine. Doctors will also be compensated for their expenses, but once again may make no profit. The Competition Board has determined that doctors may also receive a professional fee and the SAMDC agreed with this. In addition I want to point out to hon members that the Pharmacy Council and the SAMDC are two independent statutory councils which take care of doctors and pharmacists. They cannot be influenced by the Government, therefore, but both councils have indicated that they want to end the dispute between doctors and pharmacists and that they accept the Competition Board’s recommendation of no profit on dispensed medicine. I may add that the dispute between doctors and pharmacists has finally come to an end, and we can merely hope that these people will adhere to these decisions.

I also want to add that the Government takes care of pharmacists who have received money for dispensing from the provinces and who may go bankrupt in the process. There are 11 such pharmacists in the rural areas at present. The matter is being investigated by Dr Wim de Villiers. In the meantime we are looking after the people so that they will not go under. When we look at new pharmacies, hon members will see that 30 new pharmacies opened in 1986, in comparison with the 68 that opened in 1987. The pharmaceutical profession is not dying out, therefore. I think that covers most of the points that hon members referred to.

With reference to the producers, it is true that approximately 22% of their turnover is spent on advertising. I think we have dealt with most of the points referred to by the hon member for Alra Park. I want to tell him, however, that level 1 of the national facilities plan—clean drinking water, sewerage, etc—is the beginning of good health, as the hon member rightly said.

With reference to social pensions, I want to tell hon members that the recent disaster in Natal, the Free State and the Northern Cape cost us almost R401 million in the present financial year. It is very difficult to collect this amount.

The hon member Mr Douw referred to Aids and migrant workers. We have dealt with these points already. The hon member also rightly referred to India. With regard to the hon the Deputy Minister of Population Development, I want to tell hon members that he works with dedication, expertise and enthusiasm. I want to thank him for an excellent speech. With regard to the hon the Deputy Minister of National Health, I want to tell hon members that he is au fait with occupational diseases. I appreciate his contribution, and especially the fact that he invited hon members to make inputs about the new draft legislation. The hon the Deputy Minister knows his field, he works expertly and enthusiastically, and I want to thank him sincerely for that.

Before I conclude, I once again want to thank all the hon members who took part in this debate. It was a constructive debate on a high level. I also want to thank the chairman of the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare, the hon member for Britstown, for all his hard work in that standing committee. [Interjections.]

I want to conclude by telling hon members that my department and I, and also the other departments that are involved with health, have only one endeavour, and that is to strive for the best possible treatment—preventive and curative—for all our people, irrespective of race, colour or creed. [Interjections.]

Vote agreed to.

Chairman directed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, the Bill was agreed to by our standing committee without any problems. This Bill is a step in the process of finding a curator for mentally ill people, and in complying with the request of the Chief Master so as to find someone who can assist the mentally ill person in dealing with his financial affairs, because he cannot do so himself.

In addition the curator has to protect the mentally ill person against his own incompetence and poor judgment, as well as against people who have no conscience. At the moment there are many mentally ill people who are homeless, and have no curator, with the result that they are in great danger of being exploited. Previously the family was a very close unit, and therefore it was appropriate that they should accept responsibility. The closest relative automatically had control over the mentally ill person’s possessions as well as his person. No procedure for appointing a curator was followed. As soon as someone started showing signs of mental deterioration, he was placed in the care of his family.

Up to and including the 18th century, there was no hospital or any effective treatment for the mentally ill. They were locked up and detained. The only consideration was the protection of the community against the mentally ill. In due course the emphasis came to fall more on the treatment of the mentally ill than on their detention. The Mental Health Act of 1973 emphasised voluntary patients and patients with permission. Such patients can leave an institution when they please, and can refuse any specific form of treatment. In certain respects the appointment of a curator is an expensive and time-consuming process, and this is definitely a matter that should be investigated. It is with gratitude that we have taken cognisance of the fact that the South African Law Commission is giving attention to this problem and that the legislation before Parliament is not the last word on the fate of the mentally ill. We support this legislation.

Mr Chairman, there is no way in which I can improve upon the explanation given by the hon member for Britstown. He explained things extremely well and knowledgeably; I have nothing to add. The only thing I can say, in a nutshell, is that red tape must be eliminated. I thank the hon member for Britstown for his support.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, this afternoon I want to welcome the hon the Minister to this House; it is his first visit here.

The Department of Transport’s activities involve aviation, marine transport, government garage, national roads, urban transport and transport systems development. This afternoon I would like to deal with aviation and let other hon members handle the other aspects.

The Louis Botha Airport is too small for the human cargo it handles. There is no more land for expansion and any measure taken now will only be of a temporary nature. Therefore I believe that the time is ripe for serious consideration to be given to the development of the La Mercy Airport. If this is done now, it will inject capital and provide job opportunities in Natal.

I would like to address the staffing of the Department of Transport. Apart from a few Indian barmen and waiters in some bars and restaurants I have not seen any Indians in other departments employed as clerks at weigh-in counters, radio technicians, pilots, air traffic controllers, fly-officers, artisans, or airport managers. In the department’s report it states that the department succeeded in performing its function despite a poor staff position. There are many Indian matriculants and graduates who should be considered for the 481 vacancies that exist. I would like to remind the hon the Minister that three quarters of the Indian population are in Natal. I do know of one Indian who is a trainee pilot and who has excelled in this position. There are many more like him who, given the opportunity, will rise to the occasion. The hon the Minister would not be disappointed if he were to recruit Indian staff.

As the M L Sultan Technical College and the University of Durban-Westville are subsidised at this stage, would he not consider employing young, suitable graduates from these institutions? Will the hon the Minister undertake to promote aviation at these two institutions?

The other matter I would like to address this afternoon is the question of business concessions at airports. I would like to appeal to the hon the Minister to lease some of his concessions to Indian businessmen, who have proved over and over that they are capable of operating efficiently. It is strange to note that, although the businesses are leased to Whites, it is left to non-Whites to manage and run them.

I would like to point out one such business—the Port Elizabeth Airport complex. It is run by a Black woman who is dressed in a maid’s uniform. She does everything in this business. She is the only one there. She sells and handles the cash. It would be very interesting to know if she is paid a manager’s salary or that of a maid.

Finally, a lot of unfair criticism has been levelled at the hon the Minister and his department regarding aircraft accidents. While these accidents have not yet been investigated and the matter remains sub judice, I would like to appeal to these do-gooders and aviation wizards to refrain from making remarks until the official board of inquiry has had the time to investigate these accidents.

I would like to congratulate and thank the chairman of the standing committee for the very efficient way in which he conducts the meetings. I would also like to thank the officials of the Department of Transport who assisted us with all the information and clarifications sought during our deliberations. From this side of the House we support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, the Department of Transport has an important role to play viz the provision of good roads and bridges. Therefore it is imperative that the department has firm control by countrywide monitoring of the standard and quality of the construction of roads, despite the deregulation and privatisation in the form of the delegation of powers to local authorities, regional services councils and the provincial administrations.

Before I go on to the other aspects that I wish to deal with this afternoon, I want to congratulate and compliment the Department of Transport on the completion of a very arduous task that was undertaken some years back in providing a tunnel, which is now called the Huguenot Tunnel, through Du Toits Kloof for the benefit of the South Africa motorist. When one considers the fact that that particular stretch of road has been the cause of a number of deaths, I think the Department of Transport should to be very highly complimented on obviating a very treacherous and dangerous stretch of road in South Africa.

Upon the completion of this tunnel and, of course, in order to meet maintenance costs and other necessary disbursements, a toll has been introduced. This toll road is not the only one in the country. Many others have been built from time to time, and I want to raise the question of a toll that was built in Natal on the Free State border, and which was completed very recently.

There was a hue and cry from trade and commerce, as well as from the public sector in so far as the levy was concerned. I do not know whether the levy has been reduced at this stage or whether the levy that was imposed at that time, namely R6,50 still stands. However, a considerable amount of interest was shown in this tariff because it was far in excess of other rates applicable elsewhere.

I do not know whether the department itself is prejudiced towards Natal and the Natal motorist in general but the fact that this tariff was, in fact, raised to R6,50 is something we should like the hon the Minister to address. We should like him to give us a reason as to why such an exorbitant amount was charged. I think it was ridiculous, particularly when one considers the fact that the toll on the Tsitsikamma Bridge in the Cape Province was far less, namely R2,50, if I am not mistaken. It is a matter of great concern. I should like to draw the hon the Minister’s attention to that.

I should also like to draw his attention to the fact that the South African motorist in general is very heavily burdened by all these levies, when one takes into the account the amount he pays in the form of GST on petrol, spares and labour. To burden him further will simply tighten the noose around the poor motorist’s neck even further. This becomes very telling and those people in the lower income groups are finding things extremely difficult.

However, Sir, I have no sympathy in so far as trade and industry are concerned because they have certainly not played the game. It is the taxpayer in general who has to pay for their negligence. In this connection I should like to draw the hon the Minister’s attention to the heavy duty hauliers, who have been largely responsible over the years for causing such tremendous damage to road surfaces. In recent times our attention has also been drawn to the number of charges that have been laid by the provincial traffic authorities in respect of overladen heavy duty vehicles.

It is not only the road condition that makes the difference here. What about the danger that is posed to innocent lives by overloading? We are aware of the fact that our roads are not as smooth as they could be. There are ups and downs, hills and mountains. Therefore, when these heavily laden heavy duty trucks have to go down a hill, they certainly travel with an excess load and that is extremely dangerous for any other motorist. A number of innocent lives have been lost from time to time, let alone the damage that has been caused.

This also increases the insurance premiums imposed by insurance companies because of the type of accidents that occur through what I would call unscrupulous hauliers. I do, however, think the drivers are to some extent equally to be blamed for negligence, because if they refused to drive overladen heavy-duty trucks, they would certainly be doing justice, not only to themselves—for many drivers have lost their lives in this process—but also to innocent people who might lose their lives.

I think the offending hauliers should be penalised very severely. The companies have the money to pay fines when these are imposed and fines do not seem to solve the problem. I think some measure must be taken to protect innocent motorists from the dangers of these unscrupulous hauliers, by imposing a jail sentence on the owners. It should not only be a fine, because a fine is easily paid. They have enough money, so it is no problem to them.

I do not think that at this stage I have anything to say against the department, other than to compliment them on their work. I, too, would like to lend support to the call made by the hon member for Umzinto when he spoke about employment benefits for the Black community in general. Here the Louis Botha Airport provides a glaring example, where one finds only Whites in every section. One cannot find any Blacks, other than the labourers who are either carrying someone’s baggage or sweeping the airport itself. I think it is sickening to stand here and repeat our calls from time to time. It is time that the hon the Minister investigates and finds out why this state of affairs still prevails. For four long years we have been calling for opportunities to be opened to other race groups, but all this seems to be of no use. I would like to make an earnest appeal to the hon the Minister to personally investigate this.

Replacements and promotions occur from time to time, so obviously opportunities must be opened. It is my honest and humble appeal to the hon the Minister to open up these opportunities faster than has happened hitherto. I am sure in his reply he will probably tell me that there are opportunities in other sectors, but these are not seen. It must be seen publicly. I think this must be addressed, not only at Louis Botha Airport, but at other airports as well. Jan Smuts Airport is another important and glaring example, where hundreds of people are employed as clerks at counter services and other important jobs. Let this not be a White man’s paradise. Let it be open to us. We, too, are looking for opportunities and I am sure that the Black community is equally capable of providing what the White man provides, if not better.

Mr Chairman, the most important function in the Transport Division this year is that they embarked on the implementation of the National Transport Policy which was approved by Parliament in 1987. It is quite a long time since the matter was considered by the study group and I think many people looked forward to the implementation of the National Transport Policy.

One of the important aspects of that policy is the Transport Deregulation Bill, which has now come before the Standing Committee on Transport, and another is the Bill known as the South African Roads Board Bill. It is important to know with what this latter Bill deals.

I would like to quote from the memorandum on the objects of this bill just for the information of hon members:

There is a board that is to be established, which is to be known as the South African Roads Board. Its constitution is prescribed and its powers, functions and duties are defined. In addition, a committee to be known as the Toll Roads Committee is to be established, its constitution is prescribed and its functions are defined. In terms of the National Road Transport Policy, the Government is now coming forward with the implementation of some of its very important recommendations.

There is another important recommendation of the Transportation Policy Study Group. It has to do with the question of deregulation and the abolition of the local road transport body. In terms of the recommendation of this policy study, one of the recommendations that is referred to above, is that the following organisations be abolished: The National Transport Commission, the Local Road Transportation Boards, the Civil Aviation Advisory Committee, the National Marine Advisory Council and the South African Shipping Board. These should be replaced by the Transport Advisory Council—I think the Transport Advisory Council has already been established—the Transport Tribunal, the Co-ordinating Unit and the National Roads Board.

In terms of this recommendation, there is a Bill called the Transport Deregulation Bill which has now come before the Transport Standing Committee. There are some very important aspects regarding this Bill. I would like to quote from the memorandum once more:

1. (a) The Transport (Co-ordination) Act, 1948, is repealed, with the proviso, however, that the National Transport Commission shall continue to exist.
2. (b) The National Transport Commission shall continue to exercise those powers and to perform those functions and duties which vest in it by law and which have not been transferred by or under the present Act or any other law to another institution or body.

These recommendations are very important—not only is the Local Road Transportation Boards to be abolished, but in its place they are going to get a small structure which would consider the question of carrier certificates.

The other important thing is that when the study group considered the transport policy, there were something like 16 000 illegal taxis or mini buses that were operating in the country, and the Government cannot find ways and means to certify these buses to operate legally. The only way is by means of the transport policy. I think in this way everyone of those illegal taxi operators will now become legal. They will find ways and means in which to legalise those illegal taxi operators.

I have read the report of the Department of Transport. I think this report is a very fine document. I think the attention that is given to roads by the department is highly commendable. We now have a new Director General, and I think he is a new broom that sweeps very well.

I think he is giving attention to a number of matters, especially in Natal. I saw that attention is being given to a great number of roads. I think the department should programme its work in such a way that every province in South Africa receives the attention it needs.

I now come to the matter of third party insurance. I would like the hon the Minister to tell us today whether the fund has been balanced. Are there any delays in so far as claims are concerned? How promptly are claims being paid to people who have been involved in accidents in terms of the new third party insurance?

I also want to place on record our appreciation of the department itself and of the hon the Minister. He is a very hard-working person and I think he is trying implement all the policies. We should encourage him in this undertaking and I want to place our thanks on record once more.

Mr Chairman, in the first place I would like to welcome the new Director-General of the Department of Transport this afternoon. I believe this is his first Budget debate and we wish him well. I would also like to thank him for the good work that he did in this department last year.

The hon member Mr Thaver quite correctly indicated that the most important subject for debate under this Vote is the subject of deregulation as a result of the study group on national transport policy and the Government’s White Paper on it. The hon member also quite correctly indicated to the House that quite a few suggestions made therein have been incorporated in Bills that are before standing committees. I will therefore not comment any further in that regard because those Bills will obviously come before this House in due course and we will then comment on them.

Coming from Chatsworth I would have thought that the hon member Mr Thaver would have asked the hon the Minister what has happened to what this House has been asking for since the time it was constituted. I am, of course, referring to the second access route about which we have heard very little. I believe the time has come for the hon the Minister to give some indication concerning this matter.

I wish to return to the whole question of toll roads. I wish to begin by expressing my concern over the potentially astronomical cost involved in the Government’s proposal to extend the country’s toll roads, particularly between Durban and Johannesburg. If we are to believe the reports that appeared in the weekend papers, transport operators have estimated that, based on the plans of the toll roads network that have been made available to them, it could cost no less than R179 in tolls alone for a truck to undertake a one-way trip from the coast to the Reef. I am not sure if the costs indicated in the Press are correct but if they are, it would be considerably high and it will be crippling in many respects.

It is understandable that many urban authorities en route fear an influx of heavy vehicles through their areas if transport operators were to seek alternative routes because of the crippling high costs to avoid paying these excessive levies as well. The hon the Minister must realise what a burden that will be on the wear and tear of such roads.

In this regard I would like to ask the hon the Minister three questions which have been raised by the Public Carriers Association. The first question is: Is privatisation on the existing roads set to become an on-going policy of the department? If that is so I believe the hon the Minister should spell it out very clearly so that onward programming and planning by the private sector in that regard can take place.

The second question I want to ask is whether tolls are about to be applied to existing roads or will tolls only be applied to new structures that are to be created?

Finally, I should like to ask the hon the Minister whether the tax that has been exacted through the selling price of fuel will be used to pay for the upkeep of existing roads in a manner that can be easily scrutinised. In other words, what we are asking is whether we for instance as members of Parliament know exactly how much money came into the coffers of the department by way of the fuel levy and how it was spent and whether in fact all that was spent on the upkeep of roads.

I should also like to take the opportunity of seeking clarification from the hon the Minister on exactly what is going to happen to the toll road between Mooi River and the coast. There has been a lot of speculation with regard to this and I should like to ask the hon the Minister whether we will have a new toll-road system from the Reef to Mooi River taking in such towns as Alberton, Villiers, Ladysmith right up to Mooi River and who will be paying for these roads. With regard to this I should like to indicate to the hon the Minister that we in the PFP are quite happy with the concept of toll roads and we are happy about private enterprise building and handling all toll roads. However, we object to existing roads, paid for by taxpayers, being flogged to private companies.

We believe that any toll-road facilities should be built by private enterprise from the start and that there must always be a reasonable alternative route. Also, the fee charged for the use of that facility should be reasonable.

The Department of Civil Aviation, as has been indicated by the hon member Mr M Thaver, also falls within the bailiwick of the hon the Minister and I should like to draw the hon the Minister’s attention to the appalling conditions that exist at Jan Smuts Airport. We have heard that both domestic and international air traffic increased last year by some 16% and yet we find that the conditions that exist at Jan Smuts Airport for passenger services and for the people who use those services are appalling. I should like to ask the hon the Minister what he has in store for the users of those facilities.

Whilst I am on the subject of airports, I should like to draw the attention of the hon the Minister to a problem that we MPs who use Louis Botha Airport are experiencing. This, of course, concerns the parking facilities that have been provided for MPs. As the hon member for Southern Natal has indicated these facilities are located some two miles away from the airport and quite obviously I think that is unreasonable.

Also within the bailiwick of the hon the Minister is the question of the Government Garage. As we are asked to vote funds for the functioning of his department with regard to this, I should like to ask the hon the Minister whether in fact he does not agree that all the funds voted for his department should be used for the maximum benefit of all of the taxpayers of this country. Here I should like to draw the attention of the hon the Minister to what has been said in previous debates in this House concerning the use of Government transport and ministerial transport. We have been told that ministerial representatives use Government transport at will and that family members and children are being transported in these vehicles. Of course all of this falls under the department of the hon the Minister. We should like to know whether such private use is something that the hon the Minister condones.

A waste of taxpayers’ money!

It most certainly is a waste of taxpayers’ money.

The other aspect that concerns us, particularly those of us who come from Natal, is the question of level crossings. I shall be tabling a question addressed to the hon the Minister in this regard since I do not have much time in this debate.

However, I should like to ask the hon the Minister whether in fact the R21/2 million that was spent last year on level crossings was sufficient?

It was not.

It was not. I thank the hon the Minister. I believe the amount was insufficient and I believe that it behoves the hon the Minister to come to us and say to us that it was not sufficient, and therefore, if he sought our assistance in that regard, we would be glad to vote him additional funds for this purpose. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, with reference to what the hon member for Springfield had to say with regard to toll-roads, I think there are certain realities we must live with. However, in so saying I believe that one must not allow a situation to develop where the tolls themselves become excessive and act as a deterrent, and hauliers tend to look for every opportunity to avoid having to pay tolls.

A classic example of this is the extent to which the Field’s Hill Road is still being used by hauliers because they want to avoid paying tolls on the new stretch between Pinetown and Pietermaritzburg, linking up near Cliffdale.

I think that is an example of what is likely to happen, and as the hon member for Springfield said, people will find ways and means of bypassing the toll-roads and thereby making it even more dangerous for residents of small towns and suburbs. That must be taken into account.

The other point I want to make is that on my recent trip from Rome to visit Pompeii, I must have gone through three or four toll-gates. What frightened me there was the extent to which traffic is held up. I thought that if this was the experience throughout Italy, it must be pretty frustrating. The point I want to make, then, is that I believe that in any planning of toll-roads or toll-gates it is necessary to take into account likely developments in the future. I believe we must be able to project with some accuracy into the future, with regard to the fact that transport is in fact increasing all the time. These gates must not become a hindrance and hold up the free flow of traffic. This is tremendously important for the success of the haulier and for the success of the toll-gate system itself. It is also important for motor transport, which will be bottled up when queues begin to develop outside toll-gates—either coming in or going out.

When I spoke in this debate last year I welcomed and expressed appreciation for the developments which have led to the appearance of the kombitaxis, as we call them. I stated then that I saw this as the development of the capital base which will provide Black entrepreneurs with an opportunity of flexing their muscles in the business world and, in fact, acting as a catalyst for the speedier entry of Black people into all kinds of business. I stand by that viewpoint and I think it is undisputed.

What worries me, however, is the report of the National Road Safety Council, which states that in the first six months of 1987 there were something like 18 715 accidents involving these taxis. There were some 24 800 prosecutions over a period of ten months. The major portion of these offences related to overloading. Fines of as much as R50 per passenger in excess of the accepted figure are imposed. Notwithstanding that one does not see any move towards order in so far as overloading is concerned. When one drives along these thoroughfares where the taxis are commuting, one finds that these vehicles, having been overloaded, are a target for accidents.

In fact, when accidents do occur, as happened in Pietersburg and elsewhere, a large number of people lose their lives as these vehicles roll and are almost written off. Having accepted the fact that there is a need for these operators and that they serve more than just the carrying of passengers from one area to another, we see a historical business imbalance being resolved as a result of the arrival of these people. It is absolutely important that the necessary regulations be promulgated with a view to gaining a semblance of order.

I understand that there are some 80 000 plus operators, 40 000 of whom are illegal operators. One cannot allow a situation like this to continue, because I believe they have a very powerful South African Black Taxi Owners’ Association. With an organisation of that kind I believe we have the nucleus of people who can be brought in to be used as protectors of the lives of people. They can also bring order to the business and set the kind of example that others will have to follow.

I would like to quote from a recent article on a conference on deregulation that was held recently. The comments are from the Chairman of the Public Carriers Association, and I quote:

This argument does not only apply to Blacks, but it would apply to anyone who operates Kombitaxis—whether they be Coloured, Indian or White. The incentives are there, as is the likelihood of infringements. I continue:

This comes from the responsible Chairman of the Public Carriers Association. I would like to address the hon the Minister about my own concern with the carnage that is taking place on our roads. I sincerely trust that all people engaged in the taxi business—whether they be White, Coloured, Asian or Black—will understand that they have a responsibility to other road users. They have an enormous responsibility to the passengers who support them. Therefore there has to be some order and some conformity with regulations designed to improve the safety of both the carrier and those that are carried, as well as other road users.

I also want to refer to some important statements that were made at this conference by its chairman regarding road haulage, which was also referred to by other hon members in the House. As hon members know when deregulation took place in the United States, the actual results were completely different from what was envisaged by the authorities. In fact, whereas deregulation was intended to provide room for the big business, the smaller business and even the small individual operators, that in fact did not take place.

I believe that when our regulations are drawn up in South Africa we must take cognisance of the fact that there are one-man operators in the Black, Coloured and Indian communities, and possibly in the White community as well. Such an operator is one who owns a vehicle—a rig—and drives it himself. Any regulations which are designed and which may be complied with by the very big operators, may very well not be complied with by the small operator but as I say, everyone has to comply with certain regulations that are designed for the good of all. However, I think that in so regulating, the problems that could be experienced by the small operator must be taken into account; otherwise the purpose will not be served.

I want to read from this article again. I think it is important that I read it because it summarises the position very well:

The authorities, at first, refused to accept that this was the case. Two years ago, for instance, despite a public outcry, United States Department of Transport Secretary, Elizabeth Dole, was still adamant that there had not been serious post-deregulation deterioration in “trucking safety.”

But today the DOT is very much on the defensive. Cover stories in Time and Newsweek, a CBS TV series on “Killer Trucks” and a series of articles in USA Today have all tied deregulation to a serious deterioration in road safety standards.

As a result, four major pieces of legislation on the transportation of hazardous materials are pending in the United States. Three of these contain a registration programme with stringent conditions before registration will be accepted. They impose tough technical standards, and provide for full consultation on routing between the industries who want to move their goods and the affected areas through which they would be moved.

The Department of Transport’s public posture of two years ago has been completely discredited and Secretary Elizabeth Dole has admitted to Congress that $50 million is urgently needed to fund “enforcement programmes”.

In other words, the pendulum has swung right back, and truckers in the States who, in the past, had almost no regulations to worry about, will now almost certainly have too many.

With hindsight it is easy to see where the Americans went wrong, even if for the best motives—for instance, a strong belief that there should be as little interference as possible with private enterprise.

We could probably do with a bit more of that feeling here. But on the other hand, the American experience proves that sensible and reasonable controls are necessary at the outset and that people cannot simply be left to do their own thing in an area as important and as complex as modern transportation. We should take this lesson to heart and see that the same mistakes are not made here.

Mr Chairman, I think this is true. Good intentions can go awry, and it is better to take the precautions beforehand rather than lock the stable door after the horse has bolted. I think this is the message because it is evident that in our enthusiasm to encourage these larger taxis we have failed to adopt the kind of measures that should have been instituted at the outset for people to comply with, and we now have to somehow face that challenge and overcome the problems that we are presently facing.

I also want to refer to third party claims. I think that in the report published by the department mention is made of the fact that certain insurance companies are also being afforded the opportunity to become claims adjusters. If I read that correctly, they entertain and process claims on behalf of third party claimants. What I should like to know from the hon the Minister is whether the time involved in processing and settling these claims has been reduced as a result of this new programme.

There is another point to which I should like to refer, and I think some of his officials may be aware of it. I was astounded and shocked to learn that certain bus operators in the Phoenix area were, in fact, carrying motor carrier certificates tied to motorbikes, Government vehicles, my car and someone else’s bus.

I was able to present evidence on that, which was not disputed. Somebody applying for a bus transportation certificate in the Phoenix area went to the trouble of proving to the authorities that they were acknowledging the availability of certificates to somebody who was pulling a fast one on them. I was rather surprised that when this gentleman eventually informed me, he had still not been successful, despite the fact that he produced this evidence.

In Phoenix?

In Phoenix, yes.

I think this is a shocking state of affairs and I believe that those who administer these regulations, and those down the line responsible for considering and granting certificates must have a bomb thrown amongst them. If that is true—and it has not been proved to me that it was incorrect—something is very seriously wrong and reflects seriously on the administration of the department at that level. My colleague, the hon member for Phoenix, went to Pretoria with this evidence, so that, in a responsible way, we could bring this to the notice of the people at the top, and put a stop to this practise. Unfortunately, it would appear that these matters …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Can I get clarification from the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition? Did I hear him clearly that he suggested that a bomb be thrown amongst those people who are issuing certificates?

I am sorry, Mr Chairman. Maybe I chose the wrong words. I am sorry. I meant that one needs to do something to really shake them up. I am sorry.

The hon member for Phoenix went into this matter very thoroughly, obtained information in regard to each certificate, the registration number of the vehicle and also to whom the vehicle belongs. In one case the ND number shown on a certificate was the registration number of a motorcycle. Some of them were Government vehicles. Some of the vehicles belonged to different people altogether.

I am asking: How can anyone recognise the validity of such certificates? They are used as the basis for an argument. People are able to say: “I have these certificates issued to me.” A whole lot of them. It was one big joke. I do not expect the hon the Minister to answer me during the debate, but I would like him to take this matter up and if the hon member for Phoenix is required to discuss this matter with him, I am sure he would be willing to do so.

Mr Chairman, I rise in support of the Vote, but I have a few suggestions. Speaking of homes, it reminds me of the parking facilities that are available for members of Parliament at Jan Smuts Airport. I want to support the hon member for Springfield …

Louis Botha Airport.

Louis Botha Airport. We have to park our cars some two kilometres away. [Interjections.] Mr Chairman, there were very few interjections made when other hon members were speaking. I do not know why I should be the victim of circumstances.

We have to walk some two to three kilometres to the airport from the parking place. However, the general public and the Ministers park almost a few yards away from the airport. I want to know how the hon the Minister values our lives compared to those of hon Ministers. Are our lives inferior to theirs, because they are security risks? What is our position? We have to walk a long distance in rain and darkness, and there is no security whatsoever.

I hope that something will be done in order to bring our parking facilities nearer. I am sure that most hon members have also complained to the manager.

Hear, hear!

The hon member for Lenasia Central is going to speak out very strongly against the toll near Lenasia. I think the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs wants to reduce the bank balance of the Indian and Coloured population living in Lenasia. I wonder if there are any reasons for this toll being so close to the Indian township of Lenasia. Why cannot it be where races of colour are not the only people affected?

There are garages at some of the airports for MPs, but at Louis Botha and D F Malan Airport here in Cape Town, we have no such parking facilities. Our cars are parked outside. When there is hail, rain or storms, our cars are damaged. Moreover, we do not get compensated for this.

I want to bring another important construction to the notice of the hon the Minister. His officials will remember that I brought the matter concerning the Greytown Road in Pietermaritzburg to their attention. We have raised this matter with the municipality of Pietermaritzburg since 1981. That is the only outlet for the Indian community to go to their areas and to go into city. When the then Minister of Transport, Mr Schoeman, visited the area, I was assured by the officials that the matter was receiving attention. How long does it take? The municipality has spent thousands of rands in developing a road at the new Grey’s Hospital, as well as a footbridge at the Royal Showgrounds. They have canalised the Umsunduzi River, where they can have boating and all that. However, nothing is done to improve or widen this road. Since 1981 we have been at it, but nothing has been done.

In 1986 and 1987, 72 students studied with State aid on a full-time or part-time basis on formal training. I would like the hon the Minister to tell me whether this was advertised for people of colour, too, or was it only advertised for Whites?

I also wish to talk about the unauthorised use of Government vehicles. Of 47 such cases, 13 were proved to be unauthorised. I would like to know whether any punishment was meeted out to these people.

I also want to talk about professional special services. According to the report it has increased from R357 to R7 843. I hope the hon the Minister can give us some kind of explanation with regard to that.

Mr Chairman, I am going to talk about the toll road that has been spoken about earlier, with particular reference to the Grasmere Tollgate Plaza, which the hon the Minister is au fait with. I believe that in practice tollgates are used to collect toll from people who live in a different municipality and who commute to work to another municipality.

The siting of the Grasmere Tollgate Plaza is a point of frustration among the community, because not one community in that particular area—Black, White, Coloured or Indian—was consulted when this contract was awarded to a private company.

It is also worth asking what factors were taken into consideration when it was finally decided that this particular tollgate would be constructed at that point. If it were constructed a mere 250 m away, on the other side of the off-ramp to the Ennerdale and Vereeniging off-ramp, it would not have caused a problem.

Whenever the Government undertakes a project of this nature it is not surprising that communities view these projects with suspicion. It is possible that the potential growth in the Lenasia South East area was taken into consideration.

In the Coloured area of Ennerdale we have 32 000 residents at the moment. In Lenasia South we have 28 000. Lenasia Extension 4 has a tremendous growth potential. The House of Delegates is presently serving 3 200 stands. There is also Zacharia Park and an additional 900 stands which will be available in the Finetown, Unaville and Grasmere areas.

The residents of these areas feel very strongly that the siting of the tollgate was done there on purpose to tax an already overtaxed community. The residents living there do not live there by choice—they live there because of the abhorred Group Areas Act. The residents of the affected areas do not have the same opportunities that are available to people in other areas. They were previously living in Johannesburg and its suburbs and they were “relocated”—I put this in inverted commas—to these areas by virtue of the Group Areas Act. They cannot move their place of residence to suit themselves or to avoid that toll.

I am aware that the hon the Minister’s department may argue that prior to the erection of a tollgate there has to be alternative routes and I am aware that these routes exist but to get to them would mean a major deviation. They are also not designed to carry the additional volume of traffic.

The hon member for Springfield mentioned a figure of R117 for a trip from the coast to the Reef. I have been given to understand that at the Grasmere toll plaza there are six different price structures which would mean R2,50 to Johannesburg. This will mean an additional R2,50 to R5 for a resident of that area.

I personally feel that the siting of that particular tollgate must be stopped forthwith. A reasonable request from the residents was that it should be moved 250 metres away beyond the off-ramp. This move would not affect anybody because there is a very small White population in the area. The majority of the residents in that area are Black, including 8 000 families on Wheeler’s Farm that commute daily to and from Johannesburg. Then we also have the Coloured residents of Ennerdale as well as the Indian population. I therefore make this plead. A commission of enquiry could also be instituted to establish by exactly what amount the residents will be taxed further with the erection of that tollgate.

Mr Chairman, I would like to follow on the argument put by the hon member for Havenside. He complimented the hon the Minister and the Department of Transport Services for the completion of the Du Toit’s Kloof tunnel now known as the Huguenot Tunnel. In the past people have been killed in the pass every week.

I want to say that I am greatly perturbed about the attitude of the Department of Transport Services insofar as the second access road to Chatsworth is concerned. That road has been mooted since 1961—that is for the past 27 years—because of the anti-Indian attitudes and views of one particular family. That project has been shelved.

When the Chatsworth complex was planned originally a great portion of today’s Stainbank reserve was included in the planning for the Indian township. However, because the Stainbanks had a representative in the second tier of government they pushed it out. When the second access road was planned to go through the Stainbank Farm, they immediately donated that particular portion of land as a nature reserve or a conservation farm. When the road was then re-routed adjacent and parallel to that reserve they again managed to distort the road plans by donating that second piece of land to the Parks Board.

When the road was planned further down, almost parallel to the N2 opposite the road today, they with their powers and office created a local authority within the local authority area of Durban and established the Aloewood Park township for Whites, thereby substantially blocking that second access road from being built.

One might ask what is the urgency and why ask for this for the fourth year in succession now. The members of the House of Delegates are shouting about and crying out for a second access road. Chatsworth has got a population of 300 000 people and the Higginson Highway is a daily death trap for people, unlike Du Toit’s Kloof Pass where only heavy motor vehicles occasionally went out of control causing accidents in which people were killed. However, there the roads department and the Government deemed it fit to spend millions over five years to build a tunnel. However, what about these 300 000 people who are people of colour? I say that blatant discrimination is being exercised here. For 27 years a major township with a community of 300 000 people has had only one entrance and exit.

On the Higginson Highway there are daily accidents and deaths. If one examines the record over 27 years one will see that hundreds of lives have been claimed there. The previous Minister promised us that regardless of any objections from any political group or any particular community he would build a road on the shortest and the cheapest route. We were given to understand that in 1985. However, because of political pressure, within three days he turned turtle. It is on record in Hansard that the former Minister of Transport gave us the guarantee in this very Chamber that he would build a road through the Stainbank Reserve. Today engineering ingenuity does not preclude adding accesses for animals to cross either way. I have read that culverts can be built for smaller animals such as baboons, monkeys and duikers. It will not affect the reserve or cut it in two.

All I can say is that I think it is practically wrong that someone in authority can endanger any population of 300 000 by compelling them to use one road to the industrial areas and the heart of the city.

I am told my time is up and I beseech the hon the Minister to look into this matter and to go into the records from 1985 up to the present time and to give us some answer when he comes here again next year about a second access road for Chatsworth.

Mr Chairman, I want to discuss the tollgates in Unaville, Finetown. I hope the hon the Minister realises what that tollgate there is costing in lives. Because those tollgates are now on that freeway people are using the Golden Highway and the other new access road through Lenasia South, through the mountains onto the freeway coming out at the end on the same road. This is a long way through.

We have had several deaths and accidents on this particular road. Now that there are tollgates on that particular road next to the Golden Highway people are going to use the Golden Highway.

I should like to tell the hon the Minister through the Chair that he and his officials should have realised that the Golden Highway would be of no use once the concrete highway comes into use.

Therefore, I suppose that somebody has seen that; the SATS wants to make money, and they put up a tollgate in the wrong place.

There is one thing that should be realised and that is that as far as we, the Indians and the Coloureds in that area, are concerned, and as my colleague stated with regard to Wheeler’s Farm, there are thousands upon thousands of Blacks living on this Dr Wheeler’s farm. This is a European’s farm occupied by squatters. It is in a European area, and that is where all these Blacks are living. Yet they still have to get onto the freeway in order to get into Johannesburg.

What I cannot understand is that while we are practically all within the Johannesburg area—those people are all working in Johannesburg; they do not go into Pretoria, Heidelberg or anywhere else—they are forced to get onto that road. It is also necessary to bear in mind that in terms of the old constitutional planning of the central Witwatersrand, Norweto was supposed to be established to the north of Johannesburg; this was subsequently ditched because of the objections of the Whites. Now the Africans are coming back on the other side and we have an excess of them on Wheeler’s Farm and in Lenasia. The people of Ennerdale are using those roads, as are the people from Finetown and Unaville.

I would not be able to provide the exact population figure for this whole area but it would be advisable for the people from the hon the Minister’s department to go there in the early morning and in the evenings to see how the traffic flows on those roads. I doubt whether this has been done in view of the situation in Lenasia itself. When we were dumped in that area—in that old Indian location, as we called it—we had only one access road to travel in and out of that area to Johannesburg. Now they have constructed one extra road, which is also overcrowded, but they have closed the one over the railway. Now they are busy making another road. For a population in excess of 120 000 there are two roads leading out of Lenasia—for a population of well over 120 000 people! In this way the people of Unaville and Finetown are being forced to travel the same roads. Can you imagine, Mr Chairman, what is going to happen to those people there? Just imagine what is going to happen to those people?

I am not standing here speaking because I feel like listening to myself talk, and I hope that the officials will take note of this. I think it is their bounden duty to go back and see exactly what is happening there and rethink that tollgate. They should definitely go back to the drawing board and extend those roads. If not, they should have another access road before the start of the toll-gate going into Lenasia South as well as Unaville, Finetown and those areas.

One cannot expect a man who makes his living in Johannesburg and who has to pay more than R2 to R3 on bus fare, his car or a taxi, to pay a toll on top of that.

I am really disgusted at what the Government is doing now. We are supposed to be getting rid of this type of thing, but it is being imposed on us to an increasing extent. This has been causing hatred among our people. I have been inundated with an incredible number of telephone calls from Lenasia. Never, in all the time I have been in the SAIC and Parliament, have I received as many telephone calls as I have over the past number of weeks. People are writing numerous letters, and I have just passed one of those letters on to the hon the Minister’s office so that he can have an idea of the type of letter we are receiving. He will note the venom in those letters, and how the people are hating, not us alone, but the Government and everybody involved. I think that the hon the Minister should definitely see to this matter. He must go back to the drawing board. As far as I am concerned all those people living there are working-class people. As I said, if one studies the central Witwatersrand one will find in those reports that there will be no industries established between Sebokeng, Evaton, Lenasia and Edendale.

If there is a reason for not situating industries there where the people can come and work, then why put a tollgate there so that these people can be overcharged? We know that a lot of money is being lost, but I am sure that the department is not bankrupt. The department holds so much land all over the country that I believe it should rather sell some of it off and raise money that way, instead of trying to bleed the last drop of blood out of the non-White people by placing tollgates in a position where people can no longer afford to use the road.

Mr Chairman, a very limited time has been allocated to me in this debate. I would like to start off by thanking the hon the Minister and his hon Deputy Minister for the arrangement which was made concerning the pilgrims.

I would like to place on record that the negotiations which took place between members of Parliament of both the House of Delegates and the House of Representatives and the hon the Deputy Minister, regarding the problems faced by the pilgrims at the two airports, D F Malan and Jan Smuts, have been concluded to the satisfaction of the community. Because of the good work done by the Administration and the hon the Deputy Minister, the community is very pleased with the arrangement.

According to Press reports over the weekend certain organisations have taken credit and I do not blame them for this. However, I would like to place on record that, although these organisations played an important role, members of Parliament played a very significant role in these negotiations with the hon the Minister’s department.

Still talking about airports, I would like to know if the hon the Minister can give us some indication as to when the proposed upgrading or new regional airport near Nelspruit in the Eastern Transvaal will ever take place. Time and again several aviation experts have told us that the existing airstrip at Nelspruit is one of the most dangerous in the country. Negotiations to relocate the regional airport have been under way for almost 10 years. There is an ever-growing community in this area and their transport as well as that of fresh vegetables and fruit for overseas distribution must also be alleviated from those regional airports to Jan Smuts. No mention of this is made in this elaborate report of the Department of Transport. I hope that the hon the Minister will indicate how far this particular project has progressed.

Over this year’s long Easter weekend we witnessed a high rise in the accident rate. I hope that the hon the Minister and his department are aware of what actually happened and why the rate was so high. As the hon the Minister indicated this afternoon, there are steps which the Road Safety Department and other related departments will have to take to reduce the accident rate. With these few words in the very limited time at my disposal I would like to say that this side of the House supports the hon the Minister’s Vote.

Mr Chairman, I was not scheduled to speak this afternoon, but I am grateful for having been allowed by the Whips to ask two questions of the hon the Minister with regard to Tongaat.

After many years of representation in Tongaat I am still not too sure about a certain road which was supposed to have been widened and a bridge which was to have been built over the railway line at Buffelsdale. Work had in fact commenced during last year, but I believe that was stopped towards the end of last year. The bridge is now suspended in mid-air. I would like to know when this construction will once again get under way and when it is meant to be completed.

My second question relates to a rumour in Tongaat that there is to be a by-pass passing through Tongaat. I wrote to the local authority and I received a reply to the effect that no such road was being planned. However, I have heard from board members that a road is being planned and that this will pass through residential areas of the town where many Indian people are living.

These people will be affected and as a result, they will have to move out. They will be resettled and I would therefore appreciate it if, when any planning is done, the Tongaat community is consulted because there is agricultural land belonging to the Whites that could be used for this by-pass rather than resettling the people living there. I should like the hon the Minister to furnish me with a reply as to whether such a road is being planned for Tongaat.

Mr Chairman, it is a privilege to be here this afternoon in this very splendid new debating chamber. I must say, it is a chamber of very high standards and quality, and I also congratulate hon members on a quality debate that has taken place here today. It was sharp and to the point, without much emotion.

Transport is, of course, a very important element in the development of any country and therefore when there is criticism on any aspect of transport, it is something to be taken note of. Lately there has been a great deal of criticism about the quality of South African Airways and with your permission, Mr Chairman, I should just like to say a few words about that. I should like to do so because we have read about it in the newspapers, and reference has also been made here today to what were called the “appalling” conditions at Jan Smuts Airport with regard to delays in flights, etc.

As far as domestic airports and the steps taken there to avoid delays are concerned, I should like to mention that a new management structure has been set up at Jan Smuts Airport which will ensure prompt action in dealing with any situation that may arise. Additional computer equipment is being installed which will ensure a better reaction time than that under the present computer system.

Certain changes are also being investigated at the D F Malan Airport to alleviate the congestion there.

As far as additional capacity is concerned, a Boeing 737 which was out on lease, has been back in operation for the past week and in November this year a Boeing 747 which is at present also on lease, will also be back in operation. This will mean a 10% increase in seating capacity as from 1 November 1988. If necessary, further aircraft will be hired on a short term basis. I can inform hon members that negotiations are in progress at this particular moment regarding the leasing of an extra aircraft.

I should also like to tell hon members about an improvement in the rendering of services. The existing business class lounge at Jan Smuts Airport is being improved and apart from that, a large amount of money has been set aside for great improvements in this regard at Jan Smuts, and these will, I hope, commence next year. Private consultants have been appointed to assist SAA in improving the rendering of service at all levels at the airport.

This investigation is in progress at this very moment. The tact and efficiency training programme is in full swing at present and all contact personnel will participate therein. This is an inter-personnel client-efficiency course with the goal to equip contact people with the necessary skills to deal with clients efficiently in all situations. Officials of the Department of Transport Affairs have also been invited to take part in this programme.

The SAA receives various instructions from airline manufacturers from time to time, in the form of letters, bulletins or directives, the latter being used for urgent and more serious problems. The SAA has direct contact with these manufacturers and is therefore immediately informed of these directives. As the SAA places such a high premium on safety, they immediate react to these directives. I would once again like to assure the public and hon members here that proper record is kept of these documents and the work that is done. This is open to inspection for all to see. This is the point I want to make in this respect: Whatever is documented there and whatever we receive, is open to inspection for everybody. I can also inform the House that these inspections are up to date as far as the Department of Transport Affairs is concerned, and once again, this is open to inspection for everybody.

I have listened to the several speeches made here today. In the limited time at my disposal, I will try and deal with as many as I possibly can. I will, however, not necessarily deal with them in the same order as speakers took part.

I want to thank the hon member for Umzinto for his kind words of welcome here. He also referred, as did several other hon members, to the new Director-General and I express my appreciation for that. I can inform hon members that the new director-general is already doing his job very well and efficiently and we can look forward to quite a successful term for this new official.

The hon member asked for the development of the La Mercy Airport. I can give the hon member the assurance that after certain improvements have been effected to the Louis Botha Airport, it will serve us, more or less, until the year 2000. It will have sufficient capacity until then, but the La Mercy Airport is definitely a development of the future. There is no getting away from the fact that the Louis Botha Airport will not be able to cope with the demands forever, and therefore I can give him the assurance that La Mercy Airport is a development of the future.

The hon member also referred to people of colour, Indians and Blacks, being taken up in employment. There are various opportunities, especially for Indian people, to be employed at the State airport, the Louis Botha Airport. At present we have eight firemen and ground personnel who are from the Indian community. The department has also accepted Indian air traffic control cadets for training. I will give the hon member the assurance that all applicants will be dealt with according to merit. If they have any criticism as far as that is concerned, they can bring that to my notice, but I do not believe in affirmative action. I believe in merit.

I thank the hon member for referring to unfair criticism. We do get a lot of unfair criticism. In fact, we are being criticised at this very moment as far as the SAA is concerned. We get very little credit for what is being done. Hon members can agree or disagree with me, but the SAA is doing a good job and we have not increased fares for over two years now. That is one of the reasons why our services are so much in demand. When hon members listen to the criticism of people who are not informed, they must please bear this in mind.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition referred to toll roads and the possibility of excessive tariffs. There are built-in measures to prevent excessive tariffs. In the first instance, no more than 75% of savings is to be charged as a tariff. There must also always be an alternate route, and that is the main point to prevent people from charging excessive tariffs.

What about the dangerous alternate routes?

The hon member spoke about the danger of using alternate routes, but then again, supply and demand will come into operation. It is no good having a toll road with a tollgate if one does not get any traffic through it. Then it will be a white elephant. The hon member can be assured that there will be that balance. Of course, if the alternate route is over-utilised, there will only be one thing to do, and that is to lower the tariffs. In any case, that alternate route must be kept in a reasonable form and shape of maintenance.

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

Mr Chairman, I would prefer to reply to hon members’ questions before I answer individual questions. I am quite prepared to listen to the hon member afterwards.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition also referred to the condition of tollgates that he met with overseas. I can give him the assurance that we here in South Africa have looked at that problem that he has mentioned. So far we have not had any complaints. In the construction of tollgates, we make provision that traffic is not unduly held up.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition also referred to kombi-taxis as an opportunity for Black businessmen to earn a living. I totally agree with him, but he also referred to the question of 3 000 accidents within a certain period. We are all perturbed about the accident rate in South Africa as a whole. We are also particularly concerned about the accident rate of kombi-taxis. However, one must look at that in a proper perspective. To just mention the figure of 3 000, is not proper altogether.

One must look at the situation and compare it to every 100 kilometres of travelling by a certain class of traffic. If one makes that comparison one finds that one has an accident per 100 million kilometres travelled of the following: 896 for ordinary cars, 1 372 for buses and 761 for minibuses. If one therefore compares it to all the other users of the roads it is not as high as it appears. These accidents do, however, attract attention because there are always several persons involved in them. There are more deaths because there are up to 16 passengers in one vehicle, and more if it is overloaded. These accidents therefore attract more attention.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition referred to the importance of promulgating the regulations for a quality control system. I agree with him on this. He also asked for orderly deregulation. That is why we have a particular Bill that will come before the House.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition compared our situation to that in the USA. I do not think it is correct to compare a top-class First World country like the USA with our country which is 80% Third World, and to use this comparison as a basic argument. I think the deregulation of the transport market suits the small businessman in South Africa very well. However, I will agree with the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition that we cannot allow a deregulated transport market as a laissez faire concern—there must be proper control. I will refer to the quality control system when I reply to other hon members. That is where the USA went wrong. They did not introduce a proper quality control system in that particular industry.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition also referred to certain fraudulent offences. We have investigated these and we will definitely let the complainants have our reply to that. At the same time I want to say that those are matters for the police.

The hon member for Camperdown spoke about the second access road to Chatsworth. I do not see the hon member in the House at present so I will leave the matter till he is present. Other hon members also referred to it.

The hon member for Laudium referred to the proposed regional airport at Nelspruit. He also referred to the death rate over the Easter week-end. Insofar as the proposed regional airport at Nelspruit is concerned, I want to say that I went there personally to see for myself what the conditions there are like. The present airport is suitable for small aircraft only—the hon member stated this correctly. There are various factors that have to be taken into account and we are investigating certain aspects at the moment. I hope I shall be in a position to do so one way or the other in the very near future.

The hon member also referred to the deaths over the Easter weekend. As the hon member will recall we had quite a problem as schools, technikons and universities all closed on the same day when the long weekend started. This year there were 223 deaths in comparison with 191 last year and that is a 5% increase. However, when one considers that it was over a longer period of time and that the traffic increased by 25% then the situation is not all that bad. Nevertheless we must do our very best to reduce the number of deaths on our roads.

I think that once we are in a position to introduce the quality system of road control it will go a long way. There are also some new methods on controlling traffic and checking up on the speeds that people travel. I think it is a big problem that people are not sticking to the speed limits on the roads. One hundred and twenty km per hour on a good road is not a very high speed but people do not travel at 120 km. They travel in excess of that. We are looking very closely at all the aspects of road safety and I agree with the hon member that one should do as much as possible about that.

The hon member for Springfield referred to the deregulation of the transport industry as well as to the second access road in Chatsworth, as did the hon member for Camperdown. Once again I want to say that I visited that area personally and I had a look at it myself. There are two possibilities: Firstly, the upgrading of the Higginson Highway is the one possibility and the other possibility is the new access road which will affect the nature reserve to some extent. I came to the conclusion that neither of the two would be a complete solution to the problem. Both will have to be effected in the end. If one opts for one it will relieve the situation for a number of years. This is a matter to be dealt with by the local municipality as the hon member will know and I have information that the upgrading of the Higginson Highway could start next year.

That will give us some time as we have all sorts of legal problems with the roads through the nature reserves as the hon members are aware and we shall be able to thrash that out. I agree with the hon member and other hon members who debated this particular point that it is a problem that must be addressed, and we will address it in this way.

The hon member referred to the cost of toll roads between Johannesburg and Durban and there again I have already mentioned there is the 75% limit and there is the alternative route. There are also representatives of Government on the board of directors of Tollcon, the company involved with the toll roads. The privatisation of toll roads is not an ongoing policy. It is a situation where each case is dealt with on its merits.

We decided on this particular privatisation issue because it addressed a current problem. If we had to wait until the State had enough money to build that particular road, we should have had to wait a very long time. By privatising it, we are addressing the problems immediately.

As far as tolls on existing roads are concerned, once again in this particular case this was allowed in order to make it a viable financial proposition. However, the hon member may rest assure that it is not the policy of the department to impose a toll on a particular road just because we see that it has heavy traffic on it and a lot of money can be made. That is not the policy. Every particular instance will be dealt with on its own merits.

As far as the tax on fuel is concerned, this goes to the Treasury, but the Auditor-General will be in a position to determine what amounts have gone into the Treasury in respect of that particular tax on fuel.

The hon member then went on to ask me who would pay for the Mooi River Road. The reply there, of course, is that it will be the company Tollcon to whom this particular road is privatised.

The hon member referred to Jan Smuts, and I have already addressed that problem.

As far as the parking at Durban is concerned, it is unfortunately true that parking is a problem at Durban, and we have tried to bring the parking area for hon members closer to the airport. Then again, however, we have a security problem. We have brought this matter up with the police. Unfortunately, therefore, although we are still investigating the position, since we also receive this complaint from the other Houses, there is no immediate solution to this problem. Either we have some distance to walk or else we have this security problem.

The hon member then referred to the Government Garage and the use of vehicles. There is a set of long-standing rules on the use of Government vehicles. People making use of these vehicles must adhere to the rules, or else they will encounter problems. If the hon member is aware of anyone abusing that, he must please bring the matter to our attention.

As far as level crossings are concerned, we have only R10, 5 million per annum for the entire Republic of South Africa. I can therefore tell the hon member here and now that I do not think that this is enough. As in all other spheres of State activity, however, it is a matter of obtaining the funds. That is why we cannot proceed more quickly. We would like to, but it is for that reason not possible.

The hon member for Camperdown also referred to Chatsworth, and I have now replied in that regard.

The hon member for Lenasia East referred to people trying to miss the toll-gates, thereby overtaxing the alternate routes. He then referred to a local problem in his constituency. I shall ask my department to duly investigate the matter. I have listened to him very carefully and I shall let him have a reply.

The hon member Mr Thaver referred to the National Transport Policy Study, as well as to the proposed Bill on the road board. It is quite correct that that particular Bill will form part of the implementation of the quality control on our roads. He asked us to legalise the many thousands of illegal taxis on our roads.

That can only be done once we apply this quality control system. Certain Bills are on the Order Paper, others are going to the standing committee and one Bill has just been approved by the Cabinet. Once these Bills are on the Statute Book we will be in the position to implement the quality control system. This system has to do with the quality of the driver, the vehicle, the operator and, as far as passengers are concerned, the quality of the insurance.

The hon member also referred to delays in third party claims. I can give the hon member the assurance that the department is doing its very best, but that most of the delays are caused by the filing of the claims and by the fact that enough time must lapse before a claim can be properly instituted, with regard to the effects of the accident. That has to be determined before a claim can be filed.

Injuries have to be stabilised.

That is right. The hon member expressed his appreciation for the work done by the department and I want to thank him. I can give him the assurance that there are no unnecessary delays in the finalising of claims. Forty percent of all claims are settled within 12 months of the claim being submitted. I thank the hon member for his contribution.

The hon member for Lenasia Central referred to the Grasmere tollgate, complaining that the people had not been consulted. This tollgate forms part of the road that was privatised to the firm Tollcon, who have given me the assurance that they are now negotiating with the community. They could not communicate with those communities before it had been approved that this road was to be privatised. Special tariffs can now be negotiated. I am quite sure that although the payment of fees for the use of a road will never be very popular—because there is no taxation by consent, as the hon member for Lenasia Central well knows—once people get used to it and once they see the benefit of a good road which is properly kept and controlled, they will also see the benefit for which they are paying. As the hon member will recall, that is in line with what is stressed in the White Paper on National Transport Policy; the user must pay. However, the idea is to make that fee as reasonable as possible. Of course, there must always be the alternative route, which must be kept in a reasonable state of repair.

The hon member for Newholme referred to the parking problems in Durban and I have given the reasons there. He asked for certain improvements on the Greytown road and also referred to certain professional services. I do not have the exact figures in front of me, but I can assure him that I will look into that matter. I can give him the assurance that where it has to do with the construction of roads, we make use of outside professionals.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister a question? Unfortunately, I was not here when the hon the Minister replied to the question of parking facilities for members at the Louis Botha Airport but I understand the hon the Minister’s argument was that security was taken into consideration. The present parking area for members of Parliament at Louis Botha Airport has no security whatsoever. It is exposed to far more danger than any other airport. May I ask the hon the Minister whether he is aware that there is no security there?

Mr Chairman, as I have indicated—I do not think the hon member was present in the House when I referred to it—the existing parking area is a little far away from the airport and I have received this complaint from the other Houses as well. We have investigated the whole situation and we wanted to move the parking areas nearer to the airport, but then we would have had a problem with the Police regarding the security aspect of vehicles being parked close to the buildings. In other words, we are saddled with this problem and it is a very difficult one to solve. There is the open parking area situated nearby but then, of course, one has to pay for that.

The hon member for Newholme referred to parking at Durban. As to the Greytown road, I shall certainly look into that and let the hon member know. I shall also furnish the hon member with a proper reply on the question of professional services in particular.

The hon member for Tongaat referred to the road at Buffelsdale, as well as to the bypass there. Those are two issues that I have taken note of, and I shall furnish him with a reply in that regard in due course.

The hon member for Havenside referred to the quality of roads and asked for quality roads throughout South Africa. I can give the hon member the assurance that South Africa compares very favourably with any country in the world insofar as the infrastructure of transport is concerned. That applies to railways, harbours, airports and roads. If one compares South Africa with Australia, for instance, one will find that we have twice as many kilometres of road per sq km as Australia has.

They have kangaroos hopping!

Yes, and they have kangaroos, which we do not have. [Interjections.] The point is that we can be proud of the infrastructure we have insofar as transport is concerned.

Having said that, however, it is very important to add that one cannot have these things without pain and without a great deal of expense. As I have already mentioned, however, we shall keep a proper check on excessive fees on tollroads and we shall see to it that the alternate routes are always in a reasonable condition.

The hon member referred to a very important aspect, and that is the matter of the overloading of vehicles. I think that is the cardinal sin on our roads. I have here in my hand the results of some research that was conducted into the overloading of vehicles. It appears that approximately 16% of the heavy vehicles on our roads are overloaded, but they cause 57% of road damage. In other words, once we have the road quality system on our books we shall deal with this, and of course we are already dealing with it.

I can give the hon member the assurance that people found overloading will be punished heavily. There can be no mercy for people doing damage to our roads in this way. because they not only do damage to our roads, but they are also robbing the ordinary motorist. The damage done by the ordinary motorist is negligible compared to the damage done by heavy overloaded vehicles.

I wish to extend my thanks to all hon members who took part in the debate and I thank them for their support.

Mr Chairman, I would like to ask the hon the Minister what necessitated the Department of Transport Affairs to build a tollgate near the Indian and Coloured areas and whether a survey was conducted before this was done.

Mr Chairman, matters are thoroughly investigated before we build any tollgate and it has everything to do with the viability of a particular road as a business undertaking. That is the reason. I do not think we make an exception because it is in an Indian or Black or White community. We do not discriminate as far as that is concerned. It has everything to do with the viability of a particular road.

Mr Chairman, I would like to ask the hon the Minister whether parking facilities can be made available in the general parking area at the Louis Botha Airport, which is very close to the airport. Can something be done about that?

Mr Chairman, that matter is in fact being investigated.

Vote agreed to.

Chairman directed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr Chairman, I also rise here this afternoon to compliment and congratulate my colleague, the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare, on a job well done—of course, within prevailing circumstances.

We have noticed that since 1985 pensions have been on the increase each year. As yet, no parity has been reached. I am sure that our colleague is doing his very best to bring that about within a year or two, depending on resources available.

Did the hon the Minister say 200 years or two years?

I said I hoped that that would be possible within two years. Attempts have been made to close the gap. We have noticed that, and I am certain that that would be the aim of my colleague. It is possible that parity could be achieved within a short space of time, but as mentioned by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, that would only be possible if the resources are available. It all depends on the availability of resources.

The realities of the situation must be met and the historical imbalances rectified. This was also mentioned by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. Again, this can only happen if the resources are available. A lot depends on the availability of financial assistance.

Mention was also made that it was good news to note that a new place of safety was moved to Dalton in Natal where the atmosphere is more conducive to the teaching and training of such pupils. At the same time we must take cognisance of the fact that the Valley View Place of Safety has been in existence for a long, long time. I can remember that place ever since I came to Clare Estate some 30 years ago. It has served a very good purpose. However, it might be outdated at this stage of its existence and it may not be well situated, what with Clare Road being widened—even though this is a good thing—but it might affect the proper training of pupils in so close a proximity.

We need a place of safety in Reservoir Hills.

Yes.

It might affect the proper training of pupils in such close proximity to a thoroughfare that is so heavily used. Also, opposite the Valley View House of Safety is a huge corporation dumping ground from where a very unpleasant smell emanates. That, too, is a very unpleasant place for children.

However, I hasten to say that while it is going to be used temporarily as a training centre from where children might be transferred to the new place, the present buildings will be updated so that it could be used for some time to come.

Mention was made earlier by the hon member for Springfield—unfortunately he is not here—of the subject of my next point. I come to the defence of the construction of the Arena Park Hall and the purchase of the Odeon Cinema. Firstly, the hon member for Springfield condemned the purchase of the Odeon Cinema and said that money was wasted. I wish to say with great respect that the cinema is already being fully renovated. It will be updated for the purpose of cultural activities, not only for the use of schools in the area, but also for the use of communities who are interested in the Indian culture. I can assure the hon member that the money will be very well spent.

The area in which the Arena Park Hall has been constructed is another huge complex. I think some people misunderstood the purpose for which that hall had been constructed. It is not just a school hall attached to one particular school although it is in very close proximity to a high school. It is a regional hall and as such it will be used for the purpose of that region. Other schools will also be able to have their year-end functions and cultural functions such as their dramatic art functions at that particular hall.

I now come to disability grants. Here too my colleague the hon the Minister must be complimented. Much has been said about disability grants and the long time that it takes to process these applications has been criticised, and understandably so. I must here again compliment the hon the Minister on his detailed explanation as to who qualifies for these pensions and how they should be assessed. This was a very important aspect that was clarified.

I think there is a dire need for information leaflets to be sent out from time to time. I know this is being done but it must be done consistently to educate the community on the correct procedure insofar as both old age and disability pension applications are concerned. The community should be made well aware as to how these applications are made and why they take some time to be processed.

More important than that is the question of being disqualified for a pension because of assets of up to R28 000 for one group and R40 000 for another group. I think the question of why there is such a difference between one race group and another must be fully addressed. I do not think our community should be penalised for owning property of up to R40 000. I think this makes a mockery of the differential system of property qualification. I am sure that my hon colleague—he indicated this earlier—will work towards the elimination of this apparent prejudice.

It is disgusting racial prejudice!

I now come to the matter of the increasing divorce rate among the Indian community and its consequences. This matter was also mentioned the other day. The divorce rate among the Indians is unfortunately on the rise. I am not sure whether it is Western influence. Some very good Western influences have been adopted by our society but I am not sure whether this influence has any good effects. There was a time when no divorce cases among Indians appeared on the court roll. There was a blank where the Indian divorce cases were concerned.

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

No, Mr Chairman, I am pressed for time.

I was going to say that divorce among Indians was completely non-existent. However, it has now reared its ugly head and it is on the increase. Members of the Indian community should give serious consideration to the reasons for this.

Scrap the Group Areas Act and establish a joint family system. Then there will be no more divorces!

Mr Chairman, will the hon the Minister take a question?

Yes, Mr Chairman.

The hon the Minister seems to be prejudiced.

Mr Chairman, is the hon the Minister aware that until about 1968 all Indian divorces between so-called indentured immigrants fell under the jurisdiction of the magistrate’s court and therefore those divorces did not appear on the Supreme Court roll? Secondly, is the hon the Minister aware that there is a record of Indian divorces going back to 1897?

Mr Chairman, I am not unaware of that, but I did say that there has been an increase in the divorce rate. In the past there was of course the time-honoured custom of arranging weddings between one adult and another, but I am not advocating that we go back to that.

The Brahmans have lost their influence!

One is constrained to say that much could be said for the time-honoured old philosophy of scientifically—and I want to stress scientifically—arranged marriages where the birth signs and complete horoscope indicated the compatibility of would-be marriage partners. If it was worked out scientifically it did not go wrong.

Today with all sorts of influences divorce has unfortunately become commonplace and the consequent pain and disasters that follow on the progeny of the couple is immense.

There is a time constraint on me and I shall conclude. I also want to compliment my hon colleague for what he has done for the aged as well as, together with my department, for prevocational training. Here again I say to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition that with the resources available I shall go along with him to build more prevocational schools for these people who are not so fortunate. More training facilities could be provided for them.

Mr Chairman, I shall now reply to the hon members. I want to start off with the hon member for Bayview and the hon member for Montford, who unfortunately is not here. That is not unusual. The hon member for Montford had so much to say last week and when we showed him the report itself he spoke as if absolutely nothing was being done. All I really want to say to that hon member is if he devoted a little more time to what he is being paid for, he would probably do justice to his constituency.

I wish to thank the hon members for the challenging contributions and I wish to respond in a very positive way.

Concerning the perception of own affairs I understand and have great sympathy with their rejection of a health service which is divided on ethnic lines. We have never disputed this. However, do not throw the baby out with the bathwater because own affairs have some merits and I hope that hon members will be objective enough to allow me to explain these to them.

The hon member for Montford actually had the key to the problem. If only he would be prepared to use it to unlock his mind when it comes to this question. The hon member for Bayview must please listen as well. In the definition of community health quoted by him he mentioned that the community must have a hand in the decisions on affairs that affect their own health. He must not be so blinded by his negative feelings about the tricameral system that he fails to realise that in the past we may have had a unitary health service which was entirely paternalistic. We must decide whether or not we wish to live forever in the shadow of Pretoria and live with a unitary health service and let them make all the decisions for us or whether we are going to move away from that system to one where the community decides for itself how its health service should be delivered.

There is no doubt that each community has its own particular needs that may differ from another community. We would want them all to be equal and this is an ideal embodied in the World Health Organisation concept. It is a noble ideal indeed. Can anybody tell me, however, where in the world this has been perfected? Is there a Utopia we know of? Is there a country in the world that has the resources to institute an equal and fair distribution of health manpower and facilities within a reasonable period of time?

I wish to invite my learned colleague from Montford to visit our department to find out for himself—perhaps I should refer to him as my “learner” colleague, as he has a lot to learn. Is he aware of the numerous surveys conducted by my department and the scientific studies on which decision-making is based?

He says that he does not like our approach and response. In order to obtain an appropriate response to the challenges that confront us, may I mention a few of the scientific investigations that have been conducted and in which we have been involved.

One is psychiatry. In 1985 our team conducted a study to determine the need for institutionalisation of retarded children.

As far as dentistry and school health services are concerned, the health profiles of our communities are being studied, recorded and computerised in terms of needs and resources on an on-going programme. We have to adapt our strategies in accordance with health profiles of our communities.

For instance, we have recently conducted surveys to establish the need for speech, occupational and physiotherapy. A nutritional survey was conducted in Amona in 1986, and at present we are attempting to devise appropriate strategies for the health education of our communities.

We have co-operated closely with the Department of Community Health at Natal University on many of the investigations and have enjoyed a very healthy relationship.

The combination of academic and community disciplines enables my department to plan and programme the services according to priorities in the best interests of the community.

To allege that we adopt the wrong approach to health problems is unfair and not justifiable. I wish to inform you of the National Health Facilities Plan and to correct misconceptions in that regard.

Primary health care, which is at level three of the facilities plan, involves promotive, preventative, curative and rehabilitative services. My department has embarked on a comprehensive plan aimed at the primary health care level, for it is at this level that most of the health needs can be addressed.

As regards what the hon member for Bayview had to say about the nurses’ recruitment allowance, the question of recruitment allowances for psychiatric nurses employed by the Department of Health Services and Welfare in the Administration: House of Delegates was addressed by members of my department at a public service joint advisory council meeting in 1987 and by the Nursing Association of South Africa. It is unfortunate that a nursing regulation does specify that such allowances are payable only to those nurses attached to State—and of course now provincial—psychiatric hospitals. This therefore excludes the departmental psychiatric nurses, who are community-based at various clinics.

This department does not control a psychiatric hospital. I fully appreciate that these nurses are exposed to danger from psychiatric patients to the same or a greater extent as those nurses attached to hospitals. However …

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister whether he would accept that while we readily concede that in the case of psychiatric disturbances the process of acculturation that is taking place has a role, and therefore a patient has to be treated within his social and cultural milieu, notwithstanding that there is no need for racial separation of health services generally?

However, with the take-over of some hospitals and clinics by the department, representations will continually be made to remedy this situation.

In addition, I should like to point out that to reduce the danger to which psychiatric nurses are sometimes exposed, male escorts and not nurses escort the patients that are due for certification.

Turning now to the hon member for Montford, he asked about who runs the Newcastle Hospital. The answer is that the Newcastle Hospital is run by the Natal Provincial Administration.

My department only runs a dental clinic at this hospital and is not responsible for the control or running of the other facilities there.

I continue with my reply to the hon member for Montford. He says that there is nothing in this report, which I regard as absolutely rubbish. As a professional man, how can he ever be so blind as not to appreciate what role my department has played? I would like to mention that there has been tremendous progress in the past year.

Looking at the report itself, I would like to start with the Phoenix Community Health Centre, which with a population of a quarter million, I believe certainly plays a very vital role. I am sure that the hon member for Phoenix will appreciate this. The occupational rehabilitation centre, which features on page 6, paragraph 6, is a clear indication of how important this particular centre’s role is. Then there is the rehabilitation centre for alcoholics and drug dependents, as referred to on page 9, paragraph 11. If I remember correctly, those who have served on the South African Indian Council will remember that we have been talking about this particular centre ever since 1968. This department has taken the bull by the horns and for that reason I maintain that we have certainly made tremendous progress and achievements. I am sure that the hon member for Phoenix will appreciate a centre of this nature—an outstanding one of which we can be proud. I do not believe that the hon member for Montford even bothered to read this report.

One should suggest that he use it.

I think he would probably be a good candidate there. Not only will this be the first rehabilitation centre for the Indian community, but it will also be one of the most modern in the Republic. We are very proud of this.

Many magistrates are pleased with the development.

Correct. I would like to take strong exception to remarks that the hon member for Montford made as regards our professional men and our administration. That hon member compared those people with Rip Van Winkle, saying that they should “get off their behinds”. For a man of his professional calibre his ethics should not allow him to do so. Those are his own colleagues.

What ethics?

I mean, if he has any ethics, yes. As the Minister of this department I take full responsibility for my entire staff. I want to give the assurance that each and every member of the staff, from the top to the floor sweeper, is a devoted and dedicated person. I am proud of my administration and I take great pride in it. We do have problems, which are reported to me from time to time and I make perfectly sure that, irrespective of the complainants’s party politics, we will not allow that to interfere with our administration. Should there be anyone who can come up with a positive case, I will personally undertake to investigate it. However, for anyone to make such a rash statement and to expose our professional men, saying that they are Rip van Winkles, is wrong. I do not think that the hon member for Montford has ever attempted to visit our Malgate office or the one in Stanger Street, to see what goes on there.

Where is he today?

He is never really here. That is not unusual. If he spends five days during an entire session here, I think he has done extremely well. He does not know what is going on.

He may be looking for carrots.

That is possible, yes. He must have gone to the market.

During the time of the floods I personally met most of my administration and personnel. I was of the opinion that we could look at some aspect of overtime for people who were dedicated and were always available on call. My colleague, the hon the Deputy Minister will tell hon members what happened during the Ladysmith floods. Those people were there over weekends and I was of the opinion at that time that something could be done in the line of compensation for overtime. Under normal business circumstances that would have been possible. However, I learnt to my utter disgust that this does not exist in the administration. I then ensured that they got some time off as a small token of appreciation.

When one has a team of staff who are so dedicated, I take strong exception to their being told that they are Rip van Winkles and that they should get off their behinds. I want to give my hon colleagues in this House the assurance that I have full confidence in my entire administration. [Interjections.] They are a wonderful team of men who take work home.

Last week hon members enquired about reviews that had been done. It is a fact that the delay is not the fault of the administration. We simply do not have the staff to do it. These men are taking work home without being paid for doing so in an effort to expedite the matter. I should therefore just like to place on record that I have full confidence in my entire administration. I have tremendous respect for them and I really believe that these men are honest, dedicated people who are prepared to make our administration work efficiently.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister whether he would accept that we share entirely the abhorrence with which he regards the unwarranted attack upon officials of his department by the hon member for Montford?

Order! I want to point out to the hon member for Reservoir Hills that that was a statement and not a question.

I asked whether he would accept that, Sir. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Minister may continue.

Mr Chairman, I want to express my appreciation to the hon member for Reservoir Hills. I am sure that he has had experience working in my administration and that he could never support such idiotic statements.

I now come to the hon member for Allandale. I had hoped he would be here because one of the easiest things to do is to come here and make rash, irresponsible statements. He is one of those hon members who should spend a little more time in this House. He speaks for five minutes and then he is away for the rest of the day. I wish he were somewhere in the building so that he could be here because he has made some allegations about certain letters written to my administration. I personally have replied to them and I want to give the House some tacts pertaining to what has caused this. I feel sure that once I have finished, hon members will appreciate why one had to adopt such a stance.

He has gone for a spiritual rejuvenation. [Interjections.]

He mentioned public services and the fact that the need to streamline public services had to be identified some time ago. The Commission for Administration has now embarked upon a total plan for the improvement of the quality and productivity of the Public Service. One aspect of this plan is called the functional evaluation programme which has as its aim the streamlining of the functions of the Public Service. At present all departments in the Administration: House of Delegates are engaged in this programme. Two senior members of my department together with a member of the Commission for Administration are presently investigating the functions and activities of the Department of Health Services and Welfare on a national basis with a view to providing a cost effective service.

The hon member for Allandale spoke about an increase in pensions. We are equally concerned about it. Very many other hon members have mentioned the recent announcement by my colleague the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare in the House of Representatives. We in the Ministers’ Council also looked at whether there was some way of providing this R12 increase. However, I think I have explained on page 1 of the report the very responsible manner in which we took such a decision. The funds were not there.

I think we have to be practical and realistic about this. If we expect other services that we have planned and which are for the benefit of the greater majority of the people, to suffer, then in fairness I do not think we could be expected to make such irresponsible statements. Moreover, I think we have been proved correct in that the House of Representatives is not really in a position at present to pay the R12 as promised. They did indicate that they would find moneys elsewhere. I can only wish them well.

A great deal of emphasis has been placed on a letter from my office about a friend of the hon member for Allandale, namely Mr Leslie Naidoo.

I just want to read, for record purposes, a letter which I addressed to the town clerk of the Pietermaritzburg Municipality. I quote:

There are five or seven members, and nobody has been singled out at all. However, the hon member for Allandale of course found it convenient to identify somebody whom he claims to be his agent while he is in Cape Town. He is so concerned about his constituency that over Christmas he had not had enough of Cape Town, but spent four weeks in Cape Town. This in itself clearly indicates the interest this man has in his constituency.

I continue to tell hon members what caused this to happen. On 16 March 19881 replied to the hon member for Allandale. I quote:

I want to tell hon members that it is a fact that the hon member for Allandale and Mr Naidoo have a tendency, because of the positions they hold, the one being a member of an LAC and the other being an MP, to demand that they receive attention. I want to prove this with facts, because I do not suck things out of my thumb. I want to tell hon members what has really been happening. Having learnt of the demands made by the hon member, I asked for a thorough report on this issue. I am not in the habit of mentioning the names of my staff. This is private and I am not going to expose them, but I am just going to read from the report I received. I quote from the departmental report:

For the sake of an MP who wants to exercise authority, two innocent senior officials of our department, having worked for the department for 17 years, were on the verge of being transferred. I must say that we stopped this, because I will not allow our staff to be manipulated by MPs who want to exercise authority.

Did the officials stay in Pietermaritzburg?

They are in Pietermaritzburg.

Just to refresh the memories of hon members: Last year the hon member for Allandale came forward with confidential medical documents from files. Those two officials were forced to give these. He made quite sure of this. I took strong exception to this. Under fear the officials were forced to give this.

I continue to quote from the report:

This was in the presence of the hon member for Allandale. He never complained at that time. However, he has a tendency to write letters to every hon Minister.

Then it goes on, and I am just going to read some extracts from it to give hon members some indication of what has been going on. I quote:

Mr Chairman, I wish to quote what some of these procedures and conditions were:

1. (a) No official other than the Regional Representative and Messrs … and would be permitted to attend to requests of by MPs and LACs, whether in writing or in person.
2. (b) Staff be instructed strongly to refrain from attending to MPs and LACs.
3. (c) Staff be instructed to accompany the particular MP or LAC to one of the three officials referred to in (a) who will then attend to the request made.
4. (d) No documentation or files be given to MP or LAC, but that the three officials referred to in (a) make suitable information only with discretion.

These steps had to be taken because of the political interference by hon members of Parliament. I could have brought a file with me today, but I have just taken a couple of letters at random. The hon member for Allandale wants favours done. I am not going to do anybody favours. Any person that is appointed will only be appointed on merit. This goes for my colleagues, as well.

Here I have another letter from him. I am just going to mention the date. Again, I am not going to read out names. This letter was addressed to the hon the Minister and it was dated 23 February 1988. Mr Chairman, I quote:

I do not tolerate this type of thing. Professional appointments will be done by professional people, and this will be strictly on merit. It is not my function to appoint people. I now wish to continue. I am sure that my hon colleague will verify this, because it would also have been in his files when he was the Minister. I have documents, some of which were even addressed to him.

I wish to quote from another letter regarding the vacancy of a superintendent at the Northdale Hospital, and I quote:

Is that also from the hon member for Allandale?

I am reading letters from the file. Hon members will understand why he is upset because I have stopped this type of information being leaked out and favours being done. I quote further:

That is enough, Mr Chairman.

I just want to read one or two more.

Do not castigate him any more.

No, I think for record purposes, hon members should listen to it.

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

Sir, I have limited time at my disposal. If the hon member can just bear with me, I will answer his question later.

Sir, then I have another letter dated 14 December 1987. The heading reads “Employment of Part-time District Surgeon”. The hon member enclosed application forms and the Minister then replies, and I quote:

[Inaudible.]

No, no. It is a part-time district surgeon. All the letters are signed by yourself.

Just for clarity, is that also from the hon member for Allandale?

All these letters are from the hon member for Allandale, looking for favours for friends. I have another letter here. He has a habit of complaining. He wrote a lengthy letter of complaint. Here we have an outstanding professional person of our department, a lady doctor. He wrote to the Minister, and I quote from the letter, 3 October 1986:

1. 1. How are you getting on with your new job?
2. 2. Are more applicants getting grants now?
3. 3. Can I possibly talk to you sometimes in your office?

Because he was snubbed he wrote a letter of complaint. My colleague the hon the Minister replied very adequately to him but he did not mention this at all. I want to say that I as a Minister do not really speak to my officials in the corridors. I would rather telephone them and tell them I want to come along and discuss something with them. However, when people do not respond to the hon member he sends nasty letters to us.

I have another letter here. In this instance he bypasses the Ministers altogether because he now goes to the Director General. He writes as follows:

Last year we also had many complaints and irresponsible statements concerning the matrons of the Northdale Hospital. Hon members will recall this. I have another letter of his here where he bypasses all the Ministers as well as the Director General to write to Mr S Naidoo, MEC. For record purposes I may mention that it is dated 16 October 1986. He wrote as follows:

I do not know if these nurses are friends, relatives or otherwise, but he seems to take a great interest in the nurses in hospitals—he is always complaining about them. [Interjections.]

I want to refer to another letter of his dated 13 October 1986. He addresses his letter to the Minister of Health and it concerns a certain sister. I quote as follows:

The problem with the hon member for Allandale is that he expects us to stand to attention for every demand that he makes. I refuse to do this and so do my hon colleagues. I do not want to speak on behalf of my colleague the hon the Minister of Education and Culture but he can probably produce files of letters. [Interjections.] The hon member also mentioned the increase in pensions and so forth but I do not have to explain that.

My problem with the hon member is really his high-handed attitude. He expects the hon the Ministers to be at his beck and call and to respond to every request of his. When that does not happen he goes out of his way to inform the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council that his Ministers are not good enough. At the same time I must also be honest and fair and say that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has never come to me and told me to pay heed to these complaints because I think he realises that he has responsible Ministers who are capable of doing their jobs. I regard this really as political interference and I will not tolerate it.

We get this from many hon members.

I want to say to all hon members that I do make appointments from time to time but I do it solely on merit. I do not want to say anything more about the hon member for Allandale.

I now come to the hon member for Camperdown. I want to express my appreciation for his kind remarks about the administration and his appreciation of the role played by us. He answered some of the questions to confirm what I said to the hon member for Allandale. I have always known the hon member to be a very honest and dedicated type of man and I want to record my appreciation.

I now come to the hon member for Phoenix. There was criticism on the cancellation of maintenance grants. Maintenance grants are paid in two parts viz the parent and child allowance. The minimum parent allowance is R65 and the maximum R162. The child’s allowance is R42.

In terms of the existing regulations, if the widow earns anything above R3 408 per annum, then she does not qualify for the parent’s allowance. If she earns anything above R3 972 per annum and has one child, she does not qualify for even the child’s allowance of R42 per month. If she earns anything above R4 542 per annum and has two children, she does not qualify for a maintenance grant. If she earns anything above R5 076 per annum and has three children, she does not qualify for a maintenance grant. If she earns anything above R5 628 per annum and has four or more children she does not qualify.

Widows are not precluded from entering the open labour market. In fact, in order to prevent dependency, they are encouraged to seek gainful employment. When a grantee accepts employment a wage certificate is called for and the means test is applied. Maintenance grants are therefore neither indiscriminately suspended nor cancelled.

I just want to express my appreciation to the hon member for Newholme. He mentioned school feeding schemes. This matter was previously answered in my reply to last year’s budget vote. If the hon member for Newholme would kindly refer to col 977, vol no. 5 of Hansard, he will find the answer there. He mentioned something about homes but that is not part of my functions and the hon Minister concerned will respond at the appropriate time.

I now want to come to the hon member for Havenside who has raised a number of issues. The assessment and awarding of disability grants has always been a contentious issue and a clarification is essential. The assessment of disability grants is done on a clinical basis, based on the examination of the patients and the facts available. No instruction whatsoever is given to the district surgeons and the pensions medical officer to reduce grants unjustifiably and against their professional judgement. This is tantamount to unethical medical practice. On the contrary, we have overspent on all types of grants and reference can be made to the report of the Auditor-General on the appropriation accounts of the Administration: House of Delegates.

Furthermore, I should like to refer to the hon member for Havenside’s view that conditions like diabetes and hypertension are disabilities. According to the World Health Organisation the progression of an illness is from an impairment eg hypertension to a disability eg a stroke and then to a handicap when a patient has a wheelchair or crutches. Therefore an impairment like diabetes and hypertension is not a disability unless there are complications like blindness or a stroke.

How many of us here have diabetes or pressure of some degree; does this mean that we qualify for disability grants? Certainly not. It is not our intention to encourage unwarranted dependency. Certainly bona fide cases have to be given priority and my door will be open to those poor people who despite such disabling medical conditions have not yet been awarded grants.

I want to deal with the need of the erection of places of care or creches. Although guidance was given to the welfare organisations which made inquiries in this regard, to date there has been no follow-up on the part of these organisations. Should the organisations make formal submissions to my department for financial assistance for the erection of creches, the hon member may be assured that they will receive favourable consideration.

I now want to refer to social work services with particular reference to transport at the regional office at Chatsworth. The available transport in relation to the present staff complement is inadequate. There are seven vehicles used by 24 social workers. Nevertheless the province that has taken over the Government garage has been approached with a view to providing more vehicles.

With regard to the social work staff at the regional office at Chatsworth I want to say that at present this office has a total professional social work staff complement of 24. There is a heavy backlog in service delivery. The need for additional posts has been proved. However, on the count of the present financial constraints, as pointed out in my report, the noncreation of additional posts at this office and others is adversely affecting wholesome service delivery.

The hon member for Havenside also mentioned the question of the levy for patients attending provincial hospitals. This levy was implemented on 1 April 1988 as a result of a decision made at the provincial level. My department has no control over decisions made concerning the running of provincial hospitals. My department is of the opinion that although the imposition of levies will pose hardships on the patients no patient will be denied medical care because of a lack of money.

With reference to the hon member for Havenside’s comment on the community psychiatric services on page 23 of the Budget Speech, the amount of R75 000 is for approximately 600 home visits per month carried out by the nurses based at the 18 clinics in the Republic.

These home visits are in addition to the work done at the various neuroclinics. The amount of R100 000 refers to a different function altogether. This is a subsidy to Cheshire Homes in Chatsworth and the Jiswa Training Centre in Lenasia to care for profoundly mentally handicapped children. These are private welfare organisations that function independently of my department.

I now turn to the hon member for Springfield, who posed questions to which I wish to respond. I just wish to thank him for the suggestion about trying in future to prepare reports in two sections. I want to give the assurance that that particular recommendation will certainly be acceded to.

I thank the hon the Minister.

As regards steps taken to identify child abuse at schools, discussions have been held with officials of the Department of Education and Culture, child abuse experts, senior officials of my department and other interested professionals. A circular dated 2 March 1987 was despatched to all schools and welfare organisations. I wish to say that numerous representations were made to the SA Medical and Dental Council on behalf of the overseas medical and dental graduates; the latest representations were made in June and December 1987. An education subcommittee has been appointed by the SAMDC to investigate the restrictive legislation relating to doctors and dentists. The final recommendations of this subcommittee have not yet been finalised, and the department will be kept informed of the situation. Thus we are very much keeping our ears to the ground as far as that is concerned.

In response to my colleague the hon member Mr Seedat, I wish to say that my department is not oblivious to the needs of the people outside Natal. It must be understood that of the total Indian population of 880 000, 80% live in Natal. It is therefore obvious that facilities and services are concentrated in Natal, but not at the expense of priority needs in other provinces. My department has difficulty recruiting doctors in Transvaal. The post of regional representative in Transvaal has been vacant for the past three years despite repeated advertisements. We have school nurses based in Laudium and Lenasia who travel out to surrounding areas, psychiatric clinics in Lenasia, Laudium and Benoni, and negotiations are in progress to open a psychiatric clinic in central Johannesburg.

Visits to the disabled have also been initiated this year, as well as health education programmes at schools and clinics. The dental clinics in Lenasia and Laudium provide comprehensive dental care with an effectual fluoride rinsing programme implemented in schools. The community health centre at Actonville will provide a comprehensive service that will not be restricted to social workers. The cost of the building will be approximately R635 000, with five rooms for social workers, five rooms for medical services, seven rooms for local authority services for immunisations and mother and child care, and three rooms for psychiatry, antenatal care and family planning services. The need for a 24 hour acute medical service will be assessed when the clinic is operational.

The hon member Mr Seedat raised the matter of social workers in schools in Phoenix. Following discussions with concerned persons amongst whom were senior officials of the department, police representatives, school principals and senior officials of the Department of Education and Culture on the high crime rate among juveniles in the Phoenix area, it was resolved that a pilot study be undertaken to introduce social work services at schools in Phoenix. This new service, when implemented, will subsequently be introduced at all schools in the country.

I want to sincerely thank the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition for his understanding with regard to the factual position relating to the limitation of funds and the freezing of posts which has restricted the role of the department. I think that the hon the Leader clearly indicated that it is not what has been achieved but what has to be achieved, and the reason why.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition also made mention of the resiting of the new Valley View Place of Safety. It is assumed that the objection is as a result of the adjacent fast-developing dumping site which my hon colleague, the Minister of Education and Culture mentioned as well. It is reported that dumping is of a temporary nature in order to fill the valley and to facilitate road development. When development is finalised, dumping will cease and this will allow for the pleasant property of Valley View to be extended to include the development of a sports field for the place of safety. The new place of safety, which will be ready by 1992, will not, therefore, be affected by the presence of a refuse dump.

We turn now to the hon member for Central Rand, whom I wish to thank for his support. He mentioned that 35 pensioners were going to be evicted and that they have to pay a rental of R50 per month. Unfortunately there is very little I can do to assist them. However, we have had a very good working relationship with the hon member for Central Rand, who has been very co-operative. As far as my department is concerned there should be very little cause for him to complain. He also mentioned the 50 Indian families in the Free State with regard to their hospital services, where only emergency services are being provided for. I will investigate this matter and come back to the hon member.

The hon member for Cavendish mentioned co-operation with welfare organisations. This has actually been operative since 1967, when the then Department of Indian Affairs from the then Department of Social Welfare and Pensions, introduced circular 6 of 1967, which outlines partnership between the State and the private sector.

In the development and planning of essential welfare facilities for the community, the comments and expertise of the private sector are invited and taken into account. Officials of my department work closely with the private sector at local and national council level.

A further point raised by the hon member for Cavendish was the procedure for completion of application forms for disability grants. Medical examination and attestation of these forms have been streamlined. It certainly does not take six months before a patient is examined. Perhaps the hon member has confused this with the period of review for those who have already been turned down. I am prepared to investigate any such case if the hon member would let me have the details. For new applications the waiting period for examinations is approximately two to three days. Should there be any delays I will gladly investigate. Where disability applications have been turned down for medical reasons the applicants are requested to wait for a period of six months before reapplying. If there has been a significant change in the medical condition, the person can reapply for a medical examination at any time.

The hon member for Mariannhill mentioned the idea of a national medical scheme, which has been discussed and debated by various organisations and departments. This is a matter to be dealt with by the general affairs department. A national committee on privatisation of health services has been established. A member of my department sits on this committee, where various ideas are discussed with the aim of providing cost-effective medical care. As regards the introduction of a bursary scheme for social work, a scheme of this nature was for the first time introduced as from the academic year 1987 by the Commission for Administration. However, in terms of numbers it is not applicable to the same extent as to the teaching profession. In the academic year of 1987 a total of five bursaries was allocated and the same number during the present academic year. For the academic year of 1989 a request has been made for the number to be increased to 15.

Next I would like to deal with the hon member for Merebank, whom I would like to thank for his support. I refer to the one item concerning the payment of grants at post offices. Where there are inadequate facilities regarding payment dates, my department has no jurisdiction over the Department of Post and Telecommunications in order to improve facilities for staggered payments. However, staggered payments could be made to appointed nominees or via a person’s bank or building society account. Just for the record, hon members will be interested to know that while we provide this service it costs our department R1,12 per case, which is not deducted from the pension. Hopefully, when we have adequate funds, we will have offices where we can try to provide better facilities as requested.

Next I turn to my colleague, the hon the Minister of the Budget. I just want to record my appreciation to him for all the services he has rendered and for all the assistance he has given me in my role as Minister of Health Services and Welfare.

I now come to the hon member for Umzinto. He spoke about an equitable distribution of hospital beds between Blacks and Whites. I concur fully with the views expressed by the hon member for Umzinto. The under-utilisation of White hospitals constitutes a tremendous financial strain on the economy of this country. To avoid such wastage and in the interests of rationalisation, it is my department’s policy that our clinics and hospitals will be open to all races.

Secondly, I want to refer to the appointment of nurses at the G J Crooks Hospital. The appointment of staff at hospitals is the responsibility of the province. Any questions should therefore be directed to the Natal Provincial Administration.

He also mentioned the suspension of maintenance grants on account of cohabitation. Grants are suspended in keeping with the present legislation which is in terms of principal regulation 69 (2)(b) and 69 (3)(b) promulgated in terms of the Child Care Act, Act 74 of 1983. It must be understood that the care of children is primarily the responsibility of the parent.

In the event that a parent cohabits the implications of such a move are made known to her. In such instances the care of the children should be the combined responsibility of the cohabiter and the mother.

Furthermore, it merits pointing out that for each payment made at a post office—I have already mentioned this—an amount of R1,12 is payable to the Postmaster-General as a handling charge. This amount is over and above the pension.

The hon member for Red Hill mentioned the planning of adequate services for the aged. Care of the aged is the responsibility of the local authority. However, my department promotes the development of facilities for the care of the aged by way of subsidising old age homes and service centres.

In connection with the hon member for Red Hill’s comments on the productivity of the Indian people, I refer to the RSA statistics in the 1984 report. The compound growth of economically active Indians has increased by 3,5%. This is the highest of all population groups. If this trend continues we can look forward to greater financial independence.

I fully agree with the hon member for Red Hill that handicapped people must not suffer during financial restrictions. It is for this reason that only my department has given priority to the occupational rehabilitation centres so that handicapped people can be trained towards more independent living.

The last speaker was my colleague the hon the Minister of Education and Culture. I should like to thank him for the various statements he made. He referred to keeping members informed by way of leaflets but I just want to inform my hon colleague for the purposes of the record that with regard to my particular Ministry, we keep all members informed from time to time. We have sent out these booklets and I think that as far as possible we try to keep everyone informed. Therefore, the information to which my hon colleague has referred is really information which we expect our MPs to convey to the various organisations because it is difficult for us to convey it to the man in the street. [Interjections.]

The hon member also mentioned the difference between the R28 000 insofar as the Indians and Coloureds are concerned and the R42 000 in the case of the Whites. It pains me to think that we have to constantly turn down applications because of the means test but we are working to achieve parity in this regard as well.

In conclusion I want once again to express my deep appreciation to my hon colleagues in the Ministers’ Council and to all those hon members who have participated in this debate, and I want to say that I am not afraid of any criticism. I believe in constructive criticism and I am prepared to pay heed to such criticism. However, I am not prepared to waste my time on irresponsible criticism. [Interjections.]

With those concluding remarks I want to thank all hon members once again.

Vote agreed to.

Chairman directed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr Chairman, I crave your indulgence and I seek your permission to make a statement to the House.

Order! The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I think it is necessary for me to place on record certain rules which I have laid down very strictly in our entire Administration in my capacity as Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, and also now in my capacity as Minister of Housing. These relate to very strict procedures which have been laid down over the years on matters relating to the acquisition of properties, whether they be buildings or vacant sites, and whether they be required in terms of the Development and Housing Act, for the purposes of the construction of housing schemes or townships, or whether they be required for use for non-housing purposes.

When I was appointed as Chairman of the Ministers’ Council by the hon the State President in September 1984, I gave a directive to the then director-general. Dr J Gilliland, that he is answerable not even to the Ministers’ Council. He was the only accounting officer of that entire administration and there was a permanent standing instruction that in respect of the acquisition of properties he was answerable to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts in respect of all Treasury rules to be obeyed. When Dr J Gilliland retired, I issued the same directives to his successor, the present director-general of our Administration, Mr R P Wronsley.

I also briefed the chairman of the Housing Development Board that although the board has certain acquisition powers in respect of the Development and Housing Act, it is also to a certain extent answerable to the director-general who is the accounting officer, and who is actually accountable to Parliament in respect of the funds of the board and how they are administered.

The normal procedure in respect of acquisitions and leasing of properties is that the matter is regarded as part of the day-to-day administration of the department or the Housing Development Board. It is a matter that is not normally routed through the office of a Minister. The officials concerned, at their discretion, or the chairman of the Housing Development Board, at his discretion, or the whole Housing Development Board, at its discretion, decide to refer a matter for the attention of the Minister. However, matters relating to the expropriation of a property are referred to the Minister, because he is the only person who is responsible for the signing of expropriation orders.

A few months ago, our planners decided on the acquisition of a small piece of land in Lenasia South which was owned by the former Community Development Board.

They subsequently found a representative of the owners of the property, a certain Mr Mistry, and negotiated with the owners. I want to place on record that the Chairman of the Housing Development Board does not accept any valuation. Before the Board considers the acquisition of any property, the Chairman ensures that a proper valuation is obtained. In this particular case, a valuation was obtained.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: A motion was moved today. We were told that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council was only going to make a statement, but now we are listening to a long speech.

Order! I would like to remind the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council that he had requested to make a statement to the House. This request has been granted. However, I want to appeal to him to make his statement brief.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: With due regard to the fact that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council did obtain the Chairman’s consent, I want to know if it is proper for any hon member to anticipate a motion of which notice has been given before the motion was moved.

Order! I want to advise the hon member for Reservoir Hills that a notice of motion becomes effective once it appears in print on the Order Paper. In this case it would mean tomorrow. I would like to appeal to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council to make his statement as brief as possible.

Mr Chairman, when the department discovered that a co-owner of this property was an MP, it was brought to my attention. I then took the opportunity of advising the hon member that there may be a need to expropriate his property. It is corrupt that the independent valuation of the property is in the region of R400 000. Since the property is partly owned by an MP, I fully briefed the full Ministers’ Council on this matter last Thursday.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council a question?

Order! If the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council wishes to answer questions at the end of his statement, he may do so at his own discretion.

I fully briefed the members of the Ministers’ Council, and I want to place on record that Mr C Pillay is not keen that his property be acquired. I am aware of the fact that he acquired the property in 1984 for approximately R34 000. I even requested the department to investigate whether we can avoid acquiring the property. I went back to the department to request further whether the acquisition of the property can be avoided at all costs. That matter now rests with the Ministers’ Council.

Order! I think it would be proper that I permit other hon members to make a short statement if they so desire, or to ask questions.

Mr Chairman, I am indebted to you for that ruling. I do not intend at this stage to make a lengthy speech on the motion that is before the House, of which I have given notice this afternoon. I merely wish to ask the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council whether in view of the explanation that he has given this House this afternoon, would he be prepared to appoint a select committee to investigate all of the circumstances surrounding this particular issue. If he is not prepared to do this, quite obviously all hon members of this House must draw their own conclusions.

I do not see the need for the appointment of a select committee because this is a normal acquisition of a property.

Normal?

Yes, it is normal.

Mr Chairman, it is regrettable that, because of the fact that the motion has not yet been printed on the Order Paper, a statement in this regard has been made. It would have been preferable if this came as a motion before the House so that we could have discussed it fully without using just statements as an opportunity to reply to this matter. By virtue of the fact that a statement has now been made it might not even see the light of day in the form of a debate in this House because the majority party controls the Order Paper.

Another matter that I believe must be of concern to us is whether the party that obtained the property in 1984 for R34 000 was justified in having been allocated this property in the first instance. Was that party an affected person or not? I believe this exposure is just the tip of the iceberg.

Mr Chairman, on the date when the property was allocated to Mr C Pillay the chairman of the Executive Committee of the SA Indian Council was the present hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council of this House. There is a tremendous coincidence in this particular matter but I will not take it any further.

What I want to say is that I am absolutely appalled at the fact that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council sought the leave of the Chairman of the House to make a statement. The ordinary purpose for which the rules can be applied to make such a statement is that it should be of national importance and not for the purpose of making exculpatory statements in this House even before the accusation could be made. The opportunity should not be used for the purpose of denying an allegation which is anticipated by the individual. I deplore tremendously the abuse of the privilege by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council which was accorded to him by the Chairman of this House.

Mr Chairman, I do not want to get involved in the issue before us except that I want to reply to my colleague the hon member for Stanger. When he said …

Order! I would like to advise the hon member for Moorcross that I gave the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council the opportunity to make a short statement. If the hon member for Moor-cross wishes to make a short statement he has permission to do so.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. A request was made to place this motion before the House in the form of a private member’s motion but there is a gentlemen’s agreement between the Whips that there will be no private member’s motions. Adequate opportunity will be afforded to all of us to debate this at an appropriate time. [Interjections.]

Order! I would like to advise hon members that I took into account all the relevant factors when approached by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council for an opportunity to make a statement.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.