Mr Chairman, before the adjournment yesterday I referred to the provisions of Rules 124 and 125, which deal with matters of public importance and urgent public importance. I pointed out that it might be impossible to have such a matter debated urgently under circumstances in which the House of the member concerned was not in session while a joint sitting was in fact taking place.

Let me illustrate this by way of an example. A matter of urgent public importance which falls under own affairs is raised, for instance White education. The Houses are engaged in a joint sitting. To enable this matter to be debated urgently, one of two courses may be followed. The member can try to have it debated in his House, in terms of Rule 125 (1) (a), and furthermore the provisions of Rule 125 (2) and 125 (4) would then apply. Rule 125 (4) reads as follows:

The House concerned is not sitting and therefore this procedure cannot be carried into effect. By the time the debate does take place, it is possible that the urgency of the matter has abated. It could be argued that a matter may be of urgent public importance today, and in two or three days is no longer urgent. Take for instance the closing of a school or a training college. When one hears the school is going to be closed, it is of urgent importance to debate it and to try and stop it being closed. If the school, however, has already been closed through a delay in arranging a debate on the matter, the die has of course been cast.

One cannot save a person from the gallows a day after he has been hung.

The alternative would be to bring the matter up for discussion in the joint sitting. Then at least that House is in session. In any case it is remark-able that Rule 125 (5) makes special provision to convene this joint meeting if it is not already in session.

Rule 125 (5) provides …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning stand in the corner over there and address hon members?

Order! I did not notice the hon the Minister. The hon member for Bethal may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I quote Rule 125 (5):

It is nevertheless remarkable that there is no similar provision in order to bring one’s own House into session. This is remarkable but quite understandable because it is obvious that the hon members of the NP are showing a growing inclination towards collectiveness, and separateness therefore has to be pushed in the background until it eventually disappears. This will also be the case with separate Houses and separate sessions.

As already mentioned, the alternative then is to try and bring the matter up for discussion in the joint meeting. However, there are two obstacles in the way. The member must go and beg the Chief or Senior Whips of the other Houses for permission, which they are of course going to refuse. They are going to refuse, not because of the reasons which the other side would like to have, but because they are going to claim that this is an own affair which should not be debated in the joint sitting. They are going to say correctly that it cannot be discussed there.

The fact that Rule 125 (5) makes special provision for convening a joint meeting, while no similar provision is made for an own meeting, is characteristic of how increasingly unimportant own affairs are becoming to hon members on the opposite side of the House.

Finally, to sum up, I want to ask why it was necessary to formulate such an inherently contradictory and, with respect, nonsensical definition of a joint meeting as reflected in Rule 18. I think it was necessary in order to create a fiction, a myth, that on certain occasions a joint meeting will take place, while in reality none will take place.

The NP is afraid the other Houses will not put in an appearance at such an occasion, and then the country will see that this whole constitutional dispensation which they have worked out is doomed to failure. This visible evidence of the failure now has to be painted over so that nobody can see that there is no joint meeting and so that only the tail-feather can stick out under the door and people can think there is a chicken. [Interjections] It is a question of fine feathers making fine birds!

This party cannot join in the approval of a definition which is aimed at turning a meeting of this highest body in the country into something which in reality it is not. Any objective reader, outside this House, of this Rule should indeed ask in dismay whether such a definition is worthy of this House.

I know it is not possible to effect amendments now, but we must please not allow this ridiculous definition to be transferred to the Constitution, as is apparently being contemplated in the amending Bill which is going to be discussed next.

This definition reminds one of what was said about the Holy Roman Empire—it was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire. This definition does not define a joint meeting, nor a meeting of Houses, nor even a meeting. Why cannot what is meant to be said be said frankly?

Why can it not be said that a meeting of members of Parliament is being called and convened and that a quorum is, say, 50 or 80 members? After all, this is what is really being contemplated because the presence of members of other Houses is irrelevant to the analysis of these definitions. Let us state frankly what we want to say. Let us make it a meeting of members of Parliament and get away from the fiction of Houses which we want to obscure by saying the meeting will proceed, and even if the other Houses do not put in an appearance it will be a joint meeting, and even if there are not enough members to form a meeting it will still be called a joint meeting of Houses. Let us say frankly what we want to say and not try to lead the country up the garden path with all kinds of untenable definitions.

Mr Chairman, partly yesterday evening and partly now we have witnessed the hon member for Bethal doing a semantic exercise in a way that has not been experienced in this House for a long time. He took up 20 minutes or longer to give a definition of a chicken, a feather or what exactly I do not know. I do not know if he knew what day of the week it was. The fact is it simply illustrates that the hon member had to use 20 minutes to say nothing.

The debate that is taking place at the moment is now taking place here for the third time and it is a fact that when a debate takes place for the third time one cannot find anything new to say. I am referring, for example, to what the hon member for Brakpan said yesterday. He quoted a passage that was already a quotation in that it had been quoted earlier in another debate. That quotation has therefore been used for the third time. I shall read from the unrevised Hansard version of the speech made by the hon member for Brakpan yesterday when he referred to what Mr Hoon had said about a previous debate—he has therefore already quoted it once from a previous debate:

He is referring to the Chief Whip of Parliament—

That is what he quoted yesterday from a debate that took place on 28 September 1987. The hon member used this same quotation in that debate (Hansard: House of Assembly, 1987, col 482):

This corresponds word for word with the extract the hon member quoted yesterday. I could also give further examples. I also want to quote from the hon Chief Whip of Parliament’s reply when he participated in that debate. This is what the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament said on 28 September, 1987 (Hansard: House of Assembly, col 6484):

The hon member for Overvaal said yesterday that one thing leads to another, and he behaves as if a new principle is at issue when we speak about joint meetings. The hon Leader of the House replied to that argument last year on 28 September: (Hansard: House of Assembly, col 6508):

… or in a joint meeting? I am quoting these examples to show that the Official Opposition has no respect for the time of this House, but debates about debates that had already dealt with previous debates. In this way the Official Opposition wastes the taxpayers’ money unnecessarily, because they are taking up the time of the House and the country in this way, as a result of the fact that they cannot produce new arguments or any arguments at all with regard to the Rules.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member says that hon opposition members are wasting the House’s time. I suggest that this is a reflection on the Chair, because it is the responsibility of the Chair to see that the time of the House is not wasted. [Interjections.]

Order! I do not agree entirely with that interpretation. The hon member for Sunnyside may continue.

All that I am trying to illustrate—I did this by means of quotations—is that a misconception apparently exists amongst the opposition parties that the objections they want to raise against a measure, legislation or a matter can be judged by the time that is allotted to them and to the number of times they repeat their objections.

Surely we now have the wonderful opportunity in this new parliamentary system to make use of that in dealing with certain matters with regard to debating, for example when we agree on a Bill. In the past, as a result of the fact that a matter was debated for the first time in the House, it had to be debated in detail. Now we have standing committees where we sit for hours and thoroughly discuss and go over this matter. I want to ask whether the time has not arrived for us to keep the time spent on it as short as possible—I am simply mentioning one example—when we agree on a Bill. Surely we could just say that we agree, because it does not require an hour and two or three spokesmen to say that one agrees on a matter.

With these new rules the opposition parties also have a chance now to seize this opportunity so that, in the interest of more functional utilisation of time, we could let these rules operate more functionally and as a result we could utilise this time that we have to spend here to its maximum extent so that we need not conduct the same debate here over and over again on matters that have already been thrashed out.

The hon member for Bethal also referred to meetings, and yesterday evening he tried to represent these meetings as being virtually ludicrous. The intention of this Rule, where it states that there are no longer any quorums, is surely not, as he now wants to suggest, to give Government members the opportunity to stay away. For example, reference was also made to how few ministers are present here at any given moment.

I did not use that argument.

Some of the other members then added it!

Then do not accuse me.

The matter of quorums …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon member for Kuruman sit there sleeping?

Order! The hon member for Sunnyside may continue.

Mr Chairman, I am illustrating how the time of the House is being wasted. The hon member will not understand it at all, but the fact of the matter … [Interjections.] … is that when it comes to decision-making a quorum will still be essential, but that is not the way the Official Opposition presented it. It is often used as a political point.

Just before the hon member for Overvaal interrupted me, I was referring to Ministers who are sometimes absent. Apart from the work that has to be done here in the House, Ministers, as members of the Executive, have to perform other duties. When they are absent, it does not mean that they are not working.

In the past there was a stage in which only three or four members of the Official Opposition were present in the House. If the accusation is true, were they on holiday when they were not present here? It is after all a fact that there is other work, and hon members must stop using these minor points against each other to score minor political points.

As a result of the fact that this new system of rules makes meaningful provision for the optimum utilisation of time and because it makes provision for the functioning of the system, it gives me great pleasure to support it.

Mr Chairman, the hon members for Bethal and Sunnyside dealt with fairly superficial differences which they have in respect of the rules which are before the House.

As far as we in these benches are concerned, we look at the basics of the rules we are discussing, and we see these rules as being yet further evidence of the farce the NP created when it introduced the tricameral system as part of the Constitution of South Africa.

Despite the claims by elements of the Press and some Government spokesmen that these rules are a great step forward towards realistic joint debating across colour lines in the South African Parliament, and a significant move away from apartheid, they are nothing of the kind. They are nothing of the kind!

The more one looks at these rules, and the more one listens to debate in respect of these rules, the more the motive behind them becomes clearer—

So, as one looks at the rules, as the whole story unfolds, we realise that we are locked into that sort of situation when discussing the operation of these new rules for the Parliament of South Africa in the future. While many may welcome the fact that at last some South Africans other than Whites can in some instances join in debates on general affairs—and this, let me say, always at the discretion of Mr Speaker and the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament—the very fact that at the end of that debate they will have to record their vote separately in terms of the racially constituted Houses they represent confirms the Government’s commitment to apartheid. The very fact that no amendments can be moved at joint meetings also confirms the Government’s commitment to apartheid. So it is throughout when one looks through these rules.

I want to move to a particular aspect of the rules which is now being amplified by the proposals before us and which further emphasises how hypocritical and unrealistic these procedures are. I am referring to the provisions relating to the operation of the extended committees dealing with provincial affairs.

I think all parties are agreed that the existing rules governing the operation of provincial standing committees are totally inadequate and make such committees very largely a waste of time. They have simply not worked. We have had some examples of this where committees have met on a number of occasions, and I do not think that any members of those committees are satisfied that this is the way to deal with important provincial affairs. They follow a rubber stamp procedure and they become a sort of question and answer session which is largely a waste of time and of very little value. In terms of the new proposals it is proposed to amplify that procedure by allowing public sessions of these extended committees in the provinces concerned, and this is seen as something of an improvement over the existing situation. I want to say, however, that this improvement too is very largely cosmetic because, once again, by the very nature of the composition of these committees and the procedures laid down, they are all totally inadequate. This is not going to provide the answer to open debating and proper decision making in regard to provincial administration matters.

How can you say that?

I shall tell that hon member how I can say it if he will just listen to me. For example, we are told that this year the provincial committees will meet in their respective provinces for two days—the dates 24 and 25 May have been mentioned—and that the normal parliamentary programme will be suspended on those days. So we have the situation that for 48 hours members of Parliament will become provincial councillors in the provinces from which they come. Here too, however, when in that situation, further illogicalities and anomalies arise.

We can meet in the provincial capitals to discuss provincial budgets as representatives of the three Houses, to discuss general affairs in respect of provincial matters, but we may not vote together. We are told that we will not vote in Pietermaritzburg, Pretoria or Bloemfontein but will have come back to Parliament in Cape Town in order to vote. Therefore, there is deferred voting in regard to those vital provincial matters.

The greatest anomaly of the lot, however, is that matters which more and more are being passed down to provincial administrations over the months and years are those relating to the lives of Blacks in the various provinces. These are matters which more and more are being handed down to become the responsibility of provincial administrations. Yet the one group that is not represented in these provincial committees is the Black group in each of those provinces. This is simply an extension of the weakness that exists in this very Parliament. So it is that Asians, Whites and Coloureds will debate matters of provincial concern including many matters relating to the Black people, but Blacks themselves will not be present. In any case, there is to be no joint voting even among the three racial groups that are participating. This makes nonsense of the whole question of decision making.

One of the arguments advanced by hon members of the NP in favour of the new provincial system—as they term it—is that it is an improvement over the old provincial council system because it involves people other than Whites. Of course, this was a basic defect of the old system—that the provincial councils represented only White voters—but why did the Government rather not extend that system to all other groups so as to cure that defect instead of coming along with the present half-baked system as an alternative? If they are concerned about the protection of minorities there are ways of protecting them other than those suggested in the very tortuous procedure which we are going to have to follow when it comes to joint debates in this Parliament on these matters.

When hon members of the Government laud the new system because it extends the discussion on and responsibility for provincial matters, by what process of logic can that be justified when the largest non-White group, the Blacks, are deliberately excluded from these matters? Therefore, when we meet as provincial committees we are going to be spending a great deal of time once again discussing the problems and the affairs of the largest section of our population which will have no representation whatsoever on those committees.

The amendment of the PFP moved by the hon member for Sea Point declining to adopt the report refers, in addition to these matters, to the vast regulatory powers which these proposed rules will place in the hands of Mr Speaker and the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament. Once again, if we were debating these proposed rules in the form of a proper Committee Stage debate we could deal with these issues in much greater detail. When one goes through these rules one finds extensive powers given to Mr Speaker and/or the Chief Whip of Parliament. It is true that there has been a slight shift of emphasis from the old rules which we had before us last year in that some of the powers then given to the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament are now being made the responsibility of Mr Speaker. Nonetheless, both Mr Speaker and the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament enjoy considerable authority in terms of the rules which are presently before us.

When one looks for example at the powers of Mr Speaker one finds it is Mr Speaker who will determine the precise procedure as to how a House can decide on questions at a joint meeting of the Houses in terms of Rule 105. Mr Speaker determines what procedure can be followed as to how a House decides on issues discussed at a joint meeting of the Houses. Mr Speaker alone makes the decision—not Parliament, not the individual Houses, but Mr Speaker determines the procedure. That is the power given to him in terms of Rule 105.

I want to quote another example with regard to discussions on matters of public importance which were referred to earlier this afternoon. Mr Speaker decides on these, and he also allocates the time in consultation with the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament. So the responsibility for allocating time, for deciding how much time can be allowed for discussing a matter of public importance is that of Mr Speaker alone. He takes that decision; it is not written in the rules. It is a decision that he will take at the time, and he will exercise his judgment as to how much time a matter of urgent public importance requires. That is the situation in terms of Rules 124 and 125.

I want to quote yet another example. In debates on public Bills other than money Bills Mr Speaker decides in terms of Rule 151(3), in consultation with the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament, on the allocation of time for the discussion of amendments. Again it is a decision by Mr Speaker on the allocation of time for amendments.

A further example is found in Rule 163(2). Mr Speaker can limit the days and the times for the deliberations of joint committees on provincial affairs. These are considerable powers which we are going to be giving to an individual, to the chief officer of Parliament. These are the powers which he is going to exercise.

The hon the Chief Whip of Parliament still has enormous powers, although as I indicated earlier, some of the powers have been passed on to Mr Speaker. However, the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament still has enormous powers. I believe he can, for example, decide the days on which and the times at which an appropriation committee shall meet. That will be determined by the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament in terms of Rule 42. Rule 103 states:

Consultation with interested parties—

These are considerable powers to be given to one official of this House. These are very considerable powers indeed.

As far as Rule 104 is concerned, presumably here, too, it is the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament who will decide on the days for the decision of questions by the Houses. That is a decision which the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament presumably will take on his own. He will decide on the days for the decision of questions by the Houses.

With regard to Rule 148, presumably it is again the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament who places a Bill which has been presented to the Houses together with a report of a joint committee, on the Order Paper for Second Reading. This is considerable power when it comes to the regulating of the business of Parliament.

So, when one looks through these regulations, one sees that they are defective throughout, because we are deliberately involving ourselves in a tortuous system in order to avoid the operating of proper decision-making processes in the South African Parliament. In other words, it is not just joint debating and not just meeting jointly, but meeting as a parliament, debating together and taking decisions together.

We believe that these rules fail because no provision is made for joint voting at joint meetings. We believe they fail because they place these vast regulatory powers in the hands of Mr Speaker and the Chief Whip of Parliament. We also believe they fail because the procedure is so cumbersome and so tortuous that it will detract from the status of Parliament as the supreme legislative body of South Africa. Therefore we oppose the adoption of this report.

Mr Chairman, the hon members for Berea and Sunnyside must please forgive me if I do not react to what they said at this stage. I may do so on a subsequent occasion.

This afternoon it is a very great honour and privilege for me to be able to appear in the House of Assembly to make my maiden speech as the democratically elected member of the House of Assembly for the constituency of Randfontein. My constituency is very dear to my heart. Not only was I born there and did I go to school there, but our family has had close ties with the community over a period of more than 40 years. Randfontein, as a constituency, consists of Randfontein itself, Kocksoord, Finsbury, part of Mindalore, Lewisham, as well as a large community living on agricultural small-holdings. The constituency is 347 km2 in size, compared with the constituency of Schweizer-Reneke which is 15 000 km2 in size and the constituency of Fauresmith which is more than 31 000 km2 in size. It is truly an urban constituency.

It is also a privilege and an honour for me to follow in the footsteps of my predecessor in Randfontein, my father Dr Connie Mulder, to whom I want to pay tribute on this occasion. As a national leader, a politician, a father and a friend I can say of him, in the spirit of 2 Tim 4:7:

Those ideals which he pursued and expressed in this House for more than 20 years are my ideals too, and I can say in gratitude to Almighty God—the triune God in whom I not only believe, but to whom all honour and credit are due—in the words of the Psalmist in Psalm 45:16:

I also want to take this opportunity to pay tribute to my mother. The past few months have certainly not been easy for her, but she was a tower of strength to all around her at all times. I also want to thank my wife for her sacrifices and also for her great inspiration.

Next I should like to thank the fine parliamentary staff who always went out of their way to make me feel welcome here and did everything to make things as pleasant and easy as possible for me here. I also want to thank all the hon members on both sides of the House for their kind words of welcome. This is sincerely appreciated by a new-comer.

Last, but by no means least, I want to thank the voters of Randfontein who had so much confidence in me that they sent me to this House of Assembly to represent them here. It is indeed an honour and a privilege to look after their interests here and fight for their rights. Randfontein has a modern electorate consisting of mineworkers, businessmen, teachers, factory workers, academics, young people and others. It is indeed the entire spectrum, a picture of the whole of South Africa and definitely the future of tomorrow.

The fact that I am able to make my maiden speech in this House this afternoon is a practical manifestation of democracy as the system which at present forms the basis of our South African constitutional dispensation. This specific debate on the Report of the Committees on Standing Rules and Orders, read in conjunction with the Constitution Act, Act 110 of 1983, is in fact concerned with those rules of the game of which democracy forms the foundation.

Mr Chairman, if you will allow me, I want to dwell for a moment on a very important aspect or point of departure which is cardinal to the future democratic process which the Standing Rules and Orders are seeking to arrange in respect of debating.

The first point I want to make is that the RSA is indissolubly a part of the African continent. There must be no doubt in the minds of anyone inside or outside South Africa that the Whites in South Africa are here to stay and have as much right to South Africa as the Americans have to the USA, the Australians to Australia and the New Zealanders to New Zealand. In the second place South Africa’s road to overseas countries, the UNO and normal international relations, in my opinion, runs through Africa. If Africa accepts us, the rest of the world will be only too willing to do so.

I should like to dwell for a moment on the position in which Africa finds itself. Africa has more than one third of the UNO’s votes and contains approximately 10% of the world’s population, but covers more than 20% or one fifth of the world’s surface. Unfortunately Africa only supplies 2% of the world’s production, whereas it has the potential to produce ten times more.

In the constitutional sphere, which is of greater importance to us, matters are in my opinion even worse. Since 1963 there have been more than 60 successful coups in Africa, 13 executions of heads of state during or after coups, seven assassinations of heads of state and 10 forced resignations of heads of state, and since 1948 there have only been eight occasions on which a government has been changed democratically. This was in South Africa, Rhodesia and three times in the Sudan. At present Africa has 33 one-party states, 13 military dictatorships and only 10 so-called multiparty states. Edem Kodjo, a former secretary of the OAU, had occasion to say the following about Africa:

This is the hard reality of the constitutional record of the African continent of which we are indissolubly a part.

Because we are seeking a constitutional solution in the RSA, time and again we say that we are seeking a democratic solution. The emphasis falls on the words “democratic solution”. Classic democracy simply means that the people govern, as was the case in the old Greek city-states which were a homogeneous group.

However, if one looks at the African continent, one finds that everywhere in Africa as well as in South Africa one is dealing with plural societies which developed as a result of the arbitrary determining of borders by colonial powers. This plural composition of states where there are still nations that are trying to preserve democracy, as is the case in South Africa, probably gave rise to the standpoint of Prof Arend Lijphart in his book Democracy in Plural Societies: A Comparative Exploration, in which he said:

At a later date I should like to come back to these three cardinal statements of Prof Lijphart, which were used as a point of departure by the President’s Council in its search for a constitutional solution.

Because we are therefore dealing here with some of the rules of the game of democracy, namely the Standing Rules and Orders, and because constitutional efforts are being made at present to broaden democracy, in conclusion, and taking into consideration the realities of the African continent of which we are an indissoluble part, I should like to quote what Prof K A Busia of Ghana said in his book Africa in Search of Democracy.

I should like everyone to consider this quote, because it is a statement with which I can fully associate myself:

Whether this is the case in Africa or in South Africa, Mr Chairman, is an open question.

Hear, hear!

Mr Chairman, I want to take this opportunity to extend my sincere congratulations to the hon member for Randfontein on his maiden speech. I also want to take this opportunity to congratulate him sincerely on his major victory in the Randfontein constituency. I also want to tell him that it is a singular occasion when one stands up in this House to deliver one’s maiden speech. When he stood up today he had everyone shouting “Hear, hear!”, and now he will find that everyone in the House will send him notes of congratulation and appreciation. I can assure him that everyone is sincere, but I also want to assure him that this is probably the last time he will stand up and deliver his speech to this House in complete silence. Next time he will find members continually making some or other comment to annoy him. We have all been through the mill, and this is just part of the training process in this school of life. I want to wish him well in his political career from now on, and I want to express the hope that he will make fruitful contributions in this House.

This is a singular occasion. I do not know if there has ever before been an instance in this House of a son following in his father’s footsteps in the same constituency. Therefore, particularly with his brother sitting next to him, this is an exceptional achievement in that he has been able to follow in his father’s footsteps in the Randfontein constituency. Therefore I particularly want to wish him everything of the best as far as his future here is concerned.

Mr Chairman, I can understand that there is a certain amount of bitterness on the part of the opposition Whips because this debate is taking place today. I can understand the hon member for Overvaal speaking somewhat venomously and threateningly, almost, to the House about the CP sabotaging joint debates. I can understand the hon member and other hon members of the Official Opposition wanting to do everything in their power to destroy this tricameral system and to bring this Government down. I can also understand the ANC wanting to bring this Government down at all costs. I can understand that they, too, would like to sabotage this Government by every possible means.

Nevertheless I also think we should put something straight in this House today, because the idea has been put about that other people are responsible for the fact that we have only been able to hold this debate on the Standing Rules and Orders today. That is not true. The fact of the matter is that when we met again on 11 April for the first time after the Easter recess, the Whips of all the opposition parties, together with the Whips of the governing party, were summoned to the office of the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament. There it was put very clearly to everybody that this debate on the Standing Rules and Orders would take place—not today, it is true, but on 18 and 19 April. The question of whether the House of Representatives accepted these Standing Rules and Orders was put very clearly and unequivocally. Once again, clearly and unequivocally, the affirmative answer was given that this would be the case. Because that was so, and because it was said there that these Standing Rules and Orders would be accepted by the other two Houses, and also because it was said that they would agree to these Standing Rules and Orders on 15 April, it was then decided that the Chief Whips of the two respective opposition parties in this House would meet me in my office on Thursday, 14 April, after they had informed their caucuses.

On that occasion I had to try to reach consensus with the two Chief Whips of the opposition parties in this House on the duration of the debate that would follow, and also to obtain guarantees that we would, in fact, conclude this debate on the evening of 19 April. At that stage it was already clear to the hon members of the Official Opposition that they could no longer put a stop to this; that joint debates were on the way. I put the matter very clearly and succinctly. I really tried to reach an agreement on our sitting until 23h30 on 18 and 19 April, provided we could get the Standing Rules and Orders adopted.

The previous Friday four hours were still left. That was the Friday on which these Standing Rules were adopted in the House of Representatives. I even went as far as to indicate that I would also give those additional four hours to the opposition parties to conduct this debate here in the Assembly. However, hon members of the Official Opposition would not oblige me under any circumstances. Indeed, they made it very clear to me that they were not interested in concluding this debate on Tuesday evening. There were two reasons for this. On the one hand the Official Opposition and the PFP wished to force the Government side to apply the guillotine. However, when they realised that we were not going to apply the guillotine, they obviously had to try something else. Then they tried to conduct the debate in such a way that we would not be able to conclude it on the evening of 19 April. They wanted to ensure that the debate would continue after midnight so that a joint meeting could not take place on Wednesday. Those, Sir, are the facts. [Interjections.]

The fact of the matter is that it is not Rev Hendrickse or anyone else who has been the cause of this debate only taking place now. The hon member for Brakpan is sitting over there. He and his caucus are responsible for that and no one else. [Interjections.] The fear of participating in a joint debate with people of colour compelled them to try to sabotage this debate. [Interjections.] But it does not work that way! And it will never work that way!

The Government held a referendum in which it obtained an overwhelming mandate in favour of reform; a mandate for the establishment of a tricameral Parliament.

But that is ancient history!

Yes, it may well be ancient history. Specifically because it is ancient history, because things are not static, we shall regard this merely as a point of departure. [Interjections.] It is not the final Constitution. This will definitely not be the last time we will speak about an amendment to the Joint Rules and Orders of the three Chambers. Of course not! Because we are not static!

The Blacks have yet to come, haven’t they?

Let them come. I am telling the hon member for Barberton now that we are not static. On the other hand the CP is conducting its politics while continually looking over its shoulder—just like Lot’s wife. What happened to her? She turned into a pillar of salt. [Interjections.] In the very same way the CP is …

Growing!

Yes, in the short term everyone must grow, but the CP can grow up to a point, and then it will petrify like a pillar of salt, dissolve and vanish, as surely as twice two is four. [Interjections.]

Once again I hear the cry "call an election; then we shall see”, but we heard that cry at the beginning of 1987 too, after having heard it in 1986 and also after the referendum. What happened when we did call an election? This side of the House returned with the greatest majority the NP has ever attained. [Interjections.]

What happened to that erstwhile Official Opposition then? They disintegrated …

You were still speaking to us; now you are speaking to them.

Yes, I am talking to the PFP now. [Interjections.]

I am telling them that just as they have disintegrated into what they are now, they will also go the way of their erstwhile predecessor, the old United Party, and eventually disappear completely.

And the Official Opposition must go the same way too because one cannot be afraid to negotiate with Coloured people.

Who is afraid?

The hon members of the CP are afraid. [Interjections.]

Order! At the moment too many speeches are being made on the Official Opposition side. I know that other hon members of the Official Opposition will participate in the debate, and they will probably reply to the hon member for Kimberley South. The hon member may continue.

Sir, as surely as we are sitting in this House today, because that party is too afraid of the responsibility of debating jointly with Coloured people, too afraid of participating in deliberations with Black people on the future of South Africa, it will be rejected by the people of South Africa, and then it will go the same way as the PFP. [Interjections.]

Unfortunately, due to circumstances beyond my control, I was not here yesterday, but I read a little about the speeches made in the House. I want to associate myself with the hon member for Sunnyside by saying that nothing new was said here. Hon members of the PFP have also participated in the debate today, and once again they have said nothing new.

Once again, with reference to the hon member for Sunnyside, and in illustration of how bankrupt and devoid of arguments the hon members of the political parties on the other side are, I want to point out what I saw in this morning’s Die Burger. I rushed to buy this morning’s Die Burger because I wanted to read what had taken place during the debate yesterday. In the newspaper all the speeches of hon members on the opposition side were summarised. They also wrote about “Volk ’gekondisioneer’—Dr Willie Snyman (CP, Pietersburg)”, and according to the report he said:

That is true, is it not.

He is an interior decorator. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister is flattering the hon member when he says that about him.

Let us see what the hon member said last year. I have last year’s Hansard of the Assembly in my hand. I am referring to col 6492. He uses identical words; he has not even rearranged them in the slightest. I swear he made his old speech, exactly as it was. He says the pressure …

Yesterday’s truth is still the truth today.

The hon member for Pietersburg says, in that column of Hansard—

Nothing new! Just as there is nothing new from that side in this debate. That party is not capable of anything new, nor of any original thinking.

The Official Opposition is making a great song and dance by saying that there is too much power in the hands of the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament, but the PFP also agrees with this. They are making a great fuss about it.

The Reverend also said so!

It does not matter who says so. Let all of them say so. Let the hon Rev Hendrickse also say so, but once again, what are the facts? If the hon member for Brakpan is right about its being the hon Reverend who shuffled the cards around and ultimately held the trumpcard which he played, causing the house of cards to collapse, this emphasises why one man should take the decisions for the running of the business of this House. We should not have to negotiate with three or four other leaders about what will take place tomorrow and the next day and this week or next week. That is senseless. One man must take that decision …

The final decision.

He must be able to take a final decision, and that man can only be the Chief Whip of Parliament, not I, not the hon the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition, nor the hon the Chief Whips of the other opposition parties in this House. [Interjections.] The hon member for Barberton is talking about consensus. With all due respect—he knows I have great respect for him—I must say that neither he nor his party knows anything about the basics of consensus.

[Inaudible.]

So he should be the last hon member to speak about consensus. [Interjections.]

It has been said here that a no-confidence debate will no longer be held and that for that reason we should not adopt the Rules. In the present session, however, a debate lasting several days took place—a discussion of a Budget Vote was taking place and politics was discussed for days on end. After that Budget Vote had been dealt with, it was the turn of the hon the State President’s Budget Vote. Here an in-depth political discussion took place. In time all the other hon Ministers’ Budget Votes will be discussed. Good heavens! I want to ask whether the discussion of every Budget Vote is not a miniature no-confidence debate. Hon members have every opportunity to attack the hon Minister concerned or the hon State President and this Government in great detail during each of these discussions and to express their lack of confidence in all seriousness. As far as I am concerned that argument does not hold water either.

I want to conclude by associating myself with what the hon member for Sunnyside said. It is tragic to think that this debate we are conducting now was also exhaustively conducted in 1985, and even more so in 1986. Now we have set aside three days to debate the same things, which have already been accepted. [Interjections.] If that is not a waste of time and of the taxpayers’ money, I wonder what we are doing here in this House now.

Mr Chairman, I want to reply immediately to two contributions from the NP, namely those of the hon Chief Whip of the NP and the hon member for Sunnyside.

I shall begin by discussing the contribution of the hon member for Sunnyside. His argument was basically that it was this side of the House which was wasting the time of the House. [Interjections.] That is absolutely devoid of truth. The side of the House which has actually been wasting time in this regard is in fact the NP Government, because they knew or ought to have known that they had to obtain the consent of the other houses before these rules could be debated. If they did not know or foresee that, the oversight was theirs, and they should not call us to account. It is they who are accountable for this situation.

Secondly, it was known well in advance that at some stage these rules would have to be debated. There must have been enough time to obtain the agreement of the other two Houses in this regard before these rules were placed on the Order Paper. It is no use covering up this point and, rather than replying to it or debating it, acting as if it is this side of the House which is wasting time. The Reverend sent the bill to the Government, and the Government could not settle it.

The hon Chief Whip of the NP furnished an entire explanation and accused us yet again of throwing a spanner in the works to prevent the smooth functioning of this House. I am afraid that this is not true either. The true facts are as follows. The machinery of this House ground to a halt with the announcement out of the blue by the hon the Leader of the House on 28 and 29 March that the debate on the Standing Rules and Orders would take place on 15, 18 and 19 April. In the second instance, the machinery ground to a halt when it was announced that the House would adjourn upon its own resolution on 18 and 19 April and, in the third instance, when it was decided that the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders would sit on 13 and 14 April. These facts cannot be reasoned away. That is simply what happened.

At the meeting with the hon the Leader of the House, the Opposition Whips were not given any prior notification. That cannot be denied either. Subsequent events at the meeting with the hon Chief Whip of Parliament are not relevant, because the machinery had already ground to a halt and smooth functioning was already out of the question. At that stage relations were already disturbed. It does not help to refer to this meeting with the hon Chief Whip of Parliament, because at that stage it was already too late to ensure that the proceedings would run smoothly. The hon the Leader of the House may shake his head if he likes, but he cannot dismiss with a shake of the head the facts I have presented to hon members.

These new rules will give effect to certain principles which are unacceptable to the CP, and we therefore oppose them. Certain principles are given very explicit effect, while other rules are vague and confusing. There are also rules which give wide discretionary powers to the Speaker of Parliament and the Chief Whip of Parliament. I will refer to some examples at a later stage. Yet other rules sow the seeds of a process of integration today, so that they may germinate and flourish later.

Rule 103 may be quoted in support of one argument in respect of the powers being entrusted to the Chief Whip of Parliament. It reads as follows:

In this regard I wish to refer to the situation arising from these rules to emphasise the wide, discretionary powers of the Chief Whip of Parliament. He does not have to act in consultation with all interested parties; he is only able to act after consultation with all interested parties has taken place. That means that all he has to say is that he has discussed the matter with them. They might well have disagreed with him. but their consent is not required because, in terms of Rule 103, the achievement of consensus is not obligatory in this regard. Now that the machinery has ground to a halt, where are the great consensus-seekers? There is no longer any talk of “in consultation with”, or the seeking of consensus in this regard; now we merely have “after consultation with”. The Chief Whip of Parliament may now simply say that he has consulted them and that they did not want to agree with him.

In the second place the Chief Whip of Parliament can arrange the business on the Order Paper according to the provisions of the rules. According to which provisions? The proposed new Rule 103 does not stipulate a particular provision. There seems to have been an omission, but if I am wrong in thinking that the absence of such an express provision is an oversight, the hon the Leader of the House should respond and rectify this omission by at least telling us in the course of this debate what that provision is.

As if that were not bad enough—the simple fact that there is no provision in this regard—he does not have to act according to such a provision if he does not want to because, in terms of this proposed rule, he can arrange business in whatever order he thinks fit. Parliament may not always be graced with such an apparently competent person as the present hon Chief Whip of Parliament, who succeeds in arranging the business of Parliament even under difficult circumstances. We want the assurance that if we reach a stage at which something goes wrong with the works, as in the present case, this arrangement of business according to the judgement of the Chief Whip will not simply be an arbitrary power, because no party with an interest either in a contract or in the compilation and debating of rules can give his consent if it is stated—as it is stated here—that the Chief Whip can arrange them simply as he thinks fit. This is an arbitrary power which this side of the House cannot condone.

There is another reason why we cannot subscribe to this. The situation which I have already sketched with regard to the dates to which I referred and the meetings held with the hon the Leader of the House, as well as the meetings held with the hon Chief Whip of Parliament, provide ample testimony to the fact that in these matters we cannot rely on their discretion, and that this side of the House—the Official Opposition—must be granted thorough, proper and courteous recognition.

When one peruses these rules, one is amazed to discover that the Government is now doing what it always promised not to do. The hon Chief Whip of the NP referred to the referendum. The hon Chief Whip of Parliament knows as well as every other hon member, as well as the general public, that the Government made a promise at the time of the referendum in 1983, and gave its word that there would not be joint sittings apart from ceremonial occasions. Surely the hon Chief Whip of Parliament cannot deny that. It was not my idea to pursue that argument. The hon Chief Whip of the NP referred to the referendum, and I would like to quote again from the booklet issued by the NP at the time of the referendum, namely Grondwetlike Riglyne: ’n Nuwe Bedeling vir Blankes, Kleurlinge en Asiërs. On page 5, I find the following stated explicitly … [Interjections.]

It was quoted yesterday.

Perhaps it was quoted yesterday, but I am now replying to the hon Chief Whip of the NP, who raised the argument concerning the referendum. Whether it was quoted yesterday, is quoted again today and will be quoted yet again tomorrow, does not make it less true. The following was stated explicitly for all to read:

In regard to what is being debated today and is now at issue, namely joint debates, this statement was surely a gross misrepresentation, and it is that on two counts. In the first instance the reference here is to nothing more than symbolic sittings or ceremonial sittings. There is no mention of joint debates. I shall tell the hon Chief Whip of Parliament why he did not talk about joint debates in 1983. It is not that we are afraid of negotiating with the Coloureds, as the hon Chief Whip of the NP has suggested, but that in 1983 those hon members on the other side feared that if they spelt out to the voters even the vague possibility of joint sittings—and not even that it was an immediate reality, as it is today—the voters would have rejected the NP.

With all due respect, I say that he misled the voters in this way, politically speaking. [Interjections.] I shall deal with this deception at length at a later stage.

There was another form of deception contained in the Government’s referendum promises.

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

Mr Chairman, I do not have time for questions. If there is time at the end of my speech, I shall be pleased to reply to a question.

You ought to make time!

I am in the process of developing an argument. [Interjections.]

Secondly, it is stated that joint sittings “may” take place. That is such a dilution of the formula! They may take place but they might also not take place. When they do in fact take place, they will take place only for symbolic reasons. That is yet another gross deception of the voters. The NP needed their votes in the referendum, and in that way they succeeded in obtaining a two-thirds majority … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member is being interrupted too often. The hon member may proceed.

I can assure the NP that they obtained their two-thirds majority in the referendum with promises of that kind, and today those promises have been broken. I would not be proud of that; I would hang my head in shame. It is no wonder that the public are rejecting this Government. For a while, the people could be deceived by the NP’s mass communications media, but time is running out for that deception. It is no wonder that the voters are rejecting the NP.

I want to mention just one example of this rejection, and I shall take the most recent rejection of the NP in the Randfontein constituency, when a majority of 3 711 voters participated in a 7,6% swing away from the NP. Those hon members cannot reason that away either. I should like to bet that if they chose to be honest today, if they were to look us straight in the eye and tell us something about what was discussed at that secret Cabinet conference when a post-mortem was held on the by-elections, we would discover that the fact that the voters do not trust them any longer must have played some part or another. On the other hand, if they have been unable to perceive that the voters are in the process of rejecting them on account of those broken promises, they are disregarding reality in that respect as well. [Interjections.]

The credibility of this Government is in shreds, and today’s debate is proof of that. Therefore it speaks volumes that the NP did not even make an attempt to counter the CP’s arguments regarding credibility during the previous debate on these rules. Let us look at the history of that side’s credibility. I want to mention a few examples to substantiate my argument.

Order! I have a bit of a problem as far as two aspects are concerned. The first aspect is that there have been many repetitions of what has been said before. The second aspect is that I honestly do not know what the by-elections and credibility have to do with the effect of the rules which we are discussing. At this stage I do not want to confine hon members to the rules too strictly, but because our time is limited hon members cannot range too widely in discussing this matter. In terms of the topic being debated, hon members cannot embark on a wide-ranging discussion of credibility. We are in fact discussing the rules and their consequences.

Mr Chairman, may I address you on that?

Order! I have stated my views. The hon member may proceed, but the point is simply that hon members should move away from the broader principles and deal more specifically with the Standing Rules and Orders.

Mr Chairman, If I may address you on that, I should like to say that I am in fact in the process of developing an argument regarding the credibility of the Government, because these joint debates will at a later stage become joint decision-making in the same Chamber. That is where the aspect of credibility comes in, and in the course of my speech I want to mention examples of the NP’s lack of credibility.

Order! Let me put it to the hon member this way. I do not know what is going to happen in future. I am not a prophet. However, I do know that we are now discussing these rules. I want to ask hon members to discuss these rules only. It is important that we should know where, if any, the weak points in these rules are. I will not confine hon members to this, but I intend to act more strictly in regard to the discussion of the rules. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: In view of your remarks, which do not constitute a ruling at this stage but, as your warning indicated, might anticipate one, I want to submit with all due respect that in this specific problem, we are confronted with a problem as a direct result of the fact that the Government has determined that this debate should in fact be a mixture of a Second Reading debate and a Committee Stage debate. The present discussion of the rules ought to have been preceded by a Second Reading debate, because hon members will see that our hon Chief Whip moved an amendment yesterday which would in fact have made provision for us to begin with something similar to a Second Reading debate or a general debate on the adoption of the rules, after which the rules should have been discussed in Committee of the whole House. That is our problem. Secondly, I want to submit that digression from the subject of the debate should be allowed for this very reason. You and the other chairmen have allowed this debate to range widely in respect of politics as such, in respect of the rules, in respect of the principles, and also in respect of the fact that the rules are the specific topic under discussion. In that light I want to submit that we should proceed as you indicated we might proceed.

Order! I appreciate the remarks of the hon member for Soutpansberg and the speech he has made to state his point of view, but the fact of the matter is that there is a stage at which repetition must cease. There is also a stage at which I have to say as much. As the hon member knows, we sometimes allow the chief spokesmen on both sides of the House the opportunity of going beyond what is provided in the rules, in order to state their points of view. In my opinion, however, there comes a time when we reach that point and, after a day and a half of debate, I am of the opinion that there are very few people who would dispute the fact that that stage has now been reached. I am not ruling that the hon member may not proceed, but it should be understood that I shall act more strictly in future. I trust that this general approach of “you are credible!” and “you are wasting time!” will cease. It does not get us anywhere as far as these rules are concerned. This applies to all sides of the House.

Furthermore, I would like to put it like this. Until such time as the amendment moved by the hon member for Brakpan is agreed to, we have to see it simply as a possible prospect. It has not been agreed that we are to have a debate, whether Committee Stage or Second Reading, and all I am going to do is to apply the existing rules. In terms of the rules, each member may speak for half an hour, and that speech must be confined to a treatment of these rules. We will come closer to that. The hon member for Losberg has my sympathy, because we have monopolised a great deal of his time. The hon member may proceed.

There are many examples I could have mentioned, but I shall mention one and link it to the rules in relation to the degree to which there is a lack of credibility underlying these rules and, furthermore, how a lack of credibility can be linked to what we could call a sociological pressure-process which has manifested itself in present-day politics, namely that one thing leads to another. In 1977 we talked about separate Parliaments. In 1983 we talked about one Parliament with three chambers. In 1988, in this debate today, when these rules are accepted, we shall de facto have one Parliament for matters of common concern. If the rules are accepted, therefore, that means joint debates. That is to say the tricameral system will be dealt a severe blow and, on a de facto basis, we shall consequently find ourselves in a single Parliament for matters of common concern. [Interjections.] If these rules are adopted, today, tomorrow or whenever, and, after these joint debates, we were to go a step further to joint decision-making, we could wave goodbye to the tricameral system. We would then be dealing with one parliamentary system not only de facto but de jure, and then the tricameral system would have no right to exist. In fact, it would disappear entirely in practice. If one has joint debates, as provided for in these rules, and if one also has joint decision-making, I wonder why one should continue to have a tricameral system. It will inevitably deal a fatal blow to the tricameral system.

Good point, Fanie!

[Inaudible.] [Interjections.]

I have no choice but to return to what the hon member for Mossel Bay said on two occasions. In his speech the hon member for Mossel Bay said: “You can never say never.” If one applies that to the rules, it means that one cannot say either now or at any time in the future that one is opposed to joint decision-making. What kind of policy is it that that side of the House espouses? They espouse a no-policy system. In terms of their argument, one cannot say what the policy will be in future because, as I have already pointed out, it is a sociological pressure-process. The adoption of these rules today, tomorrow or the day after tomorrow must inevitably result in further concessions in this regard.

The hon member for Mossel Bay made another interesting statement by way of an interjection. He said that self-determination was not a principle. I must accept that that was a mere slip of the tongue and, if I am not to accept that, I must accept that what he said was NP policy. I should now like to know from the hon the Leader of the House whether we may go out and say that the hon member’s interjection that self-determination was not a principle has not been officially denied yet. We are going to go out and say that, and we are now offering the hon Leader of the House the opportunity—all he has to do is look at me—to say whether that is the case or not.

I think that the Leader of the NP in the Cape Province had better keep the Cape executive committee together.

We shall wait for the hon the Leader of the House to reply because, until such time as he replies, we shall say that is, at least for the time being, the basis of the NP’s policy. The fact is that however much the hon member for Mossel Bay tries to argue that self-determination is not a principle, I want to submit that even the charter of the UNO refers to “the principle of self-determination”. In numerous Western languages one can read of the principle of a people’s right to self-determination. In fact, the hon the Leader of the House has referred to the NP on more than one occasion as standing for the principle of the right to self-determination of the Whites and the right of Whites to protect such rights. Now, however, we have been told by that side of the House that self-determination is not a principle.

When we look at these guidelines again, we must remember that a principle is a point of departure. Everything else is predicated on that. In the constitutional guidelines of the NP, from which I quoted previously, the following is stated very clearly:

We now ask precisely …

Order! I think the hon member will now concede that he is discussing matters that are very far removed from the rules.

Mr Chairman, my next sentence would have related to the rules. [Interjections.]

Order! That may be so, but the hon member will concede that he is now far beyond the scope of the rules, and I ask him to move closer to them.

In relation to today’s discussion and debate of the rules, does this mean, within the framework of what the hon member for Mossel Bay said, that we could also renounce, tomorrow or even today, the right of Whites to self-determination which is at issue here?

And debate and vote together.

It is a fact that these rules are being debated in the House of Assembly today, and we know that the House of Assembly is the House of the Whites, which must protect the rights of Whites. What we are debating here today is a farewell to separate debate in the political and constitutional history of South Africa. [Interjections.] It means that the right to which the White population group could lay claim, namely that their affairs should be debated separately, whether or not there were matters of common interest with other population groups, will not exist after the adoption of these rules.

I wish to refer to a few of these rules. Against the background of what I have put to hon members, let us look at Rule 119 in order to emphasise its lack of clarity.

Let us see what is laid down by Subrules (1) and (2) of Rule 119. Subrule (1) reads as follows:

Every member present in the Chamber is therefore required and legally obliged to vote. He has no choice; he must vote.

Let us look at Subrule (2) against that background:

The question now is what that formulation means as it stands. Does it mean that he must vote, can he abstain from voting, or what is the position? A Minister who is not a member of the House does not have to vote, but the question is whether he may. May he vote?

Oh no!

That is laid down by another rule.

Hon members on the other side can laugh …

They laugh at self-determination too!

… but they should read this rule again very carefully. The question remains: Is a Minister who is not a member of a given House obliged to abstain from voting, does he not have to vote, can he in fact vote or may he vote? In respect of all these questions I have asked, the way in which that rule is formulated does not …

Why do you say nothing about the cross-reference to section 65 of the Constitution? That answers your question.

Mr Chairman, section 65 would have been my third …

It is also contained in SO 149 of the existing Standing Orders!

Order! If hon members wish to put questions, there is a prescribed procedure for that. The hon member may proceed.

They simply shout across the floor of the House.

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

He may ask me a question at the end of my argument. [Interjections.] The interjection “Look at section 65 of the Constitution” …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May the hon member for Boksburg say that the hon member for Losberg is afraid?

Order! I do not know what he is afraid of. Would the hon member repeat what he said?

I am simply asking whether or not he may say that, Sir.

Order! That depends on the context. He might be afraid of sin, and that is not a bad thing! It simply depends on the context in which he said it. What did the hon member say? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a further point of order …

Order! I ask the hon member to give me a moment. What did the hon member say?

Mr Chairman, I asked: “Is the hon member afraid?”

But he was actually referring to Koos!

Order! Oh, is that what the hon member said?

Mr Chairman, the question of the hon member for Boksburg arose out of the fact that the hon the Leader of the House wanted to ask the hon member for Losberg a question, and the Hon member for Losberg then told him to wait until he had set out his argument. The hon member for Boksburg then said that the hon member for Losberg was afraid. It is very clear, Sir, that he was alleging not that the hon member was afraid of sin, but that he was afraid to answer the question.

Order! The Chair must be objective in his treatment of all parties, and that is why I wanted to know why he had asked the question. The hon member has given the assurance that he did not make a statement; he asked a question, or something to that effect, but I have little objection to the question he put. The hon member may proceed.

The hon the Leader of the House is also a legal expert, and I do not have the temerity of the hon the Minister of Law and Order, who said today “He who is supposed to be a legal expert”; he is a legal expert, and I give him due credit for that. I want to point out to the hon the Leader of the House that his remark "Look at section 65 of the Constitution” means precisely nothing in either Afrikaans or juridical language. It is not stated: “Subject to section 65 or contingent upon section 65 of the Constitution”.

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

That is why I say …Give me a chance to finish. If there is time left at the end, he may ask questions then. He can ask questions until the cows come home. We are here to complete this debate, and he is not going to put us off by asking questions while I am busy.

This is not an NP meeting! [Interjections.]

As I have already said, it does not state “contingent upon section 65 of the Constitution”. Therefore I say that there is at best a legal uncertainty which should have been cleared up in the rules and, what is more, could still be cleared up in the rules if the argument this side of the House is heeded and we avoid dealing with them over-hastily.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member a question now? The hon member has finished making his point.

If there is time left at the end, the hon Leader of the House may ask me a question. [Interjections.]

Order! No, in this way we are wasting the hon member’s time. I request hon members not to do so now. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I still have a lot to say. [Interjections.]

I would like to continue by referring to Rule 3 in this regard. Hon members may say Rule 3 exists or has already existed. They may say what they like. However, I submit that it is an unhealthy juridical standpoint to have a rule in the Standing Rules and Orders that reads like Rule 3. My argument in this regard is mutatis mutandis applicable to Subrule (2) as well as Subrule (3) of Rule 3. Subrule (1) of Rule 3 reads as follows:

If this House can suspend any rule, the following question must arise: What is the point of having any rules whatsoever? After all, they can be suspended at any time by way of a resolution. Surely the correct state of affairs is that substantive notice must be given before a rule is suspended or is not to apply, and that that substantive notice must deal with amendments to the Standing Rules and Orders. Surely that is how any proper legal expert deals with rules. One cannot just say one is making certain rules and then simply suspend them if, at that very meeting, one decides one does not want to apply those rules.

Typical of the NP!

It is indeed typical of the NP. Their arguments always go something like this: “Notwithstanding the provisions of Rule ‘X’ or ‘Y’, we propose the following” … I wish to submit that that is an unjuridical, undemocratic mode of action. It is also a great pity that because of undue haste, this rule has been so formulated. [Time expired ]

Mr Chairman, we on this side of the House would certainly like to extend our congratulations to the hon member for Randfontein on his maiden speech. I certainly found his speech informative and perfectly direct, and I congratulate him on it. The time for confrontation, I am sure, will come later. We will not start that today. With due respect, Sir, the hon member also made reference to the lack of democratic government in certain countries in Africa, and one could also cite other countries elsewhere in the world. We are after all today discussing the rules and regulations pertaining to a supposedly democratic Government.

The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is not in the House now. He has constantly put forward the argument that we in South Africa are on an evolutionary path. Unfortunately evolution, as those who have studied biology at school level will know, tends to throw up mutants. To a very great extent the tricameral Parliament is a mutant. It is neither the Westminster system nor is it a unicameral system. It is in fact very difficult to find any model anywhere in the world comparable to the tricameral system in South Africa.

We all know, however, what happens to mutants. They die out. [Interjections.] To the extent to which we will be looking at these Rules and Orders we will look at them as a cul-de-sac—not a movement forward but a movement in which we are faced with certainly two significant pointers which represent no further movement along the evolutionary path. I mention in particular separate voting and the increased powers in the hands of the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament and of Mr Speaker.

It is interesting to look back in history at tricameral parliaments. They have existed. The one I think of in particular is the one which was called to meet in 1789 in France—the Estates-General. The Estates-General had three chambers—the nobility, the clergy and the bourgeoisie. They met separately in terms of the existing law.

Because they met separately, there was no means of making contact among those three chambers. Therefore the king had to utilise the services of a man to act as a link among those three chambers, which is effectively the role of the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament today. He is, after all, the contact among the three Houses to try to make them work. I would certainly recommend to hon members in this House and, indeed, hon members of this Parliament, that they read the 40 or 50 pages in Carlyle’s History of the French Revolution which are concerned with the meeting in July 1789 of the States General.

Remember that the king was trying to bring them together.

Mr Chairman, I want the hon member for Germiston to wait until we get to the end of this story that Carlyle tells. Here we had efforts being made to try to get three Houses which had to work together, to work together and yet stay separate, because the one thing that the king could not allow was for the bourgeoisie to get together with the friendly nobles and the friendly clergy who wished to talk to them in order to outwit the king in his intentions. That is exactly the model that we are looking at today. The end result of the story I am relating is that the king’s messenger—effectively today the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament—was the man who eventually had to give up. He had to go to the king and tell him he could not do it. The result was therefore that the Third Estate, the bourgeoisie, then took up the challenge of getting those three chambers to talk to one another.

What did they do? One day, the bourgeoisie met in a hall that happened to be an indoor tennis court, and took what is known in history as the Oath of the Tennis Court, namely that they would not be moved except by bayonets, and they invited the friendly nobles and clergy to join them. That was the revolutionary step, the movement that led to the French Revolution.

I want to say that we in these benches believe that this movement … [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon the Chief Whip allowed to say that I am a simpleton?

Of course you are a simpleton! [Interjections.]

Order! No, we are all hon members of high integrity in this House. The hon the Chief Whip must withdraw that remark.

I withdraw it, Sir.

And apologise!

Order! No …

Mr Chairman, may I address you on this?

No, the hon member …

Mr Chairman, you regularly ask me to apologise …

Order! The hon member for Overvaal may now by implication be casting a reflection on the Chair. The hon member for Overvaal must resume his seat. The hon member for Pinetown may proceed.

Thank you, Sir. I will not extend my reference to mutants to anybody in this House, naturally! [Interjections.]

I say that it is important to note that if one is going to bring people together … [Interjections.]

Order! A conversation is being conducted at the moment between the Whips on both sides of this House at the expense of the speech of the hon member who has the floor. If they wish to conduct a conversation, I ask the hon Whips to do so outside the Chamber.

†The hon member for Pinetown may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. The obvious corollary …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I just want to point out to you that immediately after you had given your ruling, the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament entered into another conversation. Your words had hardly left your lips.

Order! The hon member for Pinetown may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. If I kept quiet, Sir, do you perhaps think those hon members might keep quiet? It seems to me as though if I speak loudly they start shouting at one another.

We recognise the significance of the importance of bringing people together to debate together. However, we also believe that if this Parliament continues trying to decide that they should vote separately, this will in effect be creating its own explosive situation. It will create a situation in which people will reach the stage where they say: “Well, we are going to sit together and we are going to vote together even if the rules do not allow it.” It is precisely that kind of situation that we need to look at very carefully. It was the hon Chief Whip of the NP on that side who used the words: “Die KP is te bang om met Bruinmense te debatteer." We agree with him. They are too scared to debate with Brown people.

Absolute nonsense!

But that party on the other side of the House—the NP—is too scared to vote with Brown people, and that is the problem. That is precisely the problem because what they are scared of is that if one has the three Houses sitting and voting together, the Government will be outvoted in terms of their apartheid measures. That is what they are scared about. I want to say that in the process of history it is inexorable that that is precisely what is going to happen.

It is going to happen, and that is why I call these rules mutant. They are a dead end. We are going to vote together.

Secondly, they are mutant to the extent to which they place power in the hands of the Chief Whip of Parliament and Mr Speaker. It is a tendency in the parliaments of this world—one can examine those in Canada, Australia, America, Britain and even the European parliaments which do not follow the Westminster model—for the power of individual members of parliament to increase. They do not display the more authoritarian features and centralisation which obtain here.

In this respect too, we believe that if the NP were looking at the process of history rather than trying to guard their own flanks, they would themselves acknowledge that it is not going to be of any benefit to them to grant powers to the Chief Whip of Parliament. The NP considers it perfectly acceptable to support greater powers for the Chief Whip of Parliament and Mr Speaker as long as they represent the majority party in the House of Assembly, namely the NP. If the NP were not in that position, I suggest that they would be strongly opposed to these rules and would want more powers granted to individual members. That is my view of the mutant situation.

The third view we have of these rules is that they are convoluted in the extreme. Hon members in these benches have already spelled this out, but allow me to add a reference to the joint committees, and to the provincial joint committees in particular. There are various types. There is a provincial accounts committee that will consider the accounts of the provinces, but it is not one of the joint committees on provincial affairs. The provincial accounts committee need not even be representative of the members of those committees.

Secondly, according to Rule 66(4)(b), such a committee on provincial affairs can meet in public to consider “any matter referred to it in terms of Rule 195”. That committee may not, however, meet in public to consider any other matter. We therefore have two more variations.

Thirdly, we should look at what such a committee may do at its public sittings. Let us simply take the example of where we are sitting today. The hon member for South Coast is well aware of this. The Standing Committee on Provincial Affairs: Natal has had a question and answer session with the administration in which we looked at the Budget. In terms of these proposed rules, that kind of session will remain closed to the public; it may not be a public session. In terms of the proposed rules, when we go to debate in Pietermaritzburg in May, we will act in what has come to be called the confrontation mould. We will fight with one another because that is the public position.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member if he does not think that the system that is to come into operation is a far better idea, because the Administrator and the MECs can take part in the debate, and the hon member will have the opportunity to put his case in public? Does the hon member think that is a bad thing?

Mr Chairman, the hon member knows full well that I am pleased that a two-way debate will take place.

Why don’t you say so?

I was about to mention that.

Come on!

The hon member may read my notes if he wishes.

The inclusion of the Administrator and the representatives of the administration—the Executive Committee—is a good thing. However, I have a question for the hon member for South Coast and the NP. They know full well that it is precisely what is revealed in the question and answer session to which the public should be exposed. It should become public knowledge. For example, the increased fees for hospitals—the hon member knows that I brought that matter up—exploded into public debate two or three weeks later in the Press. That is the kind of to-ing and fro-ing that used to happen in the provincial councils three years ago. Last year we had a new system. Next year we will have a third different type of system.

The NP must say, in respect of this particular aspect as well, whether it is a mutant. Are we aiming to resurrect the provincial councils in another form? If not—I see them shaking their heads—we are really in a mess, because we have here a middle match of provincial and parliamentary government, something which is betwixt and between and, as the hon member for Berea quite rightly pointed out, excludes that major element of provincial government, the Black segment.

Again we have to look at how to bring them in. Last year in these debates and in standing committee debates on this matter, we in these benches have attempted to illustrate to the NP that inevitably there are features of democratic government in South Africa which need to be defended in the interests of all South Africans. One is that the rights of individual members of Parliament need to be extended and protected, not those of single officials only. Secondly, we should be voting together, and not separately and emphasizing those differences.

Thirdly—this is most important and is something we are losing sight of—as the Government’s apparent democracy becomes more convoluted, so the common man simply observes it as a mess and says that he would rather go somewhere else. Where is he going? He is going to the radicals on the left and he is going to the radicals on the right. Make democracy simple and make it simple soon!

Mr Chairman, I have pleasure supporting the amendment of the hon member for Sea Point.

Debate interrupted:

Personal explanation:

Order! Before I call upon the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North to speak, I shall now afford the hon member for Mossel Bay an opportunity to make a personal explanation, as he requested.

Mr Chairman, from the speech made by the hon member for Losberg yesterday and also from certain remarks in the speech of the hon member for Overvaal, it became clear to me that I had made an interjection during the speech of the hon member for Overvaal which had created a completely wrong impression. [Interjections.]

Order!

I am making this personal explanation in all fairness and earnestness. I examined the Hansard. According to that it seems to be the case that I said unequivocally by way of an interjection that self-determination has never been a principle. The impression created by that is quite wrong. In fact, in another debate in this House just the other day I constantly invoked the principle of self-determination. The assertion that self-determination is not a principle does not, therefore, represent my view at all.

It is recorded in that way in Hansard!

Order! It is a practice in this House to afford an hon member the opportunity to make his personal explanation in silence, and I am going to apply it. The hon member may proceed.

It has been recorded in that way in Hansard, and that is why I am making this explanation. The fact of the matter is that prior to that I had asked the hon member for Overvaal during the course of the debate and by way of an interjection from which principle we had departed, referring to the procedure of debate and decision-making. I made the further interjection in that context, meaning that as far as I was concerned the principle of self-determination had never been the issue, or at stake. That is what I intended to say. I am sorry if the words which I used by way of an interjection created another impression, and I withdraw them gladly if that is the case.

Debate resumed:

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Pinetown said that the proposals before us were a cul de sac, and not an improvement, but he did not tell hon members what the alternative would be. He did not tell hon members how the PFP would effectively look after and ensure group rights. His attitude today, as also evidenced by the attitude of the hon member for Berea, was clear proof of the unreasonable attitude of the PFP and the fact that the PFP has no real concern or regard for group rights in South Africa. That is why the electorate rejected them in the past and that is why the electorate will reject them in the future.

*Mr Chairman, when the hon member for Losberg was speaking earlier today, I initially thought he would breathe a little fresh air into the debate. I thought we would hear a bit of argument from him based on merits, and not simply a 30 minute speech without content. This hon member referred to a number of rules. After he had referred to the first few, there was no longer any doubt in my mind. I realised it was the same old speech which we got in debates of this kind from hon members of the Official Opposition—a speech lasting 30 minutes with absolute no substance to it.

The hon member for Losberg referred inter alia to Rule 103, which deals with the arrangement of business, and said it was an arbitrary measure. According to him it gives the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament too many powers, because in terms of Rule 103 the Chief Whip of Parliament is authorised, after consultation with interested parties, to decide the sequence of business and how the Order Papers of the Houses will be dealt with.

If the hon member had only taken note of the provisions of the present Rule 28, he would surely not have advanced this argument. The present Rule 28 reads as follows:

Sure this contains precisely the same principle. Actually it is not a deviation from the principle. If there is a deviation from the principle, it is a deviation in the sense that there is a broadening of the principle because consultation shall now take place. In the proposed Rule 103 it is provided that more people shall be consulted than was the case in the past.

In addition the hon member referred to the proposed Rule 119. He maintains that the wording is unclear. I shall quote this rule to the House:

1. (1) Every member present in the Chamber when the question is put with the doors locked shall vote.
2. (2) The provisions of subrule (1) shall not apply to a Minister who is not a member of the House.

The hon member made quite a fuss about this. However, I think the hon member should have done his homework better. I therefore refer him to the existing Rule 149. The wording of this rule is identical to that of the proposed Rule 119. Yet again this proves that the hon member did not do his homework at all. He simply came here to make a 30 minute speech. [Interjections.]

Like the hon Chief Whip of his Party and several other hon members of the Official Opposition, the hon member for Losberg alleged that the NP was misleading the people, the NP lacked credibility, and so on. However, if I was a member of the opposition, this would have been the very last argument I would have advanced in these circumstances. I am saying this with reference to a finding this week by the Supreme Court of the Transvaal. The Supreme Court is after all a totally independent body, Sir. The Supreme Court of the Transvaal found that the CP had libelled one of the hon members of this House in its official mouthpiece. In addition the Supreme Court ordered that the hon member be paid one of the highest sums of money in damages which has ever been awarded to a politician in a case of this kind in our history. I maintain that this is an unambiguous demonstration of the style of politics practised by the CP.

Order! The hon member must get back to discussing the rules.

As you wish, Mr Chairman.

Mr Chairman, I maintain that we are engaged in a very tragic debate here. We are dealing with one of the most important debates of the session. It concerns the rationalisation of the modus operandi of Parliament. It is aimed at modernising and streamlining Parliament, to ensure that less time will be wasted and to take many important steps to make this Parliament a better and more effective place for everyone. As a matter of fact a number of aspects of the new rules are not of a political nature at all, and have nothing to do with politics. They are simply to make the system more efficient.

While we are involved in this important debate, the Official Opposition replies with an absolutely sterile debate. Quite a number of speakers referred to the fact that there are few speakers on this side of the House. However, there are two very good reasons for this. The first reason is that no argument which that side of the House advanced was worth replying to. On the other hand these rules were discussed in depth where they should have been discussed, namely on the Committee on Standing Rules and Orders.

While you were sitting here in the House!

It was discussed in depth there, and there was an opportunity to discuss it in depth there. [Interjections.]

This debate also had its light-hearted elements. One cannot call them anything else. I should like to refer to the contributions of the hon members for Overvaal and Bethal. The hon member for Overvaal was extremely aggrieved about the rules, and he said he was opposed to the hon the State President’s statement that he was opposed to Black majority rule. He said the NP stood for naked racism.

It is the truth!

He says we stand for institutionalised racism. He accuses us of the most dreadful things.

It is the truth!

I want to tell those hon members that they must watch out. They are nursing a viper in their bosom. They have an arch-liberal in their midst. They must watch out. Unfortunately he is not the only one; the hon member for Bethal followed him. Yesterday he advanced the argument that he felt tremendously aggrieved that a joint meeting could take place even if only one group was present and not all the groups. He is therefore insisting that when a joint meeting takes place, all the groups must be present. [Interjections.] In other words he is insisting on integration. He is not satisfied with the present proposal. He says there must be integration. He is definitely a member of the ultra left-wing of that party behind the hon member for Overvaal. [Interjections.]

These are only two examples of the kind of argument which we had in this debate. I think it is a great pity, and I hope the voters outside take cognisance of how the CP argues on this matter in this extremely important debate. I maintain that this measure is a unique measure. For how long now have we yearned for the business of this Parliament to be rationalised? How many institutions have been rationalised in our country during the past few years? Very little has been done to rationalise the business of Parliament too. That is what we are doing by means of this proposal. We are adapting the rules to the needs of the times. We are creating a structure which is flexible and which offers many possibilities. We are also getting rid of the unrealistic rules.

I want to refer to a few very positive aspects contained in the rules. In the first place there are the extended public committees. As a result of this it will be possible to have debates in different places, not only on votes, but also on legislation. For example, legislation on three different aspects—justice, agriculture and environmental conservation—can be discussed simultaneously in different locales. I maintain that this will not only save a great deal of time, but that it will also afford an opportunity for more penetrating and serious debates on this matter.

The hon member for Sea Point objected to the fact that committees which discussed the votes of the provinces could sit in those provinces. This is a legislative institution. It is the highest institution which decides on the finances of those particular provinces, and now this institution has decided it is going to its people; it is going to sit in that province. It is going to hold a public meeting on these matters there.

What could be more desirable than to go to the people in this way? However, this is being attacked.

Another matter which is dealt with in these rules is the times of sitting. The proposals provide that in future only the starting times will be laid down, and not the adjournment times. In other words there will no longer be any obligation, as it has been interpreted in this House for so many years, to sit for the full period specified. In the past this lead to time being used extremely unproductively in this House. This change will be a tremendous improvement in this regard.

The fact of the matter simply is that the pressure on members of Parliament has increased tremendously during the past few years, and for that reason time must be used more productively in this House. This is yet another way in which this can be done, but that side of the House is not expressing any appreciation for this. I myself feel it is a pity that the Friday prior to the Easter Recess is still a sitting day in terms of the rules. We are talking about the increased pressure on members of Parliament, and we have a very large country. However, means of transport have improved, and this makes it possible for us, and we also have an obligation, to be in our constituencies more often. For that reason I want to express my disappointment that provision has not been made in these rules for there not to be a sitting on the Friday prior to the Easter Recess. I feel this is the least we can be given to enable us to cope with this increased pressure. [Interjections.] I personally feel that it should include Mondays too. [Interjections.]

Repeat that last sentence! [Interjections.]

Another positive matter which was touched on … [Interjections.] If hon members will just give me a chance, I shall touch on another matter they would like to hear.

We are excited, that’s all!

I am referring to the abolition of the quorum requirements in respect of debates. This is being done in the standing committees as well as the Houses. Our Parliament is probably the only Parliament in the Western World which has such a high requirement for a quorum when a House is sitting or during a debate. I was once in the US Senate when only two people were present. In the German Parliament, which probably has between 500 and 600 members, there were only between 15 and 20 members present when I was there. We must adjust to the requirements of the time, and in this way we are doing so.

Two other positive steps are the introduction of the permanent standing committee on privilege and the disciplinary committee for each House. As regards the introduction of the committee on privilege, it anticipates the finding of the joint committee appointed on this matter. There is no doubt in my mind that there is a need for a committee to deal with these matters.

Through the amendments before us today, we are without doubt improving this important institution. We are adapting it to the demands of the time and in this way making it a more effective institution. I also want to take this opportunity to thank Mr Speaker most sincerely for everything he has done to make this possible through the studies and through the research he undertook. I also believe a word of sincere thanks should be addressed to the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament, as well as to Mr De Kock.

The proposal that there should be joint debating is also nothing else but proof that the system is succeeding. It proves that this system has, in a very short period of time, built up sufficient confidence and maturity for joint debating to take place in future.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North made certain statements which one cannot allow to go unanswered. I must say that it is difficult to find something said by that hon member to which it is worthwhile to react.

He referred to the hon member for Bethal’s problem with Rule 18. The hon member for Bethal’s statement that the formulation of the Rule actually led to an absurdity is altogether logical. He added that the Rule had had to be formulated in such a way that it led to an absurdity because it had to eliminate problems which would arise when certain Houses did not want to attend a meeting and launched a boycott action. [Interjections.]

That was the basis of the argument, but now the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North says that through this the hon member for Bethal becomes a champion of integration. I would not have thought that a person versed in the law could argue in such a way. [Interjections.]

Our objection and opposition on this side of the House to the implementation of these Rules is based on principle and is fundamental to our philosophy of life.

In this regard I should like to quote what Prof A Murray said in his work on the House of Assembly. He said:

That is the reason why we are involved in this debate today and why the PFP also wants these Rules to take a specific course and assume a specific form so that they may satisfy their philosophy of life. For the same reason the Government formulated these Rules as an expression of its philosophy of life of one undivided South Africa with equal political rights for all and an attempted protection of minorities.

I want to tell hon members that I honestly have problems in finding the protection of minority rights in the Rules as they are currently formulated. I am saying this for no other reason than that I cannot see how the rights of minorities are being protected in these Rules. I am more inclined to see that the rights of a majority are being confirmed. [Interjections.] That is what I find in them. Our problems and struggle therefore arise from taking the Constitution as the basis of these particular Rules. This is of course at variance with our philosophy of life and that is why we are not merely wasting time. We are saying that they are fundamental to the entire system of government as we should like to see it and that is why we object to them.

The hon the Leader of the House—I say this to his credit—appreciated in a previous debate that there was a serious problem as regards the introduction of these Rules. By means of these Rules a method has been found to make joint debating possible. Nevertheless joint debating is in conflict with the undertakings and conceptions which were presented during the 1983 referendum.

During that referendum it was very emphatically claimed that no joint debating would take place here. That is how it was presented and I do not believe the hon the Leader of the House would deny this. The problem, however, is that the present Constitution by implication and interpretation does not in fact make provision for joint debating—that is as the Constitution stands now! Now the hon the Leader of the House says that this House gave its approval as early as 1986 to joint debating taking place, but he knows that that part was never presented to the people. The hon the Leader of the House knows this. Therefore they did not tell the people that a deficiency, a fundamental deficiency, existed.

Now the hon the Leader of the House says that in reality they obtained the voters’ approval for it during the 1987 general election. The hon the Leader of the House realised that he had a problem because a deficiency existed. Now I want to tell the hon the Leader of the House that he cannot ask for approval ex post facto; he obtained approval from the House unilaterally, without a mandate, and then proceeded to draw up these Rules in this way. He did not consult. He slipped in by the back door and I do not mean this in a bad sense because it is simply not possible to set aside the mandate obtained on a specific condition in 1983 by way of a subsequent unilateral action.

Yes, that is correct!

The Government may not do this. They think there may perhaps be an example of this. Perhaps there is an example and this example perhaps comes from 1977 when something similar happened. It was said in 1977, and the hon the Leader of the House did this himself—I think it was in his Bangmaakpraatjies No 5—that no member of another House would be able to hold a portfolio in the Cabinet.

Yes, that is correct!

The Cabinet would remain as it was.

The Cabinet would remain as it was!

Then the hon the Leader of the House said on a specific day in this House that, although the 1977 proposals were never embodied in legislation, a change took place on 12 April 1978. Once again, that would have been a unilateral change; a unilateral change which would not have been a valid change either. In their search for an answer, the Government then went to the people in 1983 and the people were told that they had already voted for this in 1977, as if they had always supported the proposal that members of the other Houses could hold portfolios in the Cabinet. This is a possible example.

Order! No, I do not think the hon member can discuss portfolios in the Cabinet now. That is not part of the rules.

I shall proceed to another subject, Sir.

I now want to discuss another aspect of this matter, namely that the hon the Leader of the House said on a previous occasion when this debate was being conducted that no change of principle had actually been introduced because we already had joint debating in the joint committees.

Yes, that is correct!

He is therefore saying there is nothing new in this. I now want to argue this briefly with him. Let us establish what he said. What was said when the proposals in regard to the 1983 Constitution were made? He will remember that he initially said—and this is correct—that no joint meetings would take place. In the information pamphlet “Grondwetlike Riglyne”, under the caption “Besprekings in die gesamentlike vaste komitees”, it was said: “Van die opposisiepartye word verwag om die Regering se voorstelle en aksies deur middel van debatvoering teen te staan.”

Ultimately a decision is taken by way of a vote. The result of this is a conflict style which must undoubtedly lead to large-scale conflict and discord in a multinational society. These guidelines were therefore characterised by various mechanisms by means of which conflict would be eliminated and consensus promoted among groups. It is said further: “Die komitees bied een van die geskikste geleenthede vir sodanige onderhandelinge omdat hulle ’n informele en private forum skep. Die onderskeie groepe word in staat gestel om oor ’n breër front op ’n persoonlike grondslag met mekaar in aanraking te kom en leen die komitees hulself ook beter tot ’n rasionele gesprek as wat ’n openbare forum dit doen.”

He was telling the general public that this was not joint debating. He quoted this to indicate that there was no joint debating. Throughout those guidelines he quoted this to indicate that there was no joint debating. Now he comes …

Now he says we voted for it!

Now he says it was included in the Constitution from the start.

It is a monstrosity!

Now he says it was there from the start. Surely this is simply untrue! I put it to him straight that in this particular case this is not an argument which can be used for this purpose because it would clash with everything he said previously.

The Government alleges that it acquired a mandate to amend these Rules because the people voted for this in principle in 1987. I say this is not true. Why not? It is quite simple. The Government cannot first make a law and then ask the people for ex post facto approval. Things simply do not work like that.

The Government contends that it obtained approval for this from the voters. I say this is not true. At no stage was this presented to the voters in this sense. The Government therefore has no basis for instituting it in this way.

The hon the Leader of the House contends on a similar basis that at a joint sitting we really would not have the courage to look other people squarely in the eye and to tell them exactly how we see the matter. He maintains that we will be rather embarrassed when we have to put our case. [Interjections.] That is what he said here by implication—in fact reasonably directly. I want to make it clear to the hon the Leader of the House now that we shall put our case fearlessly. We shall state our case honestly and directly. We shall not be embarrassed; neither shall we be an embarrassment to anyone else. He had better be careful, however, because he will certainly be embarrassed by some hon members of his own party.

Of course!

Yes, his own hon members will provide him with many problems. Permit me to mention a single example to him. The other day we were sitting in this House while the hon member for Turffontein was speaking. In one of his by now familiar efforts to humiliate a person in the worst possible way he told the hon member for Carletonville that the latter looked like Fiela’s brother. [Interjections.]

Order! A ruling was given by the Chair that that expression could not be used.

Mr Chairman, may I address you on this?

No, the hon member may not elaborate on it any further.

Sir, then I merely want to say that the hon member wanted to humiliate a person with that remark. [Interjections.] Hon members on the opposite side then had a good laugh about it. What is the basic intention of that remark? Its basic intention is to humiliate, and those hon members laugh about it.

Just let that situation arise in a joint debate!

Who started it?

Sir, I am telling you we shall put our case honestly and directly …

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether he is aware that it was in fact the hon member for Carletonville who referred to the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament as “Fiela se kind” in this House?

I am personally not aware of this, but for the purposes of the present discussion I accept what the hon member says. [Interjections.]

Order!

I accept what the hon member says. I have no problems with it. I am merely saying I am not personally aware of it, but I accept it. Then what is in the depths of the hon member for Turffontein’s heart also becomes apparent from that remark he made. That is the point at issue.

The hon the Leader of the House said that the only difference which existed in regard to debates would be that when we took our places in joint debates or in committees, it would take place in public, in the one case.

In this regard I want to tell the hon the Leader of the House that there are more differences than merely that we shall be sitting in public, but in a certain sense it is a good thing that we shall be sitting in public because when we sit on joint committees we, the opposition, sit there in a specific capacity.

There, when it comes to adopting a standpoint against the NP as far as Government policy is concerned, we find it meaningless to raise this at all in the course of a debate in such a committee because the final result of whatever happens in such a committee is determined solely by the majority party. Whatever we were to say about policy there would receive no attention whatsoever; it would be irrelevant to the debate because the only place it is possible for us to adopt a standpoint meaningfully against the Government is in this House when we enter into debate with the hon members of the NP.

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

Sir, I offered an opportunity for a question before. The hon the Chief Whip of Parliament must give me a chance to proceed now.

Sir, I want to put a very significant question to the hon member.

Sir, I am not afraid of the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament’s questions. Before I resume my seat, I shall be pleased to give him the opportunity of putting his question.

When we speak there, as I have said, the adoption of a standpoint by the CP, as well as that of any hon member of the other Opposition parties, is irrelevant in that sense of the word. This is certainly one great difference and I should like to point this out.

When we conduct joint debates, we shall have open adoption of standpoints in the presence of the hon members of the other Houses. This is something we try to avoid at all times in the joint committees because it is irrelevant.

Consequently we shall now adopt a standpoint in the hearing and in the presence of other parties. [Interjections.] The hon the Chief Whip of Parliament himself told us in this House on the previous occasion that he foresaw—I have his words in front of me and he will accept this—that there could be problems, conflict and confrontation at the start of joint debating.

The hon the Leader of the House similarly made a certain statement in this regard. I intended quoting it in another context but let me do it now. He said they had considered the possibility of simultaneous voting at a joint sitting and it was decided rather not to let it take place. The hon the Leader of the House said (Hansard: House of Assembly, 28 September 1987, col 6509): “ … it was decided that we would rather not include this in the rules.” I want to ask him what really happened so that he is now prepared to allow such voting. [Interjections.] He had better take us into his confidence and tell us.

We then return to the aspect of debating at such a joint sitting. I want to warn the hon the Leader of the House today that that potential for conflict, owing to the circumstances—we shall adopt a standpoint against the Government—will cause continual problems which is going to have a very adverse effect on debating per se.

I want to refer to another aspect. The hon member for Pietermaritzburg North made certain statements on the question of quorums. He said we were the only country which made use of quorums as such. I say that, even if we were the only House and the only parliament in the entire world which debated meaningfully, if that is the right thing, we must not permit ourselves to relinquish this because of them. The overall impression I have is that we are moving away from the value of debating with the institution of these new Rules. We shall have an emphasis on votes and voting will be the only point at issue.

I want to refer again to what the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North said in this regard. He found it advantageous that the Houses or extended committees should sit simultaneously on certain occasions, but I want to point out the enormously adverse effect which will result from that. We need not necessarily be divided into a specific study group or committee to have an interest in what happens in another committee as well. Simultaneous debating in various committees has the result that we shall not have the benefit of hearing the arguments in confirmation of specific standpoints. Once again this is a curtailment of democracy.

To us who sit here as representatives of a people it is important to be informed at all times or informed as far as possible as to what is happening in the politics of the day. This happens in specific spheres and, according to this division by which we shall now sit simultaneously in various places, we lose this one great advantage. We therefore request the Government again to reflect very carefully before it puts these Rules into operation in this way.

I want to return to the aspect of votes. Hon members know that Mr Speaker will permit members to vote jointly on occasion in those specific joint meetings, although it will be done separately by the various Houses as is the case in committees. If this is to happen, the CP says to hon members today that it will indicate exactly where and how democracy is in reality being violated by the Government’s tricameral system. I mean by this that the Coloureds have a certain number of voters whom they represent in this House. The Indians also have a number of voters whom they represent in this House. The House of Delegates sits there on an equal footing with the House of Assembly but, the moment they vote as a House, their voting power is increased in the proportion of one to four. Each of them therefore obtains the voting power of four in order to be equal to the House of Assembly. Consequently the following will happen numerically when hon members vote in this new House. We represent far more than 550 000 people. I believe the number is already much higher at this stage. Nevertheless our voting power is reduced to nothing in such voting. Yet the voters we represent, namely the Afrikaners and the Whites who support us, exceed the number of voters which those two Houses together represent. [Interjections.]

That is a specious argument!

Order!

If that is a specious argument, the hon member must show me whether he can improve upon it.

But we are voting like that in the standing committees now.

Yes, I tried to explain to hon members that they were voting like this in the standing committees at present. [Interjections.]

Order! There are too many members who are participating in this debate now. Only one person may speak at a time. The hon member for Ermelo may proceed.

That is the final result but hon members know very well that the only place where votes definitely count in the end is in the President’s Council.

But it is like that now too!

It is not like that now. Voting is done in that way in the standing committees but not in the Houses. In this House we vote against and in the presence of one another. [Interjections.]

Order! The debate cannot be allowed to continue in this vein. Only one member has the floor at the moment.

It is really very disturbing!

Order! The hon member for Overvaal need not comment on this. The hon member for Ermelo may proceed.

Mr Chairman, can the hon member tell us what the difference is between the three Houses which vote on the same legislation in their three respective Chambers under the current system and the three Houses which also vote each in its turn on the same legislation in the same locale? What is the difference in principle?

There is no difference as regards the effect. I have been speaking throughout on the method. I am not disputing the effect but the method of a joint vote in the new Chamber. We actually welcome this because in that way we shall be better able to indicate how unfair it is to us that the voting power of a specific House be increased against us. [Interjections.]

Order!

We shall take our seats in that new Chamber and see and discover there for the first time who the Official Opposition is and who is not. This will be revealed in that new Chamber. [Interjections.] We shall see there what priority is given to whom. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, may I put my question now before the hon member’s time expires?

Yes, certainly.

Mr Chairman, if it is the standpoint of the hon member and his party that the presence of Opposition members is irrelevant in the standing committee, does he want to imply by that that the House of Assembly component should consist only of members of the Government?

Oh, good heavens! [Interjections.]

No, Sir, we do not wish to imply that at all. All we are saying is that, regardless of the standpoint we would adopt there, it would be irrelevant because we are totally overwhelmed by numbers there. So what sense is there in it? What matters in those committees is merely which Houses agree. That is all. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is an unenviable task to speak after the hon member for Ermelo. The hon member for Ermelo dedicated the greater part of his half-hour speech to talking hon members on the opposite side into silence with well-considered and substantial arguments. [Interjections.]

Yes, now there are quite a few nervous laughs from the opposite side, Mr Chairman. [Interjections.] Nervous laughs, yes! Everyone who was here while the hon member for Ermelo was speaking, knows it is the truth. [Interjections.] Of course it would not have been an unenviable task to have spoken after the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North, because he sees it as modernisation, as progress in leaps and bounds, that these rules are being accepted. To him modernisation and progress lie in moving away from a situation in which a substantial number of hon members of this House, in terms of the specified quorum rule, are present at a debate, involved in a debate, at least take part in a debate and are aware of what is happening in a debate at a given moment, to a situation which he outlined in which, as he found it to be in America, only two people are present, or as in Germany, in which only about 15 or 20 people are present. That is, if I heard the hon member correctly.

If that is modernisation, if what is improvement, if that is progress, when we move away from this situation of lively debate in which a large number of hon members are involved, to a situation in which the public arrives in the public gallery and only finds two or 15 to 20 people participating, it is definitely a form of modernisation of which we definitely cannot declare ourselves to be in favour.

A very good point!

Mr Chairman, these new Rules are one big mistake. It is but another blunder in a series of many blunders by this Government since it accepted power sharing. Those of us who were present this afternoon when the hon member for Ermelo made his speech, saw what the true value of debate was, how frankly penetratingly and in a relatively compact situation an argument could be conducted, even, and perhaps especially, between people who differ with each other. They would have been witnesses to the value of such a debate, of its incisiveness, its keen edge and of the way it caused everyone who was present here to reflect.

In contrast to this the effect of these new rules is that opposition parties, and especially the Official Opposition, must be dwarfed. They must be concealed. The voice of the CP, because that is at present the Official Opposition, must not be heard too clearly and distinctly and sharply in a debate situation as happened here this afternoon. No, that voice is to be muffled.

The mighty television service, the newspapers, the radio and all the aids which the NP has at its disposal, do not satisfy the voracity of that party. The democracy should not work in that way. The CP must for heaven’s sake not convey its message to the voters so that it may be judged by the message of the party and by the true point of view of the party. No, it should be judged according to what its opponents, the governing party, tell the voters by way of television and radio which it controls, as well as the Press which it largely controls, who and what the CP is and what the CP policy is.

Debates may not be held.

The effect of these Rules is to deprive opposition parties and specifically the Official Opposition, in this case the CP, of certain established rights, which have been referred to repeatedly.

Existing rights which Whites have within this system are either being removed or undermined so that they are no longer recognisable as the rights which we have in the present dispensation. What became of all the honeyed words, all the promises, all the undertakings and all the assurances that established rights, specifically of the Whites, would not be affected by the process along the route we are now following and along which the NP is leading South Africa, and would be left untouched?

Is it not demonstrative that the hon Leader of the House and the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North seem almost powerless when they are trying to tell the House that they feel as fervently about the freedom of our people as we do? The hon member for Pietermaritzburg North says that the desire for freedom also runs through his veins. This is an apologetic stance, this is an admission that it can no longer be said with the same conviction as when we say it.

You are therefore a better Afrikaner than I am!

I notice that the hon the Leader of the House is moving closer to my level again. [Interjections.]

The hon Chief Whip of Parliament thinks that the exposure in the new joint debates will be a good thing for the CP. He utters a kind of afterthought and says he does not want confrontation between the CP and the other hon members who will be present in the joint sitting. He utters it as a kind of afterthought.

What about the possibility that it is important, for the sake of the White man’s self-respect and that which still mutually binds us amidst the acrimonious differences that we have, that—in a keen, incisive debate—we discuss and sort out our differences among ourselves until an opinion is formed which can then be communicated by the leadership element in our group to the leadership element of the other groups? What about the possibility that that consideration should have received far more attention than it did in fact receive from the majority party which finds these Rules acceptable. If one has a dispute in one’s own house, one does not call in the neighbours to try and settle one’s domestic problems. [Interjections.]

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

No, because that hon member has a reputation for formulating his questions in such a way that the last part of the sentence is mumbled so that I cannot hear the question properly and then it leads to a nonsensical question in any case. [Interjections.]

I would like to put on record that while I am advancing this argument which I have just started, the hon members on the other side are laughing about it. It is a mocking laugh; it is a laugh of derision; it mocks the sentiment which is expressed when one Afrikaner asks another Afrikaner whether he does not think it is better for us rather to sort out our own differences in our ranks than to do it in front of neighbouring peoples in our country. [Interjections.]

The fact that that mocking laugh resounds when that argument is advanced, confirms my suspicion. [Interjections.] My suspicion is that there are many hon members on that side of the House who cannot wait for joint debates, because what they are expecting in those joint debates is that other hon members of Parliament will be able to deride fellow Afrikaners and fellow Whites. I refer specifically to hon members of the other two Houses. [Interjections.] Have we not learned the lessons of history? Have we not in the past repeatedly seen our leaders rise in this House and warn against the dangers of dragging the politics of one people into the area of those of another, thereby turning the one into a political football for the other? Have we then forgotten all the long arguments and the very wise statements which were uttered here about the way in which leftist liberalists in South African politics had turned the Coloureds into a political football?

The NP cannot wait to hold these joint debates because they are expecting that they will be able to call in the Coloureds and the Indians to act as arbiters over the CP’s policy. [Interjections.]

That is right!

That is the point. [Interjections.] Just as the Government thought it wise, at a meeting which the hon the Leader of the House addressed in Randfontein during the by-elections, to bring in Black policemen to maintain order at a White political meeting … [Interjections.] This is a new trend in the NP, although it is not a new trend among the leftist liberalists of our country; it has been for centuries. It is that type of disposition, that approach, that malicious pleasure, that jeering and derisive laughter which was traditionally part of leftist liberal politics in South Africa.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I would like to know if it is permissible for the hon member to attribute such objection-able motives to us on this side of the House.

Of course! He is speaking the truth! [Interjections.]

Order! I am quite prepared to allow the hon member for Overvaal to give the ruling and waste the hon member for Potgietersrus’ time. The fact of the matter is that the hon member may continue.

Mr Chairman, it was not only I who said something.

Order! That may be. I also think the hon member for Potgietersrus should adhere more closely to the Standing Rules and Orders. The hon member may continue.

I do not know why I am always being singled out.

Mr Chairman, …

Order! Is the hon member for Overvaal implying that the Chair singles him out in particular?

Mr Chairman, it seems that way to me, because a number of people said things, and you singled me out.

Order! The hon member will withdraw that immediately and unconditionally.

What must I withdraw, Mr Chairman?

Order! The hon member will immediately withdraw his insinuations that the Chair singles him out in an improper way.

No, Mr Chairman, I did not say that in so many words.

Order! The hon member did however insinuate it.

No, Mr Chairman, I did not insinuate that.

Order! I was under the impression that the hon member had insinuated that.

I only said it appeared to be the case, and that is my belief.

Order! It may appear to the hon member to be whatever he likes, but he may not say so.

May I think it, Sir?

Order! The hon member may think whatever he likes, but he has to withdraw it anyway.

I withdraw it, Sir.

Order! The hon member for Potgietersrus may continue.

It is unavoidably an essential conclusion that must be drawn …

Order! The hon member must allow me a moment. I think I must say in all fairness to the hon member for Overvaal that this is the third time today that he has made references to the Chair—if I have counted correctly—and it is also the last time. Should it happen again I will ask him to withdraw from the Chamber. I am warning him now that under no circumstances will I again allow insinuations against the Chair. The hon member may continue.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I should like it placed on record that at no time did I cast any reflection on the Chair.

Order! I accept the hon member’s assurance. The hon member for Potgietersrus may continue.

An unavoidable conclusion that must of necessity be drawn from the governing party’s obsession to force us against our will into joint debates with people of colour on sensitive political issues, is that the party hopes that the CP will be mocked by other hon members of Parliament who are not White. In all humility I say that it is just as dangerous a game as the leftist liberal politics which we have experienced through the years in this country, and that it bodes ill for us and our interrelations in the midst of differences.

The ruling party is playing the role of the old UP and the present PFP by claiming for itself the monopoly of insight and interpretation of the ideals of Blacks, Coloureds and Indians. To corroborate my point of view, I will refer to what the hon the Leader of the House said on 28 September 1987 with reference to the CP (Hansard: Assembly, 1987, col 6508):

That testifies to a deep-seated desire for Coloureds and Indians to jeer at hon members of the CP whenever they state their viewpoints. Other hon members of Parliament who are not White are to be called in to play umpire in a political debate or a test of strength between fellow Afrikaners and fellow Whites in our fatherland. [Interjections.] That is a spiteful, superior attitude. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Kimberley South, who is the Chief Whip of the NP, placed emphasis in his speech this afternoon on the terrible fear which the CP is supposed to have of joint debates in the new Chamber. The hon member’s face distorted as he attempted to illustrate that terrible fear.

You have a sick mind!

Order! The hon member for Kimberley South may not say that another hon member has a sick mind. The hon member must withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Mr Chairman.

Order! The hon member must withdraw it unconditionally.

I withdraw it unconditionally, Mr Chairman, but sick he is, sick.

Order! The hon member for Potgietersrus may continue. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member did not withdraw it unconditionally as he was asked to do. He said “but sick he is, sick”. After you had asked him to withdraw it unconditionally he did in fact do so, but he said “but sick he is, sick”.

Order! I have a problem because some time has elapsed, but just to make dead certain that the hon member for Brakpan is correct, the hon member for Kimberley South must simply say that he unconditionally withdraws the remark that the hon member has a sick mind.

Mr Chairman, I have said that. I have said that I unconditionally withdraw the remark that he has a sick mind.

Thank you very much. The hon member for Potgietersrus may continue.

But he is sick! [Interjections.]

You are trifling with the Chair.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I want to submit to you that the hon member for Kimberley South is trifling with the Chair. After he had resumed his seat he said: "But he is sick!”. The whole tone of his withdrawal was aimed at still getting in a blow at the hon member for Potgietersrus.

Order! The hon member for Brakpan must help me. Hon members are certainly not lacking in resourcefulness. I think I should be taking things a little too far if I were to rule that it were unparliamentary to say that an hon member is sick.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I think it is unparliamentary in the context in which he had just made an assertion that the hon member for Potgietersrus had a sick mind. He resumed his seat and was asked to withdraw the statement unconditionally, but in the same breath he said: “But he is sick".

Order! I must also be consistent. All I can say on this point is that I think the hon member should make fewer interjections.

Keppies, you are sick from head to toe! [Interjections.]

*Mr D S PIENAAR Mr Chairman, despite all these expectations which the NP once again has regarding what will happen to the fellow Whites and fellow Afrikaners in the CP in the new Chamber, I have the confidence to say, and in this regard I associate myself with the hon member for Ermelo, that we have no fear of any kind with regard to accepting that exposure in debate.

Then why are you opposed to it?

On the contrary, Sir … I shall come to that and if that hon member would give his brain enough air to listen to what I am saying, he would already be able to begin to figure out the answer. [Interjections.]

There is only air!

On the contrary we have the confidence to state and to defend our policy on any platform in the world because our policy is morally and ethically justifiable and because our policy was not thought out in an ivory tower and did not have to come to us across the sea á la Huntington or á la Lijphart, but it is a product of this country and of these people, and it has been tried and weighed in practice and not found wanting to be wanting. [Interjections.] We have the confidence to state our case on any platform in the world—and consequently here as well, and in the large Chamber.

However, we say that forcing us together in one assembly chamber will not nurture good relations. It will create explosive situations. It has a potential of conflict which could have been avoided. Over the years we have had dialogue between the various population groups without needing large chambers in which joint debates had to take place. As a consequence of the policy of partition four peoples have already voluntarily trod the path of independence without large chambers and compulsory joint debates among the various members of Parliament representing numerically superior races and peoples. Sir, the only healthy basis for those good relations which must be nurtured and maintained, is the separation of political power as well as territorial separation. We are confident of our case and we shall continue to state our case with that same honest consistency which was so typical of the implementors and propagators of a policy of separate development.

This afternoon the hon the Chief Whip of the NP also used words to the effect that he understood the CP, like the ANC, would make use of every opportunity to topple the Government and to sabotage the tricameral system.

Hear, hear!

This was yet another attempt by the hon the Chief Whip of the NP, due to a lack of valid arguments, to associate the ANC with the CP, but is it not ironic, Sir, that it is that party that adopts the same point of departure and which avails itself of the same terminology of the ANC?

I was simply quoting the hon member for Overvaal!

When the NP says that it believes in one nation and one undivided South Africa, with equal citizenship rights and universal franchise for every inhabitant of the country, regardless of race, colour, creed, sex or national affiliation, then it is speaking the language of the Freedom Charter!

Order! The hon member must now come back to the Standing Rules and Orders. There is very little time left. [Interjections.]

As the Chair pleases, Sir. Mr Chairman, the hon the Chief Whip of the NP is attempting to associate the CP with the ANC, but it is the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning who draws up the lists of concessions the NP has made over the past few years …

The major concession!

… and everyone of those concessions that was made represented a concession to the demands that were made by the spokesmen of the UDF and those under their influence. Then this is presented as progress.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: It would appear to me that the hon member has not yet come to the Standing Rules and Orders.

But he thinks the Freedom Charter is the Standing Rules and Orders!

Order! The hon member has very little time left. He may proceed. [Interjections.] However, the time has arrived for the House to adjourn.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Third Reading

Mr Chairman, I move subject to Standing Order No 52:

Agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr Chairman, before we proceed with the debate, for the information of hon members I just want to make a few remarks which may perhaps be of interest to them.

Firstly it has come to my attention that there is a great deal of confusion about the question of the yellow line on tarred roads and about whether one is allowed to drive on that portion of the road or not. There has been a great deal of correspondence about this in the newspapers, and I have therefore thought fit to explain the matter. Provided that a driver has a good view of the road ahead, he can use the area within the yellow line to allow other traffic to pass on his right. I think that is a custom that should be encouraged. I shall also ensure that there is proper co-ordination of this aspect throughout the country and, if necessary, amendments will be introduced. Hon members must not pass on the left, but on the right.

We must go right, not left.

No, left is dangerous.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister whether drivers will not actually expect one to drive inside the yellow line? Certain of our areas are densely populated areas. There are always pedestrians, cyclists and animals in the area inside that yellow line. I wonder whether it would be incumbent on one to use this area of the road at night.

Sir, hon members must not confuse this with streets in towns. I am talking about arterial roads. What I am saying is that drivers who want to make use of the area within the yellow line must ensure that they have a clear view of the road ahead.

Mr Chairman, while I was in Johannesburg, I noticed that certain roads have a zigzag broken line on the side or in the centre of the road surface. Could the hon the Minister tell the House what those lines are for? I came across it for the first time in Empire Road in Johannesburg.

I must admit that I do not know anything about this particular aspect. I will, however, look into the matter and report back to the hon member.

*I now want to refer to economic transport indicators. The use of indicators to predict or monitor trends in the economy is nothing new. Hon members are all familiar with the consumer price index, the gold index or the industrial price index which are presented on television virtually every evening. In the transport industry, with its multi-disciplinary character, for some time now a need has been felt for an indicator which could more accurately monitor trends in the industry and could also be used to predict such trends. The Department of Transport therefore began to develop a national transport index—hereafter briefly referred to as the NTI—which could serve as an indicator of the overall transport activity in the Republic. Activity levels in the transport sector will be monitored on the basis of kilometres travelled and passengers and goods transported.

What is more, the relationship to general economic trends will also be reflected in the NTI. The NTI, which consists of a passenger transport index and a goods transport index, is a very handy planning mechanism for both the public and private sectors.

Firstly the Department of Transport can use the NTI to monitor its policy and legislation, and secondly the NTI will enable the department to time and co-ordinate its planning and provision of a transport system in the Republic. From the private sector’s point of view, its chief use would be to give the private sector an opportunity to use the index to determine the demand component of the market structure and to adjust its supply accordingly.

Although the NTI still needs considerable refinement before it is as sophisticated and authoritative as the consumer price index, for example, it is already a handy planning mechanism. The present upswing in the South African economy is also clearly reflected in the NTI.

The last point I want to touch upon concerns the West Coast road, the road about which so much has been written for so many years now. A great many appeals have been lodged about this road, and a certain amount of attention has been given to these appeals. I should just like to convey certain information, for hon members’ attention, in connection with this road which is in the news from time to time. The ideal would be to build a road from Cape Town to the Orange River mouth, all along the coast, but at present this is not economically viable. [Interjections.] The tarring of the road between Alexander Bay and Port Nolloth has already been announced, as hon members know. [Interjections.] I am now in a position to make a further announcement. We shall be proceeding with the construction of the West Coast road from Velddrif to Doringbaai over Lamberts Bay. [Interjections.] From Lamberts Bay the proposed road will connect up with the existing N7 route just south of the Olifants River bridge, the most economic link-up in terms of construction costs and traffic density.

The whole matter is in the planning stage at present, and it is envisaged that construction will commence by the early part of 1990. The road will be under construction for a period of approximately four years at an estimated cost of approximately R90 million. [Interjections.] Apart from other benefits, the construction of the road will open up a large portion of our country’s coastline for the economic development of the area and the promotion of local and overseas tourism. It should also be mentioned that it will be a good alternative connecting link between the Witwatersrand and Cape Town via Upington.

Order! When I call for order I expect certain hon members to respond. I am making a last appeal to the hon members at the back of the Chamber to come to order. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Sir, I said that it should also be mentioned that this would be a good alternative road link between the Witwatersrand and Cape Town via Upington, with the concomitant development of that area. It will also shorten the travelling time and slightly reduce the distance between Cape Town and the North-Western Cape.

Mr Chairman, firstly I want to welcome the construction of the West Coast road. It means a great deal to me and to others. It will mean a great deal to the tourist industry, and it is also a significant factor in the economic sphere. It cancels out a great deal of what I wanted to tell the hon the Minister today.

We also welcome the hon the Minister’s clarification about the yellow line on tarred roads. This has greatly clarified the situation for motorists.

I should like to ask whether the hon the Minister can tell us what role local authorities will play in the NTI. We are not completely certain about that.

By the way, Mr Chairman, I request the privilege of the half-hour. [Interjections.]

I regard this debate as one of the most important debates, particularly with regard to the transport of goods and passengers and transport by road, water and air. Today we in South Africa can definitely refer with pride to our various transport networks and also to our reasonably good infrastructure. South Africa’s transport network compares very favourably with that of other parts of the world, and in some respects we are probably even ahead of certain Western countries. A few of my colleagues, on recent visits abroad, made use of four overseas airlines, the largest being Pan Am. According to them, however, they were greatly relieved, eventually, to be able to fly SAA again, because the aircraft of the other airlines were frequently dirty. The service was also poor and the crew very unfriendly. This indicates that in many respects SAA’s service is better than that of other foreign airlines.

One of the highlights of this year’s transport calendar is definitely the Huguenot tunnel in the Du Toitskloof pass which was recently opened by the hon the State President. The hon the Minister and his department can certainly be justly proud of achievements such as this.

Sir, since the debate has already been conducted in the other two Houses, and important matters have been raised there, today I want to focus my attention on other aspects which my colleagues and I will discuss in depth. As far as personnel are concerned, I should like to know from the hon the Minister why 500 workers out of a total of 684 have resigned from the department. That is a definite cause for concern. Our personnel are one of our most important assets, but it seems as if too little attention is being paid to them. I want to recommend to the hon the Minister that he investigate the matter. In regard to aspects such as the functional, administrative and formal training of our personnel, it seems as if attention is only being paid to the Whites. If I am wrong, I would appreciate it if the hon the Minister would correct me. As far as formal training is concerned, in the 1987-88 financial year a total of 72 technikon students continued with their studies, with State assistance, on a full-time or part-time basis. A further 29 students received State assistance for their studies at various universities. My question in this regard is: How many students of colour were there in the two groups? My request is that similar training should also be made available for our people in relevant fields of study. The own affairs departments of the Administration: House of Representatives do not provide bursaries or State finance for students to study in all fields, as is the case in general affairs departments. Here I have in mind, for example, professions such as engineering, the legal profession, etc. My recommendation is that the hon the Minister, in co-operation with our hon the Minister of Education and Culture, should attempt to recruit future students at our schools. This would mean that together we could contribute towards building a new and better South Africa, something which is very necessary at this stage.

Another aspect to which I should like to refer is that of the accommodation for Government vehicles in Cape Town. In the past the Department of Transport itself has acknowledged that the existing buildings are completely inadequate. It is therefore extremely difficult for the relevant personnel to furnish a good-quality service. I am convinced that if the hon the Minister were to look into the problems, the department would be able to cut down on a great deal of the unnecessary costs in the long term. This would also result in the personnel becoming more cost-orientated, because poor working conditions lead to poor workmanship, etc.

I now want to refer to the question of transportation by sea. Looking at the number of competency or proficiency certificates issued at various categories, I wonder whether it is necessary to consider the recruitment of or applications made by foreign citizens with certificates from overseas. We already have a high rate of unemployment and should first make use of the services of citizens of this country.

I should like to refer to the department’s statistics concerning shipping accidents. During the past year registered South African ships were involved in 37 reported accidents. In six cases foreign ships were involved in the accidents. Fifteen people lost their lives in those accidents. Twelve people died while fishing operations were in progress. There were four cases of ships that sank, with two people losing their lives. There were also six cases of fires on board ship; one person died. Those were only the reported cases. The hon the Minister will definitely have to ensure that there is better control of equipment on board ship and that ships’ personnel are better trained. In this regard I am thinking in particular of the wealthy fishing companies, which spend far too little time and money on training and equipment. They are only concerned about profits.

In support of the above-mentioned facts, I should like to refer to two cases in which marine hearings were convened in Cape Town to investigate the following matters: Firstly the loss at sea of a crew member of the fishing-boat, Harvest Orion, on 28 June 1986, and secondly the running aground of the fishing-craft, Maranata, on 5 September. Sir, a crew member of the Harvest Orion who, during fishing operations, had to set out in a rubber dinghy to retrieve a part of the catch which had been lost, disappeared, dinghy and all. He was never found. He had, however, informed the ship by hand signals that his engine had stalled. The court found that the master of the Harvest Orion, a Spanish citizen, was guilty of gross negligence in that he—I should like to quote:

1. 1) homself nie daarvan vergewis het dat die voorgeskrewe standaardreddingsuitrusting aan boord van die bootjie was nie;
2. 2) nie seker gemaak het dat die bemanningslid ’n reddingsbaadjie gedra het nie;
3. 3) nie seker gemaak het dat iemand voortdurend noukeurig op die uitkyk was na die oorledene nie;
4. 4) en ook nagelaat het om tot die oorledene se redding te kom nadat hy uit die gesigsveld verdwyn het;
5. 5) sy verantwoordelikheid vir die veiligheid van sy bemanning ontduik het, en die gesagvoerder van ’n ander skip gevra het om die bemanningslid op te pik.

No steps were taken against him. however, because he was a foreigner and because a South African court was not competent to suspend or revoke such a person’s certificate of competency.

The fishing-boat, Maranata, ran aground on a reef and was completely wrecked in a matter of moments. The court found that the action taken by the captain, or his failure to take action, had caused the accident or was a contributing factor in the sense that—

1. 1) ’n ongekwalifiseerde persoon op wag geplaas en horn beheer oor die vaartuig laat voer het;
2. 2) die vaartuig op ’n koers geplaas het wat te na aan die land was.

The court also found that the action taken by the ship’s engineer, who was acting second in command, or his failure to take action, had contributed to the accident in that he had temporarily entrusted the control of the ship to a deck hand, and that even after he had found that the deck hand could not steer the ship properly, he had done nothing about it. He had also neglected to inform the captain of the position. Nor had the deck hand kept a proper lookout. The captain’s certificate of competency for ships of up to 100 gross tons was suspended for three months.

This is one of the reasons why I am requesting that we make use of local inhabitants. In his speech the hon the Minister of Finance said that levies on heavy-duty vehicles would mean an amount of R200 million for the State in the 1988-89 financial year. This conflicts with what is stated in the White Paper on Transport, if my calculations are correct, and I should like to motivate this. This amount does not make provision for the R550 million budgeted for roads. It is not sufficient for the costs relating to the overall infrastructure for 1985-86. This brings me to the conclusion, however, that revenue from toll roads will be used to finance the costs involved in the maintenance and the administration of the present infrastructure.

I am glad that the road fund’s capital is being left intact, now that the Government has decided to stop the road fund levy and resort to taxation, acknowledging, too, that the road fund levy was a consumer levy. I should, however, like more clarity from the hon the Minister about whether the road fund levy is going to form part of the general fuel levy or whether it is also, as in the case of other taxes, going to be paid into the Treasury. The new tax imposed on heavy-duty vehicles gives a degree of recognition to the fact that heavy-duty vehicles do greater damage to road surfaces, and possibly this will also balance the scales in the competition between rail transport, road transport and heavy-duty transport. The fact of the matter, however, is that in the past the Government has made some mistakes, for example in not keeping pace with increasing road transport. This tax will now cause an increase in the inflation rate, and this will lead to a chain reaction as far as tariffs are concerned.

I want to put a few questions to the hon the Minister in connection with toll roads. Toll roads are being privatised, but will there always be roads which are kept in good repair and for which road-users will not have to pay toll-fees? In this connection I am referring to local road-users. If that is not the case, these people will have to pay more than their rightful share.

The other matter I want to raise concerns the fact that one comes to the logical conclusion that the national road fund levy on petrol and diesel will, at a later stage, have to be reduced drastically if it is Government policy to reduce the State’s involvement in road construction and road maintenance. Another guarantee that the hon the Minister must give us is that private consortiums will not be permitted to levy tariffs as the mood takes them. I can see that toll roads have a part to play, but a joint effort should be made, in conjunction with the private sector, to examine priorities, standards, the amount of the fuel levy and also how the national road fund should be spent.

I am glad to see that organisations such as Sabta are coming forward to play a part or voice their opinions within established structures of authority. I also want to ask them, however, to put their affairs in order and not to allow any incompetent driver or unroadworthy vehicle on the road. There are many complaints by their own members about the need for their organisation to exercise better control in the future. I do not, however, want to elaborate on that.

I want to conclude by reminding the hon the Minister of what is stated in Chapter 7 of the White Paper on Privatisation and Deregulation, on page 15:

My sixth sense warns me that the people with the money, in this case the White people, are going to derive all the benefit from this. I make a fond request that people of colour be involved too, even if only in the sense that the State facilitates the granting of loans to our people.

Mr Chairman, I want to start off by saying that I support deregulation and privatisation, but I have problems with the way in which it is being implemented. I have many problems and I hope the hon the Minister is going to reply to my questions and not duck and dive to evade the issue as he did the other day when a question was asked in the House of Delegates about a toll road between Vereeniging and Vanderbijlpark on the Ml to Johannesburg. This toll road affects Ennerdale, an area in my constituency.

Ennerdale is a victim of the vicious Group Areas Act. Ennerdale people were pushed out of the centre of Johannesburg and people from the townships near Johannesburg were forced to go and live in Ennerdale in terms of the Group Areas Act—an Act that cannot be accepted by any of our people here. When the then Department of Community Development was trying to get people to go and live in Ennerdale, one of the important points on the pamphlets they distributed in the area was that there would be an easier and much faster road to Johannesburg where 99,9% of the people worked. The road was built and is known as the Ml concrete highway. [Interjections.]

Now the department of the hon the Minister, without consulting anybody living in those areas, has decided that a toll gate must be put up at the entrance and exit of the concrete highway to Ennerdale. I spent a Friday afternoon as well as the whole of Saturday and Sunday counting the number of people travelling on that highway. Of the people travelling on that highway 80% are from the so-called Coloured group and the other 20% are Indians. Because of the Group Areas Act—this is not our own doing; we did not go to live there because we wanted to, but because we were forced to go there—we have to pay to use a road which was promised to our people of Ennerdale.

Three days before the agreement was signed by the Department of Transport and the private company which will man the toll gate, I phoned the Director-General of the department to object. I told him we could not accept it. Without even listening to us properly or trying to find a solution, he went to sign the agreement that Friday morning. He did not even worry about what would happen afterwards. I think it is about time that the hon the Minister and his department stopped using their iron-fist tactics on the so-called non-White groups.

My recommendation to the hon the Minister is either to move that toll gate 500m further south or to extend the on- and off-ramp by 500 m so that the people of Ennerdale will not be affected. We cannot accept the private company’s suggestion that the people of Ennerdale can pay a reduced tariff. There must be no tariff at all. Moreover, we cannot accept their argument that the people of Ennerdale would work at the toll gate. One cannot have more than four gates at the toll gate, so 16 people at most would be able to work there. That means that 45 000 people must suffer because of 16 people getting work. I am saying 45 000 because I am only talking about Ennerdale. I am not even looking at Lenasia South. Lenasia South, I am sure, has 45 000 too. Those people have to suffer in order to provide work for 16 people.

The other reason given as to why the toll gate should stay is the availability of the R29 route and the golden highway. Sir, that R29 or golden highway is known to our people as a death trap. Thousands of accidents take place on that road because it was badly planned, and we cannot use that road because it is being overutilised already. Because the hon the Minister is involved in the Group Areas Act he has to see to it that that toll road is not proceeded with. If the hon the Minister wants trouble, he must say so. [Interjections.] Then we will have action and not merely talk. I state here and now that the day that toll road opens, I will be the first one to go and ride down that gate. I will do so because of the attitude of the hon the Minister and his department. They do not care who lives there, what the position is or why the people are living there. All they are interested in is finance, “finish and klaar”! They are only interested in where the next cent is coming from. I can guarantee you, Sir, that within a year of the opening of that toll road the fee will be raised from R4 to R8 per car per journey.

The people of Ennerdale are already overtaxed as far as transport is concerned. Transport is the most expensive item to the people of Ennerdale. That route is being used by the buses, the taxis and by private cars. So the bus fares and the taxi fares will have to go up. The cost of deliveries of articles bought daily at shops will have to go up as well. This is all the result of the type of planning which the department has done.

Replace the director.

Sir, there was an interjection here, “vervang die direkteur”.

*I think we should replace the Director-General, because he simply does not care. I have contacted him many times, but he simply does not care. I have spoken to him, but he has referred me to the private company that is erecting the toll gate. The company is not erecting the toll gate because it wants to, however, but because the department instructed it to do so. This was planned by the department and not by the company.

†Therefore, the Director-General must not refer us back to the private contractor. He, together with the hon the Minister, must see to it that the toll road does not affect the Lenasia/Ennerdale/Grassmere area adversely. Not one of the people of that area must pay a toll.

I am not going to accept the hon the Minister’s reply. I know he is going to tell me about the golden highway and the R29 but that is not acceptable. Nowhere in a White area would the hon the Minister do such a thing. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister will not put up a toll gate which will affect the White community. [Interjections.] He will not do so, because it is his community and he has to look after them. He has to look after them because one day he may need an extra vote. However, when it comes to other race groups the hon the Minister does not give a damn. [Interjections.]

*He simply does it. He does as he likes.

Order! It is unparliamentary to use that expression. The hon member must withdraw it.

Sir, I withdraw the words “not a damn”. [Interjections.]

†During lunch time we discussed our toll road system and it came up that in the House of Assembly the hon member for South Coast recommended the other day that the department should look into the possibility of turning the South Coast freeway to the casino into a toll road. I want to say to the hon the Minister that he should forget about it before even investigating the possibility. Once again it will affect the people in that area adversely. There is no suitable alternative route. It is no use just having an alternative route; it has to be a suitable alternative route. We must not create toll roads just for the sake of putting them there. I hope the hon the Minister will assure me that a toll gate will not be put up in the Ennerdale area.

Sir, I now want to turn to the question of the taxis. Although I support the taxi industry, I am afraid we shall definitely have to look at the safety of the passengers in those taxi accidents. There have been far too many accidents on the road between Pietersburg and Pretoria, for instance, and taxis were involved in 90% of the accidents. We shall definitely have to consider methods of controlling those taxis.

Order! The hon member’s time has expired.

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

Order! The hon member for Klipspruit West may proceed.

I thank the hon member. Sir. One of the problems that causes so many of those accidents is the overloading. Those taxis are definitely overloaded. Yet one finds that the traffic inspectors who are supposed to be maintaining law and order amongst the taxis are doing so in the townships where the problem does not occur. If one were to look at the accident rate in the townships, one would see that it is very low. On the “long road”—as the taxi drivers refer to it—the accident rate is higher. When, however, one asks the traffic department to check up on the taxis, the first thing they go and do is victimise the local taxi driver. They are fond of doing that. The moment a complaint is lodged, the first thing the traffic department does is victimise the local taxi drivers. They will stop the same taxi four times on one journey and give the driver a ticket for the same thing each time, just because some noise has been made about the taxis. I am not saying that we should ignore the local taxis, but I do want to say that the taxis that need looking at are the “long distance” taxis. They are invariably overloaded, and the speed at which those taxi drivers drive is unreal. One of the hon members here in the Committee told me the other day that he was driving at 170 km/h—which is not permissible on the road—and a taxi, a fully-loaded taxi, a taxi with 23 people in it, passed him! He hardly even saw it, he said. You can imagine then, Sir, at what speed that taxi was travelling, and the danger to those people in that taxi. The hon the Minister definitely has to look at some method of curbing the number of accidents involving taxis.

Even when it comes to the deregulation and privatisation of the taxi industry, the hon the Minister has to be very careful how he implements that. He should see to it that the people involved—in this case it is Sabta—are kept fully informed. They must be part of the whole changeover. One need only look at the amount of money the taxi people, Sabta, spend on their business per annum. The taxi association uses 800 million litres of fuel per year, and that is only the taxis registered with Sabta! What about the unregistered taxis? The Minister should actually double the figures I am mentioning here. The registered taxis use 3,6 million litres of oil, one million oil filters and 780 000 tyres per annum. That involves a lot of money, Sir, so we cannot simply decide overnight that taxi licences should be freely accessible to all, that taxi licences can be bought over the counter like a loaf of bread. These people have put a lot into their taxis. They are spending thousands of rand on taxis. The quality of the taxis in Johannesburg, for example, is of the best quality in South Africa, in my opinion. About 90% of those taxis are brand-new taxis, and those people maintain their taxis well. They keep them in as good a condition as possible, because they are harassed daily by traffic inspectors.

The hon the Minister should make sure, therefore, that the Government does not simply come along one day and say that the taxi industry has been deregulated and that taxi licences are freely accessible to everyone. If that happens, the White man is going to benefit again, because the first people to benefit will be the bus companies. The bus companies are supposed to be having declining profits now. It is being said that they do not have sufficient passengers any longer because of the taxis. If that is the case, I find it strange that there has been an increase of R115 million in subsidies to the bus operators.

Yet, when one looks at the bus companies, especially those in the Johannesburg area like the Putco Bus Company, one notices that the number of services has dropped. I am sure the same thing has happened in the Cape with City Tramways. Yet there has been an increase in the subsidies. The hon the Minister must tell us how this increase has come about. When one looks at the number of people who are using buses, one notices that the buses are empty. Something is wrong somewhere and people are claiming for tickets that had not been bought.

The taxi is loading most of the passengers. The number of passengers loaded by Putco in the peak hours is 106 000. Off the peak hours it loads 32 000 passengers. Compare this with the number of passengers who are making use of taxi services during the peak hours. This amounts to 55 000 and 72 000 off peak hours. The taxis are carrying a lot of passengers. I am sure the number of passengers on the buses is not correct either. The hon the Minister must ensure that he does not deregulate the taxi industry only because of the recommendations contained in the White Paper. All the taxi associations—Sabta and others—must be part of the change.

Mr Chairman, with reference to the speeches of my colleagues, I am going to focus my attention on security aspects. Firstly I want to compliment the hon the Minister and his department on the security measures adopted at the Du Toitskloof tunnel. I am impressed. I hope that this will form the basis of further development in the future. We were given a demonstration of how quickly a fire could be brought under control if it were to break out. That is of cardinal importance. Hon members know that one burning vehicle in such a tunnel could set quite a few other vehicles alight.

I now want to quote a few figures from the annual report of the NRSC. The figures represent the collisions and casualties involving motor vehicles from 1983 to 1987. In 1987 there were 384 892 collisions in South Africa. There were 117 433 casualties with a death toll of 9 927. The figure for serious injuries totalled 29 153, and that for slight injuries 78 353, with 642 299 vehicles being involved. We accept the fact that there was an increase in the number of vehicles which were sold and which were making use of our roads.

At the bottom of page 5 of the report, under fatalities from 1970 to 1986, we find the following. The fatality rate, as illustrated in graph 1, indicates the number of deaths per 100 million kilometres travelled. Curiously enough there was a decrease. I was very concerned, however, during the Easter weekend which extended from 31 March to 6 April. The weekend was one day longer than it would normally have been owing to the holiday on 6 April. Over that weekend 223 people died on our roads. The death toll on Transvaal roads was 73, while 71 people died in the Cape, 43 in Natal and 36 in the OFS. I know that the increase in the Cape death toll was the result of the bus accident at Calitzdorp in which 24 people lost their lives. If one analyses that figure, one finds that 164 men died in the accidents. They are people who furnished a certain service to South Africa, and today they are no longer with us. Forty of the victims were women and 19 were children. There were 602 people who were seriously injured. If one analyses the figures further, one finds that 43 Whites, 47 Coloureds, 120 Blacks and 13 Asians died in road accidents. I want to go further.

What gives me cause for concern is that there were 165 collisions in a period of seven days. It is also clear that the majority of accidents took place between 20h00 and 24h00. Many motorists still do not heed the advice of the NRSC about undertaking shorter trips. That is a very important point. If I am travelling from Bloemfontein to Cape Town, for example, I never travel further than 300 kilometres at a stretch. I pull off the road three or four times to relax or to take a short rest. It is clear that many motorists in South Africa ignore the advice of the NRSC and other experts. It is also clear from the report that many of the motorists who were involved in accidents were tired and that visibility was frequently very poor. It is also important to note that many of the motorists maintained a speed completely unsuited to certain road conditions. Many motorists, for example, cannot control their vehicles on wet roads. At the same time I want to take off my hat to the drivers of heavy vehicles, because it is clear that they improve their driving skills from one year to the next. Is the reason for that possibly the fact that the large vehicles are so terribly expensive, because some of those vehicles cost more than R200 000 each? I want to ask the owners of these companies to encourage their drivers to undergo further training.

I also want to refer to another point. The total cost involved in the loss of life, vehicles, insurance pay-outs, including funeral expenses, medical costs, intensive care, the loss in man-hours, damage to telephone poles, and power lines damaged in accidents, runs to approximately R41,85 million. That is a tremendous sum of money.

During the recent Easter weekend we had some of the heaviest traffic yet encountered on our roads, and that is where the problem lies. We must place more emphasis on the training of all motor-vehicle drivers. People must be made aware of road safety. According to the report many high schools are involved in road safety programmes in which young people are taught driving skills to enable them to handle a vehicle even at an early age. I should like to know from the hon the Minister how many of the projects are being implemented in our schools.

According to the latest fatality rates, the major problem lies with the Coloured and Black drivers. A definite effort must be made to improve the training of our Coloured and Black drivers. We shall always have a pedestrian problem too, because the driver who drives his car to the city parks that car and then walks some distance. In that connection we shall definitely have to re-examine the proposals of the NRSC. The behaviour of pedestrians in South Africa is a major problem. According to the NRSC report—I do not agree with it completely—South Africans lose their temper more easily, but I do not know whether that is the real problem. I think it should all be a concerted effort. I want to congratulate the hon the Minister on their Airwolf promotion, but unfortunately only Whites have been used in the film. That is why our Coloured and Black people always think road safety is a White affair. From the figures it is clear, however, that road safety is a common problem, and while attention is focused only on the Whites, and our Coloured and Black people are neglected, the problem will never be solved. Road safety standards amongst the Whites are continually being increased, while our people continue to lag behind. When accidents occur, however, it is not only Coloureds who are involved. A concerted effort will definitely have to be made when tackling the problem. I know that attention is being given to the matter, but we can never say that this is enough. I am aware of the fact that there are several public relations officers of the various Coloured groups who are concentrating on their own communities, but I nevertheless think that the hon the Minister will have to give more attention to this matter.

I should like to quote from the NRSC’s annual report. Referring to page 8, let me quote the following:

1. (1) To investigate the relationship between certain personality aspects and reckless and negligent driving behaviour, by means of a literature survey;
2. (2) to make recommendations on the screening of professional motor car drivers in an attempt to reduce the fatalities, injuries and monetary losses resulting from traffic collisions in which these drivers are involved.

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

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

Thank you very much. I am also glad to see, in the report, that more scholar patrols are being used. I myself was involved in that kind of training. In my view it is a very important facet in our traffic department, and I feel that its scope should consistently be extended. I want to know from the hon the Minister how many motor vehicle drivers have been charged with disregarding the directives of scholar patrols. It is important for me to know this, because if one had that figure, one could work out whether people were paying more attention to scholar patrols than in the past.

In 1985 I complained that there were too few films about road safety aimed at non-Whites. I want to refer to the filming of “Airwolf”. If all population groups had been involved, people would have been able to see on the screen that all population groups were participating. I found, for example, that some of those films, owing to the fact that we were lagging behind in South Africa, were not all that applicable to our community. I am referring to the areas in which some of the films are made, for example White residential areas where there are lovely sidewalks and lawns. Sir, at times I act as an information officer at schools. I have to tell children: “You must only play in the parks. Do not play soccer in the street.” Then a small boy stands up and says: “But, Sir, we do not have a park in our area.”

I therefore think that town councils should be encouraged to establish more parks in all the Coloured, Black and Asian residential areas. Then it would be possible for us to keep the children off the streets. Until such facilities exist, however, it is impossible for us, as educators, to keep our children off the streets.

Mr Chairman, firstly I want to thank the hon the Minister and his department sincerely on the fact that the new Huguenot tunnel, which runs through the small Drakenstein mountain range, has come into operation. The tunnel was constructed at a cost of R110 million and was opened by the hon the State President on 19 February 1988.

I also want to take this opportunity of welcoming the new Director-General of Transport, Mr Ronnie Meyer, here today. I trust that we shall be travelling a very long road together.

One of the outstanding characteristics of this impressive engineering achievement is the safety factor for which provision has been made. In this connection I should like to refer to the support structure and the testing area where heavy vehicles are subjected to safety checks. The latest figures indicate that in 1987 there were 73 accidents on the old Du Toitskloof pass, ie one accident every two and a half days. If I am correct, there have been no accidents on the new tunnel route this year. I am exceptionally proud of the whole project, and I should like to focus hon members’ attention on the brochure on that route which I have here in my hand. It is an impressive engineering achievement. In recent times I do not think there has been as outstanding an engineering achievement anywhere else in the Western world. We should like to extend our sincere thanks to those responsible.

As far as I know, no serious accident has occurred on this new route to date. I do want to issue a warning, however, now that we have this new route through the mountain, that we should ensure that the old road is not neglected. Last Sunday, for example, I drove out to the tunnel to ascertain how many vehicles used the new tunnel route, in comparison with the old route. What impressed me was that one can now travel the whole length of the pass in 15 minutes. A few heavy vehicles use the road. This means that there is optimal use of this new road. That is why this new tunnel embodies unique benefits for us in the Western Cape.

One of the Department of Transport’s functions involves the executive and administrative work necessary to assist the National Transport Commission in implementing the powers entrusted and granted to it in terms of the National Roads Act, Act 54 of 1971, and the Urban Transport Act, Act 78 of 1977. In terms of section 7 of Act 44 of 1948 the object of the National Transport Commission shall be, subject to the provisions of this Act or any other law, to attempt to achieve the maximum benefit and economy of transport service to the public.

In order to achieve this objective, the following goals were set: The design, construction and maintenance of freeways and major roads for the Republic to augment the existing system. I want to dwell on one function, ie that relating to national roads and freeways, and speak more specifically about national roads or major routes, as we know them. According to the department’s report the Republic has eight major routes, ie the N1 to N7 and the N103. Something which is not very clear to me, however, is that there are certain portions of our national roads which have not really been declared national roads. The road between Worcester and Colesberg, for example, has not been declared a national road, and therefore remains the responsibility of the CPA. I should like to know from the hon the Minister, with reference to the portion between Worcester and Colesberg, when a major route becomes a national road. I also want to ask the hon the Minister whether the existing five-year programme, approved by the National Transport Commission on 26 February 1987 and by the hon the Minister of Transport on 13 April of the same year, is still applicable. According to that programme money will only be spent on a limited number of new national road projects in the 1987-88 financial year. I should like to know what new road projects are going to be tackled.

I should like to thank the hon the Minister for the announcement. I do not know how the hon the Minister knew I was going to talk about the West Coast road and lodge a serious plea about it. I want to thank the hon the Minister, and sketch the benefits which the extension of the West Coast road will embody for those of us in that part of the country. My constituency, and that of the hon the Minister, is situated on the West Coast, with a portion in the North-Western Cape and Namaqualand. [Interjections.] My plea for the construction of this road is becoming a reality today.

What about a toll gate?

The hon member for Mamre has asked whether we would erect a toll gate there. If the hon member wants to use the road, we shall gladly erect a toll gate there. [Interjections.] The extension of the West Coast road from Velddrif over Elands Bay and Lamberts Bay to Vredendal is the realisation of an ideal as far as I personally am concerned. Since 1979 I have been a member of the West Coast Regional Development Association, and on several occasions both this association and the Olifants River Regional Development Association have discussed this road. The RD As of the West Coast and the Olifants River are part of the RD AC for Region A. I want to tell hon members what took place on 16 November 1987. Although an announcement has now been made about the road, I should like to place the following on record:

I am not going to quote much more; I merely want to quote to the House what was decided:

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

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

Thank you, Sir. As I said, I want to present to the House the benefits inherent in this road. There are many good reasons why I am glad of the announcement about the road today. The construction of the West Coast road will mean that tourists from throughout the country will be able to enjoy the scenic beauty of the West Coast and the flowers of Namaqualand.

There is also the existing crayfish and fish route of which optimum use can be made. There is a very long history behind efforts to establish a crayfish and fish route. I am thinking of the former MP for Moorreesburg, Mr Piet “Weskus” Marais, who fought long and hard for the establishment of a crayfish route. Such a crayfish route ties in with the announcement which has just been made about this road. In my view this will therefore be of great benefit to us.

When we look at Captour’s annual report, we see that this year’s tourist figures for the Western Cape are the highest ever. We are extremely grateful for that. It is very encouraging to see how many people have visited the Western Cape. We know that apart from gold, tourism makes the greatest contribution to the country’s gross revenue, but we and Captour would like to see tourism become the number one revenue-earner.

Once one starts talking about the West Coast and Namaqualand, one simply cannot stop. That is why today’s announcement is not only a cause of great joy to my voters, but also to those of the hon the Minister.

It is an own affair.

No, it is a general affair. One can wax lyrical about the possibilities which South African and foreign tourists have been deprived of over the years, but are now waiting to be exploited. I want to quote from the hon the State President’s opening address to Parliament. He said:

• —Firstly, on the privatisation of the Hendrik Schoeman highway between Springs and Krugersdorp.
• —Secondly, on the privatisation of a section of the national route between Kroonstad and Johannesburg and a section of the national route between Pietermaritzburg and Alberton.

For this reason I find it disturbing to read, in the newsletter of the Public Carriers Association, about the irresponsible action being taken by Assocom. I want to tell the members of Assocom that if they had listened to the hon the State President’s words, they would have known that no one was being forced to make use of a toll road. Nor is anyone being forced to use a tunnel. The existing route will still be available to people who want to use it. On 19 February the hon the State President said that the new tunnel should be regarded as a detour, and he used a heart bypass as an example. This means that the existing road will still be there and will still be maintained. Consequently I should like to quote a passage to hon members from PCA Focus, volume 5, No 2, of March 1988. It reads as follows:

Sir, from the department’s annual report it appears that there is a limited amount of money available from the five-year programme for the construction of new road projects. If we did not proceed with this type of privatisation, however, we would not be in a position to construct enough decent roads for our road-users in future.

I should like to ask the hon the Minister what the revenue per month is at existing toll gates. What is the average revenue per month from each of the existing toll roads? How many new toll roads are envisaged for the next five years? How many kilometres of tarred road are there in the RSA?

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank the hon the Minister, Mr Ron Meyer and the Government for the wonderful toll road which has been constructed in my constituency. [Interjections.] I am glad that Paarl has had the honour of having the toll road start there. It is a wonderful piece of work. We, as inhabitants of Paarl, can boast of the toll road and the wonderful tunnel that we have in our constituency. I also want to extend a sincere word of thanks for the fact that some of my voters have been employed at the toll gates.

I appreciate the fact that 90% of the workers who were employed were from Paarl. I am sincerely grateful for that. When work on the pass was commenced, hundreds of our people from Paarl were employed there. When the work neared completion, however, these workers had to be dismissed. I am nevertheless grateful for the fact that some of the Coloured people in my constituency could obtain jobs there. [Interjections.]

Order! Let me point out to the hon member for Mamre that the hon member for Rawsonville was not talking about monkeys. [Interjections.] The hon member for Rawsonville may continue.

Sir, in the discussion of the Transport Services Appropriation Bill I indicated that I was unhappy about the situation regarding our Coloured workers at airports. The hon the Minister told me at the time that I should broach the matter in the discussion of this Vote. I therefore now want to confine myself to the situation relating to our workers at airports. These workers, particularly the men, are not permitted to assist passengers with their luggage, even if a passenger has two fully loaded trolleys. Many passengers pass through the gates to catch planes, and some of them are in poor health or physically disabled. Those workers are nevertheless prohibited from helping those passengers. Nor does it matter what their colour is. I devoted some of my time to seeing whether there was any discrimination, whether the workers perhaps helped Whites and not Coloureds. There are no exceptions, however—the workers are not permitted to help any passengers. I gather that if any of them do so, they do so at their own risk and can receive a R30 to R35 fine. [Interjections.]

My plea to the hon the Minister and his department is to allow those workers not only to pass on the trolleys, but also to help passengers who perhaps have a great deal of luggage or are perhaps physically disabled. After all, it would be a fine gesture on the part of our airport personnel to help passengers with their luggage.

There are also some of our workers who do clerical work with the Whites. Yet the Whites are called “clerks”—this is something that hurts me—while the Coloureds are called “acting clerks”. I believe that such discrimination also means discrimination as far as salaries are concerned. Surely the Coloured man or woman is doing the same work as his or her White colleague. I want to see this matter put right so that no stigma attaches to the workers at our airports. I also gather that some of our Coloured workers have been in the employ of the department for 18 to 20 years, but that they still earn a salary of approximately R430 per month. Those people are living well under the breadline. I want to appeal to the hon the Minister to ensure that the salaries of these workers are adjusted, particularly if we bear in mind the number of years they have been working for the Department of Transport Affairs. The hon the Minister must intervene and ensure that the situation in regard to the Coloured people working at our airports is corrected. I also gather that Coloured workers are only issued with shoes and coats or overalls once a year, whilst their White counterparts get new shoes and overalls on request. The hon the Minister must please ensure that this matter is rectified.

Immediately!

Our workers on night shift come off duty at two or three o’clock in the morning. There is transport for those people, but whereas White workers are dropped at their front doors, our people are dropped on the main road. They have to travel the remaining distance themselves. This is discrimination against our workers, and what is more, those on night shift at airports are exposed to all kinds of dangers. We should like to see Coloured workers of the SAA being treated in the same way as White workers.

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

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

I also understand that workers are discriminated against when it comes to sick leave. The doctor specifies the date on which the person’s sick leave commences, but the officials at work ignore that date and change it. This means that the worker is being prejudiced. He earns less as it is, and when he is sick a further amount is deducted. These matters must definitely receive attention.

I should also like to know how the benefits of our Coloured workers at airports compare with those of Whites. I want to know how big the gap is in regard to sick-leave benefits, salaries and so on. If there is a big gap, it will have to be bridged as quickly as possible. It is true that the economy is ailing, but our people cannot work for a starvation wage.

I should also like to know how many qualified Coloured workers there are and what positions they occupy. If there are qualified Coloured workers at our airports, in my view they should also be considered for better posts when vacancies occur. It would be a shot in the arm for us to know that there is no discrimination against qualified Coloured workers at our airports. I trust that when we discuss this Vote again next year, these matters will have received attention.

Mr Chairman, firstly I want to express my thanks to the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs for the facilities which have immediately been made available to the Muslim pilgrims. I also thank the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs. There is a great deal of interest in this matter, and I hope and trust that even more can be done in this connection next year. I should like to place on record that the way in which both departments, the Department of Transport and the Department of Foreign Affairs, have reacted, is greatly appreciated. We are grateful for the wonderful progress that has been made as far as this is concerned. [Interjections.]

Although I perhaps tread on some people’s toes in the lobbies, this afternoon I want to make a very balanced contribution to this debate. John Citizen frequently asks what the NRSC really does. [Interjections.] Sir, this is a very serious matter. One cannot regard the death toll on our roads as a laughing matter. Hon members should rather take out their handkerchiefs and wipe away their tears. I should like to quote the death toll on our roads, as reflected in the annual report. In 1983 the death toll was 9 121; in 1984, 9 621; in 1985, 8 972 and in 1987, 9 927. It appears, therefore, that an average of 9 000 people per year have died on our roads over the past five years. We shall have to take a serious look at this matter. According to Beeld of 20 March, Dr Louw Dreyer said—perhaps rightly—at an NRSC conference:

That is what Dr Louw Dreyer, Director of the NRSC, said. I think there is a great deal of truth in that statement. It is extremely important for us to give attention to that. I want to come back to that aspect, however. As far as my knowledge goes—and from what I have read up on the subject—there are three important aspects involved in this: In the first place information, secondly education and thirdly law enforcement. There is not much to say about the engineering aspect, because attention is given to our roads each and every day. When one uses our roads these days, one can see the real changes which are being brought about. I think a great deal more must be done as far as education, training and law enforcement are concerned.

In my opinion there is perhaps something seriously wrong at the moment. Are we providing the right education and training? Over the past five years there has been a consistent average of 9 000 fatalities on our roads. There must be something wrong. I do not want to be unnecessarily negative, because I have understanding for the amount of trouble that is taken in regard to training and information. Television and radio are also used for this purpose.

I do not think we can simply look for the fault somewhere else. I think it is Shakespeare who said: “The fault is not in our stars but in ourselves.” Let us look, for a moment, right at our doorstep—at the NRSC as such, and its functions in the Western Cape. Let us investigate its staff structure and the number of people it has to reach. I think that the NRSC has three Coloured public relations officers, two Blacks and approximately three Whites, and they have to cater for almost three million people in this area. How do eight people reach those millions of people? How is the message conveyed? I think one should ascertain how this message is conveyed, and how it is brought home to schools. In the Cape alone there are more than 2 000 schools, but there are only three public relations officers to serve a community of this magnitude. If one takes note of that ratio, let me ask whether something is not perhaps wrong. Should one not appoint more public relations officers so that this matter can receive the necessary attention? I do not want to make unreasonable demands on the department, but I think it is high time this matter received the necessary attention. If there is a financial problem, or if there is something wrong with the people being appointed, the hon the Minister should simply say so. I do, however, think that that office should take the initiative.

I have read a great deal about consultants who are approached and who come to light with ideas. How are these ideas implemented in practice, however? One thing that strikes me is that the NRSC only makes its presence felt over an Easter weekend or a long weekend. Then the NRSC is everywhere. Afterwards it is again as silent as the grave and one hears nothing further from the NRSC. If that is the case, this definitely needs to be looked into.

I should like to go further. As a former traffic officer, I believe that traffic policemen should be where the traffic is. In regard to long weekends such as the Easter weekend, one hears that on certain roads the traffic flow is 1 000 to 1 200 vehicles per hour. My question is: If there are 1 000 vehicles per hour on a road, how many law enforcement officers are there. I am asking the hon the Minister, since freeways traverse various towns in which there are traffic policemen, whether it is not possible to ask them to be active on the roads during these times?

It does not matter who one is, if one sees a patrol car or a blue light flashing, one is immediately on the alert. What happens, however, on long stretches of road? One drives along for two hours without seeing a patrol car. There is a helicopter in the air—this costs thousands of rands—and sometimes the sponsors are there doing good work, but what is important is that as a motorist, I must know that every half-hour or every three quarters of an hour there is going to be a traffic policeman. If someone does something wrong, I can pull over when I see the next traffic police-man’s vehicle and give the traffic officer the vehicle’s registration number. The traffic police-man can then use his radio to have that vehicle pulled off the road. Those people would then also know that traffic was moving between one traffic-police point and the next.

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

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

Thank you very much, Sir. I know it is difficult, because we have a system in terms of which traffic policemen are divided up amongst various local authorities. Each local authority has three or four men and they are kept in their areas. There must be uniformity as far as traffic control and the implementation of traffic regulations are concerned. Otherwise this should be dealt with on a central or regional basis, as in the case of the police. What is happening now is that everyone who has only two or three available people says he cannot help. The time has come for important aspects such as law enforcement and information to receive immediate attention from the hon the Minister.

I should like to broach another matter, and that is the question of kombi-taxis.

†First of all I want to thank the local transportation board specially. This is one of the departments with which I used to have differences, but after a thorough investigation it has become apparent that the real problem does not lie with the local transportation board. Once more the problem was the local authorities who had a negative attitude towards the allocation of ranks, etc for taxis. Therefore, I want to ask the hon the Minister please to look into the question of ranks and standing places for taxis.

I know that local authorities have a right to refuse, but it is important that more ranks be made available. I know it is a case of asking them to be more sympathetic in this matter because, as we have seen from studies, kombi-taxis have come to stay. They already form part of our community life and will still be around for quite some time. For that reason I want to ask the hon the Minister to ask the local authorities to be more sympathetic regards making these ranks available to them.

I know there is a problem as far as controlling this situation is concerned. However, I wish to point out what the study of the Metropolitan Transport Advisory Board has come up with. Their recommendation may provide some solutions to our problems. They say that rank tokens which are already being used could be used more commonly. There could also be rank fees which will mean that taxis could be charged every time they make use of ranks. There could also be time limits. A rank marshall may insist that taxis move off after a given waiting period to allow other taxi business and to reduce the waiting time for passengers. Furthermore, the waiting areas could be provided away from the busy terminus where vehicles have to wait their turn until their rank space is available.

Sir, this particular industry can be properly organised. However, a number of problems arise because of the attitude of the local authorities towards kombi-taxis. I think it is time the hon the Minister urged them to change their attitude towards kombi-taxis.

Finally I want to point out the large number of pedestrian accidents which take place when people try to cross the highway between Heideveld and Bonteheuwel. Many people are being killed and I want to ask the hon the Minister whether something cannot be done to reduce the number of accidents by discouraging people from crossing the road at dangerous points.

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank hon members who took part in this debate. I think it was an excellent debate. It was well-balanced, and hon members put forward a number of interesting points.

In the first place I want to refer to the hon member for Wuppertal as the LP’s chief spokesman. I want to thank the hon member for pointing out the importance of the transport infrastructure in the country and the quality thereof. Unfortunately, in a critical debate such as this one, one is more inclined to emphasise the negative aspects than the positive ones. What the hon member said was true, viz that if one compares our transport infrastructure with that in the rest of the world, we compare very favourably with any comparable country in the world. This does not apply only to our roads, but also to our harbours, railway lines and airports.

I saw an interesting figure the other day. South Africa has twice as many roads per square kilometre as Australia, for example, which is a comparable country. Hon members must remember that Australia also has to take all the kangaroos that hop over the road into account.

I think we can be very grateful when we consider the infrastructure of the country, if we keep in mind that this country cannot develop properly unless we have this very important transport structure at our disposal.

The hon member referred to the national transport index and wanted to know what contribution local authorities could make. They can indeed make an important contribution and will do so, because they deal mainly with the transport of people.

The hon member spoke about the considerable number of resignations of staff members; he gave a figure of 500. If one takes into account that there are almost 3 000 employees in the establishment—the exact figure is 2 884—this amounts to a staff turnover of approximately 17,3%, which is very average. The fact, however, is that the resignations often occur among the groups of people who are starting to work. As soon as they get a better offer elsewhere, they tend to resign. This applies to a lesser extent to people who have already earned quite a bit in pension. One has to take that aspect into account constantly, however. It is important for staff to be satisfied and to remain in service for a long time, because then they render the best service.

With regard to the training of staff, the hon member requested that there should be no discrimination. With reference to filling posts, granting bursaries and attending courses, there is no discrimination whatsoever on the basis of colour. I want to ask hon members today not merely to criticise and to say that they suspect that certain things are happening. I want to ask them to encourage possible candidates to apply for posts in the Public Service. In my experience we often advertise, knowing full well that there are suitable people who have the necessary qualifications, but then we receive no applications. I request hon members to encourage suitable applicants to apply.

The hon member then referred to Government motor transport, and made special mention of the Government Garage in Cape Town. I have said that we are not satisfied with the state of affairs. We have identified and purchased new premises so that we can erect a new building.

In connection with sea transport, the hon member appealed for preference to be given to what is our own. We do that as far as it is in any way possible. The hon member also referred to the question of shipping accidents, and convictions in this connection. He also spoke about parties who could not be found guilty as a result of international legislation. I shall investigate that aspect once again, and, if necessary, I shall have further discussions with the hon member on the matter.

The hon member also referred to the road fund levy. After the hon the State President’s announcement, there will no longer be an earmarked levy on fuel for the road fund. There will still be a road fund, however. Naturally funds for the road fund will be negotiated with the Treasury. These levies will now be collected in the form of excise duty and will be passed on to the Treasury. The Auditor-General will still have the authority, however, to determine what amount was really levied and paid into the fund. I can give the hon member the assurance that in my negotiations I shall use that which we have received over the years and on the basis of which we have built up a standard with reference to the building and repair of roads as a basis for my argument.

The hon member referred to heavy vehicles, and the collection of the R200 million which will actually be a function of the provincial administration. The hon member referred in particular to road damage that was caused by heavy vehicles. Sir, please permit me to repeat today what I have said in the other two Houses. Research has shown that a small percentage of heavy vehicles that are overloaded are responsible for most of our road damage. What it amounts to is that 16% of these heavy vehicles that are overloaded cause 57% of the damage to our roads. In that respect, Sir, I must honestly say that we shall show no mercy, because this is not only a question of damage to the roads. What is happening here is that the ordinary motorists are having to subsidise those people. Those people are in fact robbing the ordinary motorists, even if in an indirect way. We must give serious attention to this, and I promise hon members that this matter will receive the attention of the department.

The hon member also put a few questions to me. He wants to know whether there will always be an alternative road in cases in which there are toll roads. I can give the hon member that assurance. To tell the truth, it has been laid down in the Act. I receive other representations too, for example that there should be exceptions, viz that there should not be an alternative road where roads have to be built for certain purposes. Then exceptions have to be made. I give the hon member the assurance, however, that that is the statutory provision at present.

The hon member also asked whether toll roads were a permanent policy now. No, every case is evaluated according to merit. It is not merely a question of our saying that roads must be built and maintained only by means of toll money. That is only a small subsection of our total policy, and every case is evaluated according to its merit.

With regard to the merit of these private consortiums, the hon member appealed for us to ensure that the public was not exploited. I am in complete agreement with him, and that is why we stated the requirement that that fee should never be more than 75% of what the motorist saves. There should also be an alternative route, so that if that motorist feels that 75% is still too much, he can take the alternative route. I can also give the hon member the assurance that there are Government representatives who serve on the boards of directors of those private institutions to prevent exploitation as far as possible.

†Mr Chairman, I now turn to the hon member for Klipspruit West. He referred to deregulation and privatisation and said he was in favour of it. He then referred, however, to the issue with regard to Ennerdale on the N1 between Johannesburg and Kroonstad and asked that the local inhabitants there be exempted from having to pay the levy payable on this particular road. Then, however, the hon member advanced the opinion that there is discrimination and that if those inhabitants had been White they would not have had to pay.

I said there would not have been a toll gate, Sir.

The hon member is wrong in that respect. He should come to my office and I will take him to the department and point out several examples to him of how exactly the same thing is happening in White areas.

I am prepared to get up and deliver my speech over.

I can mention a few such areas now. The road between Brakpan and Johannesburg is one example. There is another example at Mooi River.

There is a road running parallel to that road there, Sir. There are two roads running in that direction.

Sir, the fact is that there should be no discrimination. They can negotiate with the companies. Several communities are, in fact, negotiating with these companies for a special fee. The hon member, however, did not want a special fee. He said there should be no fee at all. We would all like to have it that way, because nobody will ever consent to paying taxes or extra fees, but unfortunately in this particular instance it would not have been possible to provide that service. That is why we have used this particular method to provide an extra service.

A five-year-old road a special service? You are joking!

Sir, I want to forecast that as far as the voters in the hon member’s constituency are concerned, once they have become used to that road and the services rendered, they would not want him to take it away again.

[Inaudible.]

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister whether, in cases in which such a road is planned, there is an alternative route for the use of road users if they should choose not to make use of the toll route?

Sir, there must always be an alternative route. In addition, this route must be kept in a reasonable condition so that road users can make use of it.

†The hon member predicted a 100% rise of fees in one year, but, once again, as I have said before, it can never exceed 75% of the benefit. There must also be an alternative route.

A suitable alternative route, yes, but the R29 is not a suitable route.

A suitable alternative. It is also important to remember that there are representatives of the Government on the board of directors of these particular companies to prohibit, or to ensure, that there is no exploitation.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister whether it is being considered to convert any part of the southern free-way in Natal or the bridge leading to the Wild Coast casino into a toll road or toll bridge?

Sir, no, as far as I know that is not being considered.

The hon member referred to Black taxis and the deregulation of that particular market. This is one thing we definitely agree with. I agree with the hon member that one cannot simply deregulate. There must be a condition attached to it, because in the United States of America, they simply deregulated the market and have encountered endless problems. We deregulate as far as the economy is concerned, but not as far as standards are concerned. Standards must, in fact, be improved. We have Bills on the Order Paper, while others, although not with the standing committee yet, have been prepared by the legal advisors and approved by Cabinet. Once those Bills are on our Statute Books, we will be in a position to see that proper standards are adhered to as far as drivers, vehicles, operators and insurance are concerned. I state emphatically that the hon member is correct in saying standards must be maintained.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister whether he is going to grant my request that the Ennerdale people be exempted from paying? I want the hon the Minister to say “yes” or “no” now, so that we can know what action we have to take in Ennerdale.

Order! That is not a question; that is a demand. [Interjections.]

I will treat it as a question, Sir. I cannot accede to the hon member’s request …

Then we can do without the department. We will chase all those people away …

Order! The hon the Minister may proceed.

Sir, the hon member for Opkoms made a very good speech about road safety. He spoke about it in a very balanced way. In the first place he referred to the security measures that had been taken at the Huguenot tunnel. In my opinion it is an experience to observe what has been done there. Hon members would do well to take the trouble of going to view the tunnel and making use of it so that they can appreciate it.

The hon member also referred to the road deaths over the Easter weekend. There were 223 deaths, as opposed to 191 the previous year.

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

Sir, I just want to finish first. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members must not ask any further questions until the hon the Minister has completed his argument. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Thank you, Sir.

Although one is sad about the deaths on our roads—we also had a very traumatic experience with the bus accident during that period—we must see matters in perspective. The figure increased from 191 last Easter to 223 this Easter. This was an increase of 5%. We must also take into account, however, that the figure had reference to a longer period this time, that school, technikon and university holidays coincided with the Easter weekend, and that traffic was 25% heavier than the previous year. That does make a difference. Despite that, it is not good enough. [Interjections.] It means that we must not relax our efforts to promote road safety.

The hon member broached one very important aspect, in which he involved himself as well. He said we should prevent the drivers on our roads from becoming exhausted, since 90% of all road accidents can be ascribed to the human factor. There are sections that deal with this very aspect in the new legislation. One cannot get away from the fact that we must ensure that motorists are trained properly. We shall give further attention to this question. Our people must be educated. There must be discipline, but—this is a very important aspect—there must also be co-operation between the authorities and the motorists.

The hon member requested that training projects also be offered at Coloured schools. There is good co-operation in this connection, and such projects are offered at Coloured schools as well. The hon member can have discussions with the officials about this at any time if he wants to make suggestions in this connection.

The hon member also asked how many drivers of motor cars had been charged with ignoring scholar patrols. No one has been charged so far, because we get very good co-operation from motorists in this connection. I want to thank the hon member for his contribution on a very sensitive matter.

The hon members for Vredendal and Wuppertal joined me in expressing their thanks about the announcement that a section of the West Coast road will now become a reality. The hon member for Vredendal referred to the importance of the road for the development of that area. I cannot but agree with the hon member wholeheartedly. This is a long-expected ideal which has become a reality, and which undoubtedly will benefit that area. It is also important that we throw open our coastal areas as far as possible, because that is very important for the recreation of our people. There is also an increasing demand for recreation areas, which are being made possible now.

The hon member referred to parts of the national road that are maintained by the administration. It is true that there are parts of the national road which have been proclaimed by the provincial administration for the purposes of maintenance. They are reproclaimed from time to time, however. Consequently the situation is not static. He also referred to the five-year plan, and asked whether it still existed. All plans—whether five- or ten-year plans—are adjusted in due course as there are shifts in the financial emphasis or development takes place. We are still working on the basic five-year plan, however.

The hon member said a very true thing, viz that we would not have had this development if we had not privatised some of these roads. The contracts with Toll-con and Tollway involve an investment of R2 000 million. This is an immediate expenditure of millions of rand, which the Government simply does not have. The hon member is completely correct in saying that we would have had to wait for years had we not privatised.

The hon member also asked me whether I could tell him what the average income from the toll projects was. I shall tell him with pleasure: Tsitsikamma gives an average income of R150 000 per month; Kranskop, R475 000; Mariannhill, R345 000; and the Huguenot tunnel—approximately, according to the income during the first half-month—R800 000.

The hon member also asked which new toll roads were being envisaged. Investigations have been made into certain new toll road projects, but no decisions have been taken about further toll roads at this stage, although investigations are in progress.

The hon member also asked how many kilometres of tarred roads we have in this country. Let me put it this way; we have a road network of approximately 260 000 km, of which 55 000 km is tarred. That is what I was referring to when I replied to the hon member for Wuppertal about the infrastructure. I thank the hon member for his contribution.

The hon member for Rawsonville expressed his thanks because the extension and the servicing of the Huguenot tunnel had provided some of his voters with employment opportunities. I share his happiness about the development in his area, and the fact that this means something to his people and indeed to our whole community.

One saves time by making use of that tunnel, and in that respect it is really a contribution to the economy, because it costs so much less. These days time is money.

The hon member raised certain problems about Coloured workers at the airports. The workers are not allowed to help passengers and the hon member requested that they be allowed to help them. He also referred to what he regarded as the difference between a “clerk” and an “acting person”. If there are such differences in grading, I can assure the hon member that it is not a matter of colour. Any person who fills a particular post will have that designation.

He requested salary increases. As the hon member knows, that is a matter that is addressed by the Public Service as a whole. It is dealt with by the Commission for Administration and departments do not determine their own salary policy. It is not possible to do so. Salaries are determined for the Public Service as such. The norm in terms of which they are determined, is that salaries should be reasonably market-related. One’s salary must be reasonably market-related. This means that consideration is also given to what the private sector pays people for specific kinds of work.

The hon member also referred to people who work late at night and live far away and therefore struggle to get home. In addition he referred to discrimination with reference to sick leave. He also spoke about the number of Coloured workers that filled certain posts. I shall have all these matters investigated and shall give him precise answers to each of these points. I thank the hon member for his contribution.

The hon member for Bishop Lavis is someone who has knowledge of road transport in general and of passenger or transport control. He made specific reference to road deaths and then made an incidental comment which is extremely important. He said the fault lay with us. It is all a matter of the education of the road user. The fault lies with us. If one uses the road and demands one’s rights on the road at all times, one will be involved in an accident very quickly. The fact is that the knowledgeable road user—the person who uses the road with great discretion—not only tries to prevent his own accidents, but also those of others. The hon member said he was a former traffic officer. He will know that this is the case.

What the hon member said about the NRSC is equally true, however. The NRSC must not take action only over Easter weekends, Christmas, New Year and Old Year’s Day, but must make attempts throughout the year to prevent road accidents. This is in fact done, but these are the times when road accidents become so prevalent that the services of the Road Safety Council receive attention. That is why the hon member thinks this is less important at other times. That is not the case, however. At the moment, for example, we are involved in this project which deals with educating the parent and child about road safety.

The hon member said something else that was very true. He said traffic officers should be where the traffic is. He gave a practical hint in that connection, which the department will follow up. It is true that there are fewer offences where law enforcement is seen to take place.

The hon member will also understand, however, that that would require a great deal of manpower, which South Africa has a shortage of. [Interjections.] It requires trained manpower; not everyone can do that kind of work.

†The hon member referred to mini-buses and he requested that we look into the question of standing places and ranks. I want to give him the assurance that it is not only the subject of investigation at present, but that we are consulting with local authorities. Local authorities are already doing a lot in order to provide standing and loading facilities in various places. I want to agree with the hon member, however, that a lot still has to be done in that regard.

The hon member also referred to the exceptionally high rate of accidents involving pedestrians in the Bonteheuwel area. I will ask my department to investigate the matter.

*Mr Chairman, I want to express my sincere thanks to hon members who took part in this debate. The hon member may put his question now.

Mr Chairman, can the hon the Minister tell me whether the road from Springbok to Kleinsee is on the list of those that will get permanent surfaces? If not, when do the hon the Minister and his department envisage placing it on the list for a permanent surface?

That road is just as important to me as it is to the hon member. Unfortunately I cannot make a statement in this connection, because the road falls under the jurisdiction of the divisional council, and consequently it is a matter for the province. Unfortunately, therefore, I cannot give any information in this connection. The hon member is aware, just as I am, that representations in connection with the road are made from time to time.

Vote agreed to.

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

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I have no difficulty with this Vote, but I am concerned about a few aspects in this Vote. There has been a considerable increase in the number of tuberculosis cases, as indicated in this report of the Department of National Health and Population Development. To my mind, this is due to the unstable socioeconomic situation in South Africa.

There should therefore be more emphasis on the care of a community in rural areas and in high-density areas. In areas such as these the literacy rate is very low, poverty is on the increase and ignorance in health care thrives at the maximum. It is therefore also incumbent on local authorities to place more emphasis on the propagation of health care. I would like to quote what Dr Lindsay Thompson, the President of the World Health Organisation, had to say:

This comes from a very able and notable person.

Whilst this is so for tuberculosis cases and the primary health care, I now turn to a very important disease that is finding its way into the South African community, and that is Aids. This dreaded disease is acquired by blood transfusion and also by contact with affected persons. In South Africa adequate control is being exercised by the Government and the hon the Minister has appropriated R1 million towards the Aids awareness campaign and for education and the care of patients. Whilst I applaud that, I have also noticed that there were 64 such cases in South Africa from 1 January 1982 to October 1987. Of these 64, 62 were White males, one White female and one Coloured male. Forty-eight of these cases had been in contact with Central African countries. Forty-four of the 64 patients died of the disease. Whilst the Government is endeavouring to take adequate measures to control this dreaded disease, it should also legislate. It should be an offence for a female carrier of Aids to be in contact with a male. I cite a case in Durban which happened very recently and where the police were unable to take any legal action. I quote:

If Britain and America can do that, why should we lag behind? Now that Aids is creeping into this country we should legislate adequately against it. The police should be able to take action against people like this who are spreading the disease—particularly in the dock areas.

I now come to another aspect, namely that of homeopaths and chiropractors. This practice started in mission schools in Germany and America many, many years ago. After the Second World War there was a great demand for homeopaths and chiropractors in South Africa. Today, as a result of this public demand, there are 460 chiropractors and homeopaths in South Africa.

The South African Associated Health Services Professions Board, has been campaigning for many years to establish a faculty at universities for this particular profession. However, in Government Gazette No 11221 promulgating regulation R2629, the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development has promulgated a regulation whereby this faculty can be a tertiary educational faculty at the Natal Technikon in South Africa.

This is most welcome, but this particular board is finding it extremely difficult to get this faculty off the ground because they will need something in the region of R1,6 million over the next four years to get things moving. A Government subsidy has been promised, and this will come into effect only after the second year of the existence of the faculty, in terms of which they will pay for each student who has passed. I should like to ask the hon the Minister whether he cannot see his way clear to granting them a subsidy now so that they may start their practice immediately. This is an appeal by this particular board and I feel sure the hon the Minister could accede to that request.

This is going to be a multi-racial practice and it is expected that 60 students will be turned out per year. It is a five-year course, four of which consist of internal studies while the final year is an internship. I therefore ask the hon the Minister to look into the possibility of putting this into effect at this tertiary educational institution.

On going through this report it is interesting to note that this particular department has been doing extremely well. Whilst congratulating the hon the Minister on the able manner in which the department is functioning, I also welcome the new Director: Health Services and Welfare and I am positive that he will also do a tremendous amount of good work, as was done by his predecessor.

I am concerned particularly about primary health care, and once primary health care has been adequately taken care of, preventive care will automatically look after itself.

I have no objection to the Vote.

Mr Chairman, before I start, I too wish to associate myself with the words of the previous speaker in welcoming Dr Slabber, our new Director-General, to this House.

It is common practice for us in this House, and particularly for us on this side of the House, to criticise the Government and the ruling party on the opposite side of the House. [Interjections.] When I do this, I do so not merely for the sake of criticising but rather in the hope that anything I say, although it may sound acid, may be interpreted as a comment on which the administration can act.

Do not make the same mistake as you made the other day in the own affairs debate. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, last week I criticised the Ministers’ Council in this House in regard to services which I felt were being duplicated from the White needs to cater for the needs of non-White people.

I said last week, and I emphasise again, that the health care needs of the non-Whites are different from those of the Whites.

In what respect?

This report by the Director-General bears testimony to that.

Do they have a different kind of body?

The White provision for health care and even our own infrastructure is excellent, but if something goes wrong, the best curative kind of service is always available for the Whites and not necessarily for us as Blacks. I have said before, and I repeat, that the disease pattern of the Blacks is different from the disease pattern of the Whites. The Blacks have diseases of poverty and this is clearly demonstrated in all the statistics contained in this report which we received recently. Page after page it becomes abundantly clear who has the highest incidence of tuberculosis, mental deficiency and nutritional diseases. All of these are diseases of poverty, poor health care and poor health education.

The hon the Minister should not get me wrong. I am not suggesting that his administration is going around spreading the coccol bacillus and all other communicable diseases amongst the poor. When I talk of the poor, I talk about the Blacks. It is the politics of this country which has ensured that the Blacks are poor. However, if we are not responsible for the disease, we are certainly responsible for its prevalency and its incidence. The politics of this country has seen to that. The percentage of Black schoolchildren who have a low weight for their age is 8,4%. This is a high incidence.

Tuberculosis is the index of the development of a particular country. Because it is dependent on socio-economic factors such as good housing, sanitation, abundance of water supply and a good basic diet, it is the index of the socio-economic status of those amongst whom it is prevalent. Thus, if we improve the socio-economic status of certain people, we can indeed eradicate the disease.

On p 8 of the report I see that annual expenditure per case is almost R1 000. Between 1985 and 1986 the incidence increase was 21%. Obviously we have a problem here.

I want to say a word about malaria and typhoid. Although malaria is not necessarily poverty-related but is dependent more on other factors such as exposure and poor prophylaxis, typhoid is a different sort of thing. Here poor sanitation and a specific way of life are contributing factors. The incidence of typhoid is high amongst Blacks. Poverty means first of all malnutrition, itself a disease which also lowers resistance to infection. Poverty also means a poor education, poor sanitation, poor living conditions, and thus a high exposure to all infections and diseases. This bears down heavily on children, with a vicious, self-perpetuating cycle of high childhood mortality, high birth rate, big families, poor infant care, leading again to high childhood mortality rates, which are so evident in this report.

This does not mean that the hon the Minister and his department are not doing anything about it. I am fully aware of all the various programmes as listed in this report, ranging from protective services to educational services and primary health care services that exist today, both institutionalised and non-institutionalised. However, I am also fully aware of the age-old problem of insufficient funds and lack of adequate personnel.

The availability of trained personnel is fast becoming a problem, particularly as our services expand. I wish to make one or two suggestions to the hon the Minister.

It was as early as 1949 that Dr G W Gale said, and I quote him:

As we saw, health assistants were an important part of the team. They primarily helped with the following up of infectious diseases, even if they had no specific training. Under Dr Kark they were established as important members of the team for which they underwent three years’ training. Training was open to all race groups. The assistants’ main work was health education, collecting data, first aid in the absence of a doctor, and if a doctor was present, to help him in his clinic. This scheme never really got off the ground.

With the change of government in 1949, the idea of a national health service was abandoned and funds for health centres were drastically cut. Unfortunately auxiliaries were also opposed by doctors as representing a drop in standard. However, it is a good means to cope with the shortage of doctors, particularly amongst Africans. A lot of opposition also came from the nursing profession, who saw this a threat to their status.

In most countries of Africa, India, Russia and the Far East, medical auxiliaries supply the first-aid of medical care. Standards range from the “barefoot doctors” of China to the Feldsher in Russia, and the African medical assistant with three or four years training.

In Western developed countries, auxiliaries are used more and more to meet the enormously increased demands made by a healthy population. In the United Kingdom, health visitors do work which otherwise would have to be done by doctors, such as baby clinics, home visits, health education and follow-up of diabetic and other long-term patients. In the United States physician assistants do doctors’ work, especially paediatrics.

In Cape Town medical students at Shawco, and in Johannesburg at Witsco, clinics diagnose and treat patients under the supervision of a doctor, but the patient does not see the doctor unless it is necessary. In Durban we as medical students worked at the Happy Valley Clinic in Wentworth.

Auxiliaries are much less expensive to train and easier to use. At the same cost there can be more auxiliaries than there are doctors. They can also be better deployed in critical areas. They could be trained to meet specific local needs and to understand local priorities, whether urban or rural. They could be orientated to a better balance of prevention and cure.

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

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

I am indeed indebted to the hon member for Stanger.

Now the question arises: Would the people be better off without auxiliaries? I do not think so. The alternative for most people is medical care by auxiliaries or none at all. There are simply not enough doctors, and the ratio of doctors to patients is unlikely to improve.

Will mistakes be made? Yes, they might, but so will an overworked doctor, trying to see too many patients in too short a time. A third question: How much training will be required to train these auxiliaries? There is no figure, and this depends on local needs. It takes six to seven years to train a medical doctor, and when he qualifies he is still only a basic doctor. His level of competence varies and changes as the years of experience and training change.

Above the junior doctor is a whole pyramid of postgraduates leading to a specialist status such as the hon the Minister in this House. Each doctor is allowed to practise within the limits of his own capabilities. Similarly, an auxiliary may work within his own capabilities and training.

In conclusion I wish to stress a problem that is very specific to South Africa and that is the problem of race. A medical auxiliary will only be acceptable if the profession is open to all race groups with equal salaries and conditions of service, and if it serves all races. If these auxiliaries are only for Blacks, then, however great the need, they will be seen as second-class medicals and will be rejected, just as we reject any system which perpetuates inferior health care for any part of the population.

Mr Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity of welcoming Dr Slabber, the new Director-General of Health Services, to this House. I also would like to take this opportunity of wishing him well in his new position.

The hon member for Montford who I understand is the NPP’s spokesman on health matters, spoke about the ratio of doctors and patients. He made the point that a possible way of improving that ratio would be to employ auxiliary staff. I would like to offer another method. I would also like to refer the hon the Minister to a problem that was discussed in this House last year, namely the registration of those doctors who were trained overseas because for some reason or other they were unable to be trained here. I believe the hon member for Havenside will address the House more fully on this matter and I leave it to him.

Is he an expert?

Yes, he is certainly an expert in his own right. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Bayview spoke about Aids in this country and I would like to offer the hon member the latest definition of an escort agency. The latest name for it is an Aids take-away service. [Interjections.]

For some time now concerned medical people have been warning that the country’s medical care system is collapsing. The situation has developed that all the participants are blaming each other. Doctors are being accused of over-prescribing and demanding fees that are too high. Members of the public are accused of running to doctors with the slightest of ailments. Pharmacists are accused of excessive markups. Drug houses are accused of excessive profiteering. In this situation people of the middle income group are finding it necessary to resign their medical aid membership which has soared in cost and is continuing to do so. Insofar as the lower income groups are concerned, the situation is indescribable and medical facilities are totally unaffordable—certainly in the private field.

I believe the situation has reached a point where something has to be done, and it has to be done now. I am aware that Dr Wim de Villiers has been appointed to investigate this matter thoroughly. I trust the appointment of a committee under Dr Wim de Villiers is not just some kind of a delay tactic because I believe enough information from previous investigations is available for the Government to act right away. The new investigation is therefore in a sense not really necessary. Nevertheless, we believe that few will envy Dr De Villiers as he sets about his task of investigating this country’s health and hospital services. Primarily it would appear that the task that the Government has set him is to find out how the State can pay less and the rest of us more. The State, however, has no money of its own—it merely uses what it takes from us in taxes. As I have indicated, all is therefore not well in this vital strand of the country’s fabric and this has been apparent for a long time.

Sickness has literally become a luxury and more and more of the people of this country simply cannot afford to get sick. Medicines and drugs appear to cost more by the minute and an account from a hospital can read like a telephone number.

Medical societies can cope no more. Indeed, many of these medical aid societies are terminally ill themselves. If we are to believe what has been said by the hon Mr Alwyn Schlebusch with regard to this, the State cannot cope either and so the doctor has had to be called in in the form of the hon Dr Wim de Villiers.

I should like to advise him that perhaps one of the first things that he should examine is the insistence of the Government that health is an own affair. That insistence we will suggest has turned out to be an extremely dangerous diagnosis. As my colleague the hon member for Parktown has so succinctly put it in the other House, after more than 30 years of medicine he has yet to see an own affairs virus or own affairs bacteria.

I now wish to turn to a matter that the hon the Minister knows very well. I am of course referring to the King Edward VIII Hospital in Durban and the problems attendant thereto. I believe the hon the Minister knows that this is a teaching hospital where students are meant to be taught about South African health standards. It is one of the largest hospitals in South Africa and also one of the saddest. It is regarded by many people as a superb Third World hospital, dispensing medical care to Blacks in a city where Whites receive their medical care at First World hospitals. That in a nutshell is the tragedy of King Edward VIII Hospital. It has a dedicated, highly skilled and able staff of doctors and nurses who work according to the most appalling conditions of service in order to offer some medical care to the hundreds of thousands of people who visit this hospital annually.

Medicine today is more concerned—as the hon member for Montford indicated—with preventative medicine than it is with curative medicine and it is being said that it is better to prevent disease than to try and cure it. The doctors and the nurses of King Edward VIII Hospital know and appreciate this only too well, but because of the tremendous workload they have no time to devote to preventative medicine. They have no time, for instance, to hold clinics and teach people in the rural areas to run clinics where preventative medicine, including family planning, could be taught.

The hon the Minister will agree that any hospital that has a bed occupancy of 150%, and at times upwards of this figure, like King Edward VIII has, must be busy. The numbers are increasing, not decreasing, while the amount of money available for teaching hospitals is not increasing at the same rate.

There are a number of reasons for the high intake rate at King Edward VIII. The most significant I believe is that the regional health services in the rural areas are not adequate. Patients from as far afield as Piet Retief and Port Edward come to King Edward VIII whilst many from the Transkei are also referred to this hospital.

I am told that patients arrive here simply because there are no adequate health services available to them in the rural areas from which they come. I believe that it is an extremely important matter that health services are established urgently in rural areas with proper facilities and fully trained doctors and nurses so that the sick in these rural areas can be treated closer to their homes.

Overcrowding at King Edward VIII has the most unfortunate consequences. How do nurses cope with wards that are 150% full, with patients lying on mattresses on the floors and babies having to share cots? Of course, the usual quota of staff still has to do the job.

I am told that doctors are having to cope with upwards of 140 patients a day while nurses screening these patients have to do so in a matter of seconds. Patients often have to strip in front of other patients and one can understand the loss of human dignity they must experience.

I am also told that doctors are expressing the fear that they are being asked to do too much. They are gazing jealously at the other teaching hospitals in, for example, Bloemfontein and at Groote Schuur. They are doing their best under the most difficult circumstances, but they know that because of the intense pressure they work under, mistakes can and most probably do happen. Surgeons are often on duty for up to 36 hours and the conditions are not satisfactory.

I believe more needs to be done at King Edward VIII Hospital. I am aware that at another hospital, the Prince Mishiyane, some 14 kms away from King Edward, has relieved the pressure somewhat, but this is a hospital under the control of the KwaZulu-Natal Government and that, Sir, is not enough.

I am aware that there are plans for a new hospital to be built in Kenville, but I believe it will take upwards of 15 years to build and the problem therefore is that when that hospital is ready to be put into use it will not solve the problem of overcrowding, simply because by that time several more hospitals will be required.

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

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

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon member Mr Seedat for his courtesy in affording me the time.

I was merely saying that I am aware that plans are afoot for a new hospital to be built in Cato Manor. However, I believe it will take upwards of 15 years to build and the problem, therefore, is that when that hospital is ready for use it will not solve the problems because by that time several more hospitals will be required to provide for the natural increase in population.

I believe that the King Edward VIII Hospital requires urgent repairs and renovations. I believe that the situation is so shocking that the hospital cannot afford to close wards or sections temporarily for these repairs and renovations to take place because there is no spare area in which to accommodate patients who desperately require medical attention in the rooms that require work to be done on them.

I therefore say to the hon the Minister that until such time as more money is spent on providing proper medical services in the rural areas, and until such time as doctors and nurses begin to involve themselves in preventative medicine instead of purely curative medicine, the problems encountered in providing the Black section of our population with a proper medical and health service will never be solved.

The King Edward VIII Hospital remains a tragedy in that it provides a superb third world health service in a country which boasts a first world medical history.

In conclusion, therefore, I want to say that the high death rate that we have spoken about previously in this House among newborn babies at King Edward VIII Hospital highlights the problem of Third World medical and health care. The deaths have been largely attributed to social factors, transport problems in getting to hospital on time, and the difficulty in attending pre-natal clinics.

While the country has an international reputation for medical research and advances, there is no doubt that the future emphasis must be on primary health care. As has been pointed out by many who are involved in this regard, the emphasis should be on providing the large majority of rural people with basic health education and, of course, the removal of the social conditions that are the major cause of ill-health in this country.

Mr Chairman, I find it incomprehensible that there is a disproportionate allocation of funds for health services. For far too long the Whites have had the lion’s share at the expense of all other races. The national Minister should be the overseer to ensure that there is an equitable distribution. The national Minister should realise that for more than 40 years it has been the White hospitals that have been upgraded, whilst all other hospitals are in a disgraceful state.

The Minister in Own Affairs: House of Delegates is unable to flex his muscles because of his limitations, and hence, in my view, health should be a general affair.

The administrator is not making an equitable distribution of finances, and if the administrator avers that the distribution is fair then he must be reminded that it is only fair that there should be tremendous cut-backs in White spending in order to upgrade health services for the other race groups.

Just by way of example—and I have repeated this previously in this very Chamber—I wish to compare Greys Hospital with Northdale. In 1986-87, Greys Hospital, with 710 nurses, handled 114 681 patients, while Northdale, with only 416 nurses, handled 197 684 patients.

Northdale and many other hospitals are crying out for more staff, but what does the Province do? It allocates R26 million to Greys Hospital, which is the finest hospital, and only R16 million to Northdale Hospital. The hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development should ask the Province to desist from this type of open discrimination. They should plough in money where the need exists and not where it is not warranted.

With regard to war veterans’ pensions it has been announced that there is parity in pensions. Whilst this may be so, some war veterans do not qualify because of the R28 000 means test limit or because their wives are working. These war veterans worked cheek by jowl with Whites to defend this country and yet they are so shabbily treated. The hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development must allocate more money to the own affairs Minister so that the means test too, may be on parity.

I have had numerous telephone calls from my constituency, stating that they have received letters denying them any relief from the Flood Disaster Fund. I know that the hon the Minister is the chairman of the committee and as soon as I receive the relevant documents, I will pass them to the hon the Minister for his evaluation.

Mr Chairman, I am not acting as an agent for Omega, but I am acting in the public interest, having due regard to the shortage of doctors in South Africa.

Much has already been said about the plight of the overseas trained Indian doctors, particularly those who trained in India and in Pakistan. The hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development will recollect that during September last year a motion was presented in this House whereupon all the hon members joined in the debate. A lot was said at that stage about the plight of these doctors, but having regard to the initiative on the part of the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development, together with the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare in this House, a meeting was arranged of which we are all aware. Omega presented their case, but it is sad to note that after this high-powered meeting with the hon the Minister, who was then the mediator, that nothing good has come of this meeting. The end-result was that the status quo of those hundreds of doctors still remained as it was before.

After the meeting a statement was made by the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development, stating that he was powerless to act as he did not have the legal right to meddle in the South African Medical and Dental Council’s affairs. This may be true, but the South African Medical and Dental Council have a cause, namely to retain the status quo by limiting the number of doctors in that profession. This is sad, because the country is running short of doctors after large numbers have left the country for obvious reasons—be it political or otherwise. The number of doctors remaining in South Africa compared with the number of people in this country makes one wonder whether the country qualifies ratio-wise. I am given to understand that sometime in 1986 it was disclosed that only about 20 000 doctors were looking after the health of the population of South Africa, numbering in the region of 25 million—leaving out the TBVC countries. I would like to know if that ratio is in keeping with the World Health Organisation’s accepted ratio for public health.

I do believe that the hon the Minister has a duty to the community as a whole. The relevant Act may not be on the Statute Book, but I think it is important that the hon the Minister plays a role. If there is no provision in the Act I would make a honourable submission to the hon the Minister to make some amendments to the Act, whereby these doctors who have qualified in such large numbers could play an important role in the health and welfare of the people of this country.

It is only the Indian community that is having this problem at the moment. In view of the representative that the hon the Minister has on this autonomous body I feel sure that if pressure were exerted by the hon the Minister on his representative to take up this issue and call upon the South African Medical and Dental Council to amend the rules and the regulations, then after hearing the plight of these doctors from this House, some good would come of this. I do not know whether there is a fear on the part of the South African Medical and Dental Council to recognise these doctors who have been trained in India and Pakistan. However, I want to take this further and say that before the rules were amended by this medical association we had doctors of the calibre of Dr P K Naidoo, who is the Superintendent of the R K Khan Hospital, which is a very large hospital. He was trained at the Grants College in Bombay.

We also have the second largest Indian hospital in Natal, that is the Northdale Hospital in Pietermaritzburg, where Dr Dwarikapersadh is the superintendent at present. He too qualified in India.

I also want to mention that Clairwood Hospital in Durban has a lady doctor, namely Dr Narsing, and she happens to be the superintendent of that hospital. She also qualified in India. These doctors who have qualified have come out of the same universities and I cannot accept that the syllabus and the standard of education has deteriorated. However, if in the opinion of the South African Medical and Dental Council, it has, then may I ask whether these doctors are doing justice to the Black homelands, to the independent states? These are the very states that have been created by this Government. They should also be restrained from doing their internship at these hospitals.

The qualification for these doctors to be admitted as interns in our hospitals has an affect and I am of the view that if these doctors were given the opportunity to do their internship in our provincial hospitals, even if it were over a period of time to enable them to become au fait with what is required by the South African Medical and Dental Council, and then to undergo an examination after a period of time, this may be worthwhile considering rather than getting them come here and write an entrance examination.

Serious consideration should also be given to the two chances one is given. Why should they be limited to just two occasions on which to prove their ability? This matter was taken up on behalf of the Indian community some years ago by a Mr Lawrence Wood, a former MP for Durban Central. He took up this issue some time during 1968 when amendments were made to the rules of the South African Medical and Dental Council. However, during recent times they have amended the rules once again and I think this has been done for no other reason than to bar Indians because they are dark and in large numbers.

Not only Indians; others as well.

Well, I am referring to Indians. I am talking about universities in India and Pakistan and those South African Indians who have gone there for their training. I am not talking about the others because I do not have any facts and figures on them. I therefore cannot talk about how badly the other groups are affected by this.

I have here before me the syllabus of the Banaras Hindu University, which is an internationally acclaimed medical college. I also have the syllabus of the Natal Medical School and I think that if one were to go through these two syllabuses one would find that the requirements at the Banaras Hindu University would perhaps overshadow those of the Natal Medical School. It is important that we should recognise these universities. However, I do not think the South African Medical and Dental Council is playing the game with the Indian community.

Furthermore, the intake at the Natal Medical School this year was very limited. We had 155 Indian students with an A aggregate matric exemption pass last year. I want to say that when one considers that there is an intake of 40 students at the Natal Medical college, an intake which is divided between the Coloureds, Chinese, Indians and various other race groups—leaving aside the other 40 which are allocated to the Blacks—I think the intake at this college is also very wrongly determined.

It should not be based on racial or ethnic grounds. It should be based on merit alone. If the problem is that the university does not have the capacity to take the students, I ask the hon the Minister to open all other universities, so that our children can be distributed to other universities as well.

We have a training college opening in Cato Manor shortly, which has been spoken about. I suggest that serious consideration be given to a medical school being established side by side with this training college so that people aspiring to be doctors will not be overlooked. Everyone has an ambition in life: Why should we be responsible for distorting and retarding their progress? As I mentioned, merit should be the order of the day in selection at the Natal Medical College and it should not be based on ethnic grounds.

I have limited time, but I should like to appeal to the hon the Minister that he asks the South African Medical and Dental Council to amend its rules so as to accommodate overseas medical graduates and make it possible for such graduates to serve internships, work in local hospitals and hence serve the South African Indian community at large. I would further like to appeal to the hon the Minister that he suggest to the South African Medical and Dental Council that after completing five or more years of satisfactory service, and after receiving favourable reports from the heads of hospitals, such doctors should automatically be registered by the South African Medical and Dental Council. I think a period …

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

Mr Chairman, I rise merely to afford the hon member an opportunity to conclude his speech.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. I am indebted to the Whip of the other side.

This is my call. A period of service in a hospital is a service to the community at large and I cannot see any reason why a man who has had hospital training for a further period of five years in South Africa would not be qualified to look after the affairs of the community at large.

I wish to go further. With the limited number of doctors in the community, surgeries are now becoming mini-hospitals. One will never find a doctor’s surgery available at any time without a patient. One will always find a number of patients waiting for doctors to come and treat them. Why should this situation prevail when we have hundreds of doctors who are actually walking the streets presently?

Before I resume my seat, I want to say that I was rather disturbed to read an article in the paper last year about a family who were looking forward to attending a seminar in the Northern Transvaal area. It was rather disturbing to read that a directive had been given to the organisers of this meeting to bar an Indian couple. I would like to quote one paragraph for the information of hon members:

What really perturbed me most is that on the eve of this seminar a directive went out from the office of the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development that non-Whites were not to attend this meeting. [Interjections.]

I am sure you know that that paper is not always correct.

Well, Mr Chairman, if the paper was not correct, I would have read something else regarding the statement made in the paper.

Do you think that paper is always correct?

Well, Mr Chairman, I am only quoting what the paper says. It may not be correct, but I would like the hon the Minister to address the House on this issue.

Do you think that paper is always correct?

Well, Sir, I know …

Yes or no?

Well, if it was correct …

Yes or no?

No. Therefore I would like the hon the Minister to address us on this issue and whether it is so or not.

I can tell you now it is wrong.

Well, Mr Chairman, I do hope it is wrong, because one would at least have expected a directive of this nature to come from such a high office.

It is maliciously wrong.

Well, Mr Chairman, I think the newspaper should be taken to task.

I leave it to you.

Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Chairman, I want to carry on where the hon member for Havenside left off. I want to say that knowing the hon the Minister as well as we do, I believe that he would never be responsible for issuing such irresponsible statements.

I wish to extend my congratulations to the Director General, Dr Slabber. I wish him well in his office. Having had the opportunity of meeting him, I understand that he is a very devoted and dedicated man. I sincerely trust that we will certainly be able to work together, as we have done in the past.

I also want to extend a word of welcome to my colleague, the hon the Minister and the hon the Deputy Minister, as well as the hon the Deputy Minister of Population Development. I want to say on behalf of this House that it is always a pleasure having these gentlemen with us.

I would also like to extend my compliments on the presentation of this elaborate report. It is very educational and I think the facts in this report make for very good reading. However, I am not going to go into all the details. Some of my other colleagues will probably elaborate on some of the other points. I would like to confine myself to three or four points which have a direct bearing on my hon colleague. One of these issues deals with the post mortems which the hon the Minister so kindly assisted us in. We now have in our department a paging service in order to make it convenient for anybody who require services after hours. It is not always possible to expect our district surgeons to be sitting and waiting for calls. To date this has worked out extremely well. I just want to draw the attention of my hon colleague to the fact that we are still experiencing some difficulty with the SA Police.

I did take the liberty of sending my hon colleague a copy of a letter which I received from our district surgeon, Dr M Bhamjee, with regard to a particular case that was raised by the hon member for Brickfield. I am sure he will not mind if I mention this. I just wish to read an extract from this letter to give the hon the Minister an indication of what is going on there. I hope this is not going to continue for much longer. He says here, and I quote:

This is the disregard he has for other people. I quote further:

Fortunately the district surgeon was successful in assisting in this particular case, but I wish to appeal to the hon the Minister to ensure that the police are kept up to date with the arrangements we have made in order not to embarrass members of our community when we do have post mortems after hours and over week-ends.

I also wish to touch on the question of the 1987-88 floods in Durban and, of course, the recent floods in the Free State. I want to extend my personal congratulations to the hon the Minister for the wonderful manner in which he conducted the particular issue of floods which was of great concern to the entire Natal and Free State.

I want to place on record my sincere appreciation to Mr Japie Visser, director of fund-raising. He is in the House, and on behalf of the House I wish to extend our congratulations to him on the wonderful manner in which he conducted his affairs with regard to the question of the floods in the various regions. During our recent visit to the Administrator of Natal, Mr Visser accompanied us at a time when we had to declare Ladysmith a flood disaster area. This particular recommendation was approved by the hon the Minister. On behalf of my colleague, the hon the Deputy Minister, I wish to record my thanks for his having done so, because it now means that we are able to consider claims. We also have a further problem which my hon colleague mentioned only this morning.

I understand that 179 claims have not yet been processed. I know from past experience that very many people conveniently skip the part where we ask whether they are insured. The department then has to send the forms back to them and I think this is where the delay occurs. I would like to make an appeal that, once the forms are returned, all possible attempts must be made to expedite the process as the people have waited patiently for a long time.

My colleague the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture also referred to claims by the farmers. I know it is a long drawn out process but I want to appeal to him to give some attention to the matter. We receive letters every day. Many hon members in this House have brought the situation—especially that in Natal—to my attention and I would welcome it very much if some attention can be given to the matter.

I would like to touch on an issue flowing from the speech of the hon member for Havenside. It concerns doctors and dentists who have been trained overseas. I want to put the records straight and state that the meeting was arranged by myself and my hon colleague. The hon member for Springfield raised the matter of this meeting during my debate. The two of us met with a representative of Omega in Pretoria where we had an hour to discuss some very important matters. Unfortunately this representative took up 45 minutes of the allocated time to promote himself so that we had very little time left to discuss the important matters.

I want to mention that I have just received a memorandum. This time it is not from Omega but from the parents of medical students who graduated overseas. I think I should read from it because it supports the facts raised by the hon member for Springfield as well as the hon member for Havenside.

The matter is of great concern to us. I understand that we have over 350 doctors who are idly walking the streets. At the same time there is a grave shortage of doctors at many of the hospitals I visited. We can therefore hardly afford to have them walking in the streets. I mentioned to my hon colleague during our meeting in Pretoria that some officials of the Medical Council had the audacity to tell one of these doctors that he should perhaps look for a job in the OK Bazaars. [Interjections.] One does not want such a thing to happen. These men are trained, qualified men and all they need is an entry into the field. [Interjections.]

I want to quote from the memorandum as follows:

They go on to say:

I think my colleague the hon member for Havenside mentioned the names and I am just going to mention some of the institutions. I quote as follows:

Then it tabulates some of the salient points:

1. (a) That graduates who complete their medical degrees outside the RSA be permitted to complete their internship in the RSA, the country of their birth.
2. (b) That after completing five or more years of satisfactory service after receiving favourable reports from the head of the hospital such doctors be automatically registered by the SA Medical and Dental Council.
3. (c) That overseas graduates be permitted to fill vacant posts in the RSA and/or in the homelands.
4. (d) That whilst the present requirements required as far as the examination for recognition in South Africa are concerned an independent panel of examiners be selected by the hon the Minister of Health in the House of Assembly in consultation with the Ministers of Health of the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates.
5. (e) That the SA Medical and Dental Council arrange refresher courses for overseas graduates with a view to offering guidance and assistance in preparation for the examinations. We submit that such arrangements were made for the overseas qualified dentists at UWV.
6. (f) That in so far as some of the medical colleges of India are concerned they follow the British tradition of teaching and training doctors and their degrees are accepted by medical councils of most of the countries in the world.
   In conclusion, in the overseas graduates South Africa has a valuable asset considering the brain-drain which is taking place.
   Facts and figures were published in the media not so long ago that South African doctors have in the past and will in the future serve South Africa with dedication.

Then they continue, and this is the last paragraph:

1. 1. Conditions governing restricted registration of medical practitioners and dentists in the RSA and in SWA enumerated on Form 68 issued by the SA Medical and Dental Council, April 1986 entitles medical practitioners who qualified before 1 January 1985 to restricted registration. We urge the hon the Minister to extend the right to those overseas medical graduates who commenced their studies prior to April 1986 because these students left South Africa in the knowledge that rules regarding registration at the time of their departure entitled them to restricted registration on their return.
2. 2. That the “two attempts” clause be abolished.

I shall convey the purport of this particular memorandum to my hon colleague with the sincere hope that something positive will now come about.

Mr Chairman, I firstly want to deal with the matter that has been raised in this House and in the other Houses of Parliament, and that is pensions payable by the State to those people who have retired from work and who are dependent on the State for the means to live.

We also read some disturbing news in the newspapers about the need for the Houses, if they want to pay a reasonable State pension to the people on their roll possibly to have to transfer money from another vote in their Budget. In other words, if the House of Representatives or the House of Delegates wants to pay a figure in excess of that which has been identified in their Budget, they will have to make sacrifices from other provisions in the Budget. In other words we would have to supplement it with our own resources and thereby one department will have to make sacrifices for the other.

The point I am coming to is: Why is there such dilly-dallying in this country about attacking this problem at its root by instituting a compulsory pension scheme for everybody and anybody who takes on a job?

Let me go further. If some people want to interfere with this programme, which assures a man that when he retires at the age of 60 or 65 he will not have to approach social welfare organisations or look to the Government for his pension, and that his pension will be something that he has earned, then anybody who interferes with that process must be told that if he wants to follow the other road, then he must also be able to accept the consequences of his actions. I think it is absolute and utter nonsense for anybody to deny workers the right to contribute to pensions.

Where people belong to the lower income group, I believe the State can also assist in helping them to supplement their own contribution, so that the small contribution the State makes to help the man in the lower category of employment will again pay dividends on his retirement. I believe that no political interference should be tolerated to any scheme that is mooted to make it possible for any man, irrespective of his colour, to earn an honourable pension at the end of his working period. It think it is absolutely stupid for anybody to interfere with any programme designed to achieve these goals.

After all, I have heard the demand for more pensions every year in this House. This is understandable, since the cost of living is going up and those people who are dependent on the Government pensions require more funds. There are limitations, however. I have never read of any budget presented anywhere in the world where people said they were satisfied with the provisions made in that budget. It will not happen in this country either, not in 50 nor in 100 years, since the demands on the Exchequer will always increase beyond the ability of the coffers of the State to provide. We as legislators understand this position. What worries me …

Mr Chairman, is my learned colleague not aware that 68% of the Black population have indicated that they distrust the Government, and is he not aware of the fact that they could be manipulated by those who do not want a pension fund to succeed, and this is merely symptomatic of the distrust of the Black population?

These are all challenges that are not beyond the capacity of men of goodwill to overcome. I accept that there are problems; I indicated that at the outset. However, I say that it is the right of the individual, irrespective of his colour to obtain a pension at the end of his working life; this is something that must be guaranteed to individuals.

In this country we often have problems, and I say we must attempt to overcome those problems. However, I think it is important that nobody who has given a lifetime of service to an employer, be it Government, private sector, or anybody else, should at the end of that period have to hang his head and hold out his hands for alms. I think that this affects the dignity of individuals.

All I am saying is that we have the situation and we will live with the problem for some time. Let us, however, try to address the issue so that this problem does not linger on for years and years and well into the future.

We have a historical imbalance as far as non-White people are concerned, but what I say is that we should examine this situation, address the problem and institute a programme which will minimise the dependence of people of colour on the State to a degree that within the foreseeable future—be it 10, 20 or 30 years—the problem will disappear completely. This is the point that I am making.

I know of workers in my own community who gave long service to employers—50 years or more—because some of them started work at 12. However, when they retired, they got peanuts!

They did get a watch!

Yes, they might even have been given a watch costing a couple of rand. However, this is the kind of situation that has placed burdens on the State. What I am saying is that I believe that workers, irrespective of the community they belong to, should be taken into the confidence of employers. The cards should be laid on the table and the benefits that accrue to employees should be explained honestly and sincerely. It can be demonstrated that presently there are people who have left an organisation with satisfactory pensions, while other employees on retirement will receive even better pensions.

I think this is a question of public relations and of building up confidence. Naturally there is also a matter of fighting, with all the means at our disposal, those people who want to create grounds for agitation in the pensions set-up. That is what the hon member for Reservoir Hills was talking about. However, I believe it will not be possible for the State to address the question of pensions if it is going to go on at this rate and be put off by persons who wish to find a basis for agitation on the question of compulsory pensions.

Since we have this problem we will tackle it, but it is important that we find measures which will avoid the kind of situation which we are called upon to address at this moment. It simply boils down to this: In the past Whites were guaranteed pensions and Coloureds, Asians and Blacks were ignored. All I am saying is that the whole community of South Africa, irrespective of race, must have that right. It should be compulsory for every employer to institute a pension scheme, so that people can enjoy an honourable pension at the end of their work period.

The other point I would like to make is that when Medunsa as a medical school was mooted, I got the impression that it was intended that training of paramedics would be a part of the programme of that school. I believe that in a country like South Africa, with its First and Third World situation, we will come under enormous pressure unless the realities of the situation are taken into account. Medicine, health and welfare services should be planned on the basis of some realism. I believe that particularly in the rural areas amongst the developing sectors of our community, properly trained paramedics under supervision of doctors can play an excellent role. They could reduce to a great extent the demands that are presently made on hospitals and medical services. Prevention is better than cure and paramedics can operate in the rural areas, carrying out those services for which they are equipped. Much of that can be done under guidance of doctors. I have read volumes on this score and it has been successful in many countries in the world, although I could not care if it was successful or not successful elsewhere. South Africa is in many ways unique. Let us find a unique answer to our problems. I believe that paramedics can play a role in community medicine—particularly in the rural areas where a large percentage of our population is centred and where we have these problems.

I am also concerned about the fact that malaria has recently manifested itself increasingly in Natal. To a large extent I believe that our open borders between Mozambique and South Africa in a way are contributing to the arrival of this menace. Steps must be taken, because from time to time we get malaria cases as near as Eshowe and even south of the Tugela. This is frightening and it is very clear where the source is.

Another fact was referred to in the House, namely the doctor to patient ratio, the nurse to patient ratio and the nurse to bed ratio. In Natal this matter was discussed at the Natal standing committee dealing with provincial matters. The disparities were then admitted by the spokesman for the Province and on this score one can speak volumes. However, again I believe that this is a question of money and as the plea has been made, for a larger allocation to meet these needs. I believe that for the purpose of redressing historical imbalances in the responsibilities delegated to the House of Delegates, more money should be made available. Own affairs can become an embarrassment if we are to tell our people on a regular basis regarding every matter for which we are responsible, that we just cannot get the funds from the central Government to satisfy the needs and aspirations of our people.

Mr Chairman, firstly I want to welcome the Director-General, Dr Slabber, here. I hope that we will see him here often, because we need his services very much in this House. As far as I can remember, I think the hon the Deputy Minister of Population Development is also visiting us for the first time in the new Chamber. He was in our old Chamber and I would like to welcome him here and I hope that we will also see him here often, because we also need his help very much.

†At the outset I wish to express gratitude to the hon the Minister for having played a very important role in conjunction with our hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare in making postmortems after normal hours possible—particularly on Sundays and holidays, as was mentioned in the House just now.

As it is religiously incumbent upon the Muslim community, just like the Jewish community, to lay their dead to rest as soon as possible after death, and as religious freedom is the order of the day under the present Government, I must commend the good steps taken by the hon the Minister in this regard. Dale Carnegie says: “Be lavish in your praise where praise is due”, and I do not think I should be stingy and mean in expressing my appreciation for what is good. I must record the good gesture of the hon the Minister in conjunction with our administration and the Transvaal Provincial Administration in making hospital services available to our community at White hospitals in certain rural towns in the Transvaal.

In certain towns; not in all.

Yes, in certain Transvaal towns where we did not have these facilities before.

However, Mr Chairman, let me state emphatically and with a feeling of optimism that this should serve as a forerunner to the opening of all hospitals to all human beings, as it is common cause that ailments and sicknesses have no racial barriers; that diseases cannot be identified in various colour connotations; and that medicines cannot be administered in doses of racial elements.

One has “witdulsies” but one does not find “bruindulsies” or “swartdulsies”. [Interjections.] Witdulsies are for the Whites, the Coloureds, the Indians and the Blacks. One also has “rooilaventel”, but one will not find “witlaventel” or “swartlaventel”. That “rooi laventel” is for everyone. [Interjections.]

I wish to record the hon the Minister’s role in the recent Natal flood relief, where his services were of an excellent nature.

One aspect which I should like to bring to the attention of the Ministers and Deputy Ministers concerned, is the squatting in various areas which is really causing a health hazard. This question will have to be addressed with a view to eliminating the situation in order to bring about good health conditions; otherwise we shall be looking for trouble.

One matter of great concern which previous speakers have also mentioned, is the impediment to the registration of medical practitioners who acquire degrees outside the border of South Africa. These students who go overseas to acquire their degrees are forced to go there, not of their own volition but because there is a lack of facilities in South Africa owing to the quotas and other impediments. That is why they have to go overseas. Once they have obtained their degrees overseas they come back here and it is purely for political reasons that they are not permitted to practise as practitioners in South Africa.

Some of the university degrees that are not accepted in our country are of such repute and are so widely accepted throughout the world that they are not rejected anywhere else in the world, and yet they are not accepted in South Africa. It is a pity that political elements are causing detriment to medical science, which is both essential and dear to us in today’s modern world. Although the Medical Council is an autonomous body—that is what they say and that is why they do not wish to consider these matters—surely the hon the Minister’s good offices and his department could do a great deal to right the political wrong that exists.

I know of a number of good doctors who have been debarred from practising in the Republic of South Africa owing to the fact that their degrees were not obtained in the Republic, but who have achieved a great deal of success in neighbouring countries. I do trust, and I express the hope that the hon the Minister will take up the cudgels in order to bring about a good result in this regard.

There is an anomaly which exists in our Welfare Act and I want to quote a case of an old man who has nothing but the roof over his head. I brought this to the attention of the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare in this House, but unfortunately he could not do anything about it as he said his hands were tied.

Let us look at the facts. This man has nothing to his name. He is a man of straw and all he has is his house. He has a daughter who looks after him as he is nearly 80 years old. His daughter is over 50 years old. She looks after him but she, too, has nothing. She is not even working. If this man goes to an attorney to make a will, I might charge him R10, but another attorney might charge him R100. [Interjections.] He does not even have that money to pay for his will. Therefore, during his last days he transfers this land to the name of his daughter. Because he transferred the property to his daughter’s name, his grant is stopped, because they say that he has now sold his property. In all fairness, the Receiver of Revenue wants transfer duty and he will ascertain this duty on the basis of municipal evaluations. Because the municipal evaluation of the property is more than R28 000, this man’s grant is completely stopped and he has nothing to live on. Now he and his daughter must live on fresh air. Surely something can be done here to eliminate this kind of inconvenience.

If we are here to look after the welfare of the people, we must look to the good of the people and not, on technical points, try and stop the pensions of those people who are really in need thereof and require it.

Mr Chairman …

Speak Afrikaans!

No, Mr Chairman. I speak both languages. Hon members know me well.

†Mr Chairman, I want to ask the hon the Minister …

In Zulu.

I cannot speak Zulu; that is the trouble. [Interjections.] No, I am saying something, and hon members are leading me astray.

†I do not think these people who suffer because of the anomalous stipulations in our law should be deprived, because in practical life they need this assistance. For that reason I appeal to the hon the Minister to do whatever he can to help these people out of their dilemma.

Mr Chairman, I have had the privilege and the pleasure of having worked with the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development, his Deputy Minister and his entire department. May I, on behalf of all of us here, extend to Prof Francois Retief, our previous director, our best wishes. He is now vice-chancellor elect of the University of the Orange Free State and has joined the of SA Druggists. I wish him well. In the same breath, may I extend a hearty welcome to Dr C F Slabber. I know he will be happy with us.

I will touch on something which has been plaguing not only us in this country, but people all over the world. It is something which affects us from the womb to the grave. This is drugs. I know personally that the hon the Minister is intrinsically involved in fighting this issue, not from a racial or a national point of view, but from an international point of view. Someone may say that this is not the right place to bring up this topic, but it is a reality which cannot be put into watertight compartments. All ministries of health services are intrinsically involved with this grave problem. Our hon Minister of Health Services and Welfare has been involved with this very problem long before he ever dreamt that he would come to Parliament.

I know that for a fact. I have worked with him personally. I am sure he and other colleagues will do their damndest to solve this problem. I am in a somewhat, not invidious position, but in a position to be able to provide some facts. I am involved religiously, socially, educationally and from a welfare point of view, not only in my constituency, but throughout the Republic. I have involved myself in the Transvaal, Natal and the Cape Province, but not in the Free State.

How can we get these facts? I feel if we get the facts and statistics and give it to the powers that be, they will not only realise the gravity of the situation, but they will do everything in their power to solve this problem.

This morning there was something on the television programme, “Goeie more, Suid-Afrika”, that startled me. They showed that in New York City five and six year olds are hooked on drugs. Believe it or not, five and six year old urchins of the street are hooked on drugs. We contacted a number of school committees, parent teacher associations, as well as schools, in order to get the facts. Although we are involved in fighting this problem from an interracial point of view, it is only natural to expect us to be involved with our specific community, namely the Indian community. This is how some bodies set about doing things.

We got the response of the schools concerned. Believe it or not, 90% of the 390 schools that were asked to co-operate, responded. Let me emphasise once more that this is being tackled from the highest level by our hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare, the hon the Minister of Education and Culture, as well as the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development. They did not only confine themselves to the seniors where we think drug abuse is prevalent, but also to the primary schools where this problem starts. Hon members have to bear in mind that the school reflects what happens in a community.

I am glad to say that drug abuse is negligible in all primary schools that were consulted. The figure is 0% to 1%, and this is alarming for primary schools. By far the greatest incidence of drug abuse is in secondary schools.

The areas that were consulted and which co-operated in this study, are the northern regions of Natal, the Chatsworth areas where a large percentage of our community resides, as well as Durban Central and so on. I now wish to give hon members some statistics. In Northern Natal 5 099 pupils who co-operated were interviewed. Of these 5,6% took some form of drugs. That is a very high figure. In the Chatsworth area the figure was even more alarming. Of 16 500 pupils 2,17% were indulging in drugs. The figure for Durban Central is rather surprising. Of 11 065 pupils, only 1,2% were taking drugs. In Phoenix, another sprawling townships, 8 778 pupils were consulted and 8,11% were taking drugs. In Pietermaritzburg 4 678 pupils were interviewed. Of these 0,66% were taking drugs. Although this figure is not alarming, it is worrying nonetheless. In Stanger 2 966 pupils were interviewed, and 0,07% were found to be indulging in drugs. I now come to the lower South Coast where 3 556 pupils were interviewed—6,4% were taking drugs. In the Transvaal province—not the schools, the entire province—9 836 pupils were interviewed, and 2,6% were taking drugs.

My main aim this afternoon is to bring to the hon the Minister’s notice that mandrax is by far the greatest evil.

Where does it come from?

Where all the others come from.

Bombay!

Mandrax in the Transvaal and alcohol in Natal are evils that cannot be condoned.

What is also alarming is the fact that the Indian community was previously considered to be a community that does not succumb to these evils very easily but that is a thing of the past. The second factor that is causing alarm among our educators is the fact that girls are taking part in the use of drugs.

I know the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development as being always helpful and magnanimous and I know that he will do everything in his power to help all the other ministries of health to overcome this problem. We will at a later stage throw in our help where necessary. Our department is working hard and I am sure that if each one of us throws our weight behind it, the burden will be somewhat lighter.

Mr Chairman, we again welcome the hon the Minister. We know he is very dedicated to the health and welfare portfolio and I think this House has always given him a good hearing. We were always ready with good advice as well as criticism given with a true perspective.

I think my colleague the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare in this House in presenting his Budget Vote the other day, made it very clear from his report that it would become very difficult for him to provide all the necessary services insofar as his department is concerned.

I wish to reiterate the concern that everybody in this House had when it became known that health services would be divided into three own affairs departments. If the trend that prevailed during the past year continues, the hon the Minister will have to consider the fact that there is one area in South Africa where one cannot play and that concerns the social upliftment of the community, especially insofar as its health services are concerned. One can build as many homes as one likes but if the individuals are not well cared for they will become a burden for the State. It will also mean that indirectly we will have to pay more to keep such an individual going through various subsidies that he will receive. I read in the report of the hon the Minister’s department that everything is being done to improve the situation, and that is laudable.

In my speech on 21 April in this House I said to the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare that I was concerned about “their inability to provide all the kinds of services in regard to health and welfare if sufficient funds are not forthcoming.” I think we should also make it clear that if the trend continues it will be of great concern to us. We must redress the imbalances that exist between the communities. In my speech on 21 April I also referred to a survey undertaken by the University of Port Elizabeth which showed—I subscribe to their findings—that in 1985, 22% of the economically-active section of the Indian community earned a mere R400 per month. If one takes the escalating cost of living into account there will be a heavy drain on the financial resources of the departments of the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare as well as the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development.

Why are we so concerned? This is because until now the one issue we have not been able to resolve in this House from the time this Government took over—that is with the new constitution—is that while we are talking about equality in pensions and the other grants that are received by the different ethnic groups in this country, the hon the Minister’s own National Health and Welfare Act does not discriminate between the various groups.

We made it abundantly clear in this House that it was necessary for the Minister to allow the Ministers of Health Services and Welfare to have an almost uniform means test as a starting point. We agree that it is going to take time to equalise the imbalances in pensions and grants. However, why must we still have the means test which discriminates?

Let me tell hon members why the means test came about. In the old days the old Government—I say the old because I am also referring to the old Public Service—believed that the White community could live on X amount of money and the Indians, Coloureds and Blacks could live on less.

My philosophy has been—and that can be said for all my colleagues who have been involved in welfare—that the only reason one cannot have the same standard of living as the next man is because one is not able to on the amount of money one has. that is if one’s earning capacity is low. If one has the money one can eat and drink and live as one pleases.

Now, the means test was somebody’s philosophy. It has been recorded—and I do not want to bring up old history—that it has been said over and over again in the House of Assembly that the Indian man can live on less than the White, the Coloured or the Black.

All I am asking the hon the Minister here is why is he taking so much time because we have heard from our colleague the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare that the Minister is looking at this because he has the powers in terms of the Act with regard to the regulations. That must be resolved because it is outdated and here an example has been mentioned in this House by my colleague the hon member for Actonville where a pensioner has been disqualified because whatever property was transferred is converted into income and if that income is over R28 000 he loses out. However, if his White counterpart had to do the same transfer he would get a pension because his ceiling is about R42 000.

The price of food and the cost of living is the same for everyone. This is an outdated regulation because in the old days each Minister of Indian affairs, Coloured affairs and Black affairs had to make his own regulations in terms of the old Government’s policy. Our hon Minister over there is a man who does not think along those particular lines and therefore I think this should be resolved because one cannot explain this to the supporters of this country outside Parliament. One cannot decide on the basis of the means test that one person can live on less money. We should scrap that means test and place everyone on the same starting point.

We should have a means test that enables us to judge everyone on the same basis. This discriminatory means test must be got rid of immediately. That would be a better starting point because hundreds of Indian pensioners or Coloured pensioners who have been disqualified recently in the last couple of years will be able to qualify.

I should also like to mention one other aspect and that is that I see a very grave danger in this whole budgeting system, particularly with regard to the hon the Minister’s portfolio and that of my colleague the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare. If we start to prune the budget for Health Services and Welfare it will have consequences. Until now the Indian community has been a self-help community. The community has taken pride in this. The poorer members of the community would not show their weakness to the rest of the community and the older people stayed there regardless of what they had to eat. The poorer communities would not go and stand in a queue to beg.

For many years we have been able to live in this way. If one checks our per capita expenditure, one will find that it was far lower than many other communities except our Black colleagues.

I am therefore worried that if as far as the handicapped people are concerned we have only started in the last couple of years, through the portfolios of the hon the Minister of Education and Culture and the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare, to be able to build an infrastructure to take care of the many different …

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

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

Mr Chairman, I am indebted to my hon colleague in this House.

The point I was making is that we are only beginning to provide the infrastructure whereby to take care of the different categories of handicapped people. If we start to cut down we are going to build up a substantial backlog, and ultimately this will become the responsibility of the State. I say that prevention will be better than cure, and up to now, if the hon the Minister also checks his records, we have not been a great burden on the State over the last number years. I just wish to state those facts and at the same time wholeheartedly support what my hon leader, the hon Leader of the Official Opposition, said, namely that as far as the aged and pensions are concerned, this is a matter that must be resolved or else we shall have a greater indirect burden for all kinds of assistance which the Budget of my colleague the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare will not be able to provide for.

With these few words I want to say that we are concerned. In particular, health services and welfare in South Africa is a key to the success of all other structures we may want to build. A good nation always achieves success in regard to the standard of living of its people. That is something we may not neglect.

Mr Chairman, the subject matter that I wish to raise this afternoon has already been raised by the hon the Minister for Health Services and Welfare in this House. I am grateful for this, and I wish to thank him.

I do not think that the matter of post mortems is settled in Durban. On 26 March this year a prominent member of the Muslim community died by stabbing. His body was not released until the next day. In spite of numerous appeals made to the person in charge, a Constable Moodley, he never tried to assist. I telephoned the person concerned. Dr Bhamjee, who only responded to my call at 8 o’clock that night. She was away—I do not blame her.

I also tried to contact our hon Minister. He was away, but he was good enough to contact me at about 10 o’clock at night, for which I am grateful.

The notice in the mortuary makes provision for certain times. Constable Moodley said: “Mr Rajbansi or anybody else can come here; the body is there, but Dr Bhamjee, I am not acceding to your request.”

I now appeal to the Minister of National Health and Population Development to please try and have this matter rectified as far as Durban is concerned. One can imagine the situation, Mr Chairman; there were approximately 1 000 people assembled at the premises of the deceased. The grave had been dug and the food cooked. How do you imagine the people must have felt? They look to me, Mr Khan. They said that I was the one who had announced that a post mortem could be done.

It was embarrassing. I blame that person, Constable Moodley, who was adamant. He would not co-operate and would not even give the name of the person concerned. At four o’clock everything came to a standstill as far as the investigation was concerned. Once again I appeal to the hon the Minister please to rectify the situation. Although I do not think it is in the hands of the hon the Minister, he should maybe try to speak to the Chief of Police, to discipline this police constable to act properly.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Bayview spoke about women who carried Aids. During a conversation with the hon member a few weeks ago, he also spoke about men carrying Aids. Has he now forgotten these men or is he insistent that only women carry Aids? I do not think it is fair. I would like to know what the hon the Minister is doing to prevent foreigners from bringing Aids into this country, as was mentioned last year.

Do we not want foreign aid?

I hope that this matter will be taken seriously. I know that the hon the State President made a joke about it in this House. It was a lengthy one, too.

Concerning the staff shortage at the Northdale Hospital in Pietermaritzburg I would like to mention certain complaints made to the chairman of the hospital board. Upon investigation he found that in the casualty department in the evening they had only one staff member. Any patient who arrived there had to wait for an hour and a half because only one man was in attendance. He had to attend to the phone calls, to admitting the patients and he also had to see what was happening inside where the doctors were. Because of staff shortages these are some of the complaints that we receive in Pietermaritzburg. As far as the dispensing of medicine is concerned, there is a queue from the morning right through the afternoon. Some ladies, who have no one to help them with the cooking, only go home at about four o’clock. When the husband gets home a half hour later, there is no food for him. Hon members can imagine the consequences.

I would like to mention that the ambulances should be manned by men trained as nurses. I know of cases where people are lying in the road after an accident, bleeding profusely. The ambulance attendants simply get a stretcher, put the patient on it and take him to the hospital without rendering any assistance. I am sure that this matter also needs consideration. No first aid is provided before the patients are taken to hospital, whereas overseas the attendants help quite a lot.

As I said previously, with the price of medicine as it is today a person would rather die than afford the high prices. I know a number of people who own pharmacies and who also own half a dozen flats. However, when the governing body of pharmacists approaches us, they want to give us lunch at one of the hotels and tell us that the pharmacists are losing money because the Government has passed certain legislation. That is not at all correct and I would like the hon the Minister to look into this.

The hon member for Lenasia Central has requested me to appeal on his behalf that the hon the Minister use his influence with the Transvaal Provincial Administration to get the Lenasia Hospital off the ground. I have been there and the hospital was built three or four years ago. It still has not been manned and it is not in use.

It is not only Indians who are going to use that hospital. There are Coloureds in the Ennersdale area as well, and I want to know …

No patients!

They have patients waiting for it to open. The people have no patience! [Interjections.] What is more, I do not think they have the staff or the necessary machinery.

I now want to talk about pensions. As the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has said, I have a complaint here from a man who served South Africa in the South African Navy. This man was one of the first Indians to enlist in the South African Navy. He also represented South Africa overseas in Germany, France and other places. He also recruited women as Swans and he recruited more Indians for the Navy. He was an instructor and also ran a gym.

However, what happened when he started to fight for the rights of the Indian people there? I think he was victimised. He was discharged after having rendered service for eight years. Today if one were to go and visit his home one would find that his family are starving. They are living by begging and by the help of their neighbours. [Interjections.]

This man served his country efficiently and this is what he gets in return. To be sure, this is a very disturbing and shocking matter.

I might mention that I have already handed his particulars to our hon Minister of Health Services and Welfare, who is attending to the matter. However, the matter is so serious that I want the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development to assist in seeing what can be done for this gentleman. I know him personally. What is more, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and most hon members of this House know him. He is Mr B Ramchander. If anyone were to go and visit him they would see his plight. He has three daughters in addition to his wife and himself, and none of them is working. It is a very, very sad state of affairs.

With those few words I want to congratulate the hon the Minister and his entire staff, as previous speakers have done.

Mr Chairman, I also want to take this opportunity to congratulate the new Director-General of the Department of National Health and Population Development. I am sure that in view of his record of service to the health family in this country, he will play a very important role in respect of the improvement of the quality of life of our people.

I also want to place on record once again—we have done this before—our very deep appreciation for the excellent manner in which the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development, his two Deputy Ministers and his entire administration assisted the country during the time of the two recent great flood disasters we have experienced. I especially want to express my gratitude for the fact that my hon colleague went out of his way to respond to the numerous requests made by my colleague the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare in our administration.

Three hundred and fifty people lost their lives during the Natal flood disaster and 163 people are still missing. According to our calculations it is believed that a total of 56 581 people were left homeless. It was a mammoth task. It was a difficult task, and I think the hon the Minister and his department rose to the occasion, and for that we are very, very grateful indeed.

The flood disaster fund has more or less completed its task. However, we find in the building industry something which can be described as latent defects. There are certain areas in this country where houses are now beginning to collapse. There is a small area in Shallcross called Harinagar where an entire hill is moving. The hon member for Cavendish should listen, since it is in his constituency. Here 25 homes have been virtually destroyed and they cannot be repaired. I appeal to my colleague that if it is proven that this movement of the hill is a latent defect caused by the recent floods, these people must be assisted from the disaster fund. Engineers from the Department of Housing are examining this together with engineers of the provincial administration and of the Development and Services Board. As soon as the report of these engineers is available, if necessary my colleague, the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare, will communicate with the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development with a view to assisting these people.

In the field of health we are taught from a very young age that prevention is better than cure. I attach tremendous importance to the utterances made this afternoon by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in his repeated call for the education of the people of South Africa in respect of compulsory pension. I know, as the hon member for Reservoir Hills indicated, that the Blacks treat this with some measure of suspicion. However, I believe that if we do not take remedial measures now, this country’s financial resources will not be able to carry the load that will be imposed on our pension fund in the next three or four decades.

Another very important task of this ministry is population development. I think we must stop for one moment and take stock of the future requirements of drinking water in this country, the future requirements for feeding the South African nation and the future requirements of the population on the total resources of this country. Here I want to place on record the excellent work that is being done by the hon the Deputy Minister of Population Development. I would like hon members to make an in-depth study. If we do not control the birthrate of the various population groups, not only in South Africa but in the Southern African region, there will come a day in this country when we will not have sufficient drinking water and people will die in their thousands. That is why it is very necessary that we take preventative measures now.

According to the annual report of this department, the total fertility rate, referred to as the TFR, which represents the average number of children per woman, should be reduced to 2,1, not by 1990, but by 2010. One is given a chance. If we can programme the South African communities to reduce the total fertility rate to 2,1 by 2010, the South African population will cease to grow, like the Indian population has done now. We did not make any attempt to reduce the total fertility rate in the Indian community, but we used other methods. We placed emphasis on education. We increased the educational levels of our community and automatically, with an increase in the level of education, one had a decrease in the birthrate in the Indian community.

That is applicable to any community throughout the world where one has an increase in the level of education. In any population development programme, it is essential to improve the quality of life on a broad scale. Not only do we need to uplift education, but we also have to provide sufficient housing to improve the health and environmental conditions of the people.

Let us look at the figures in this population development section. The present natural growth of the South African population is 2,3% per year. The figures are as follows: Whites 0,83%, Coloureds 1,92%, Asians 1,85% and Blacks 2,8%. The total fertility rate in our national and independent states is quite high. That is where attention is needed most. It is very pleasing to note that the Department of National Health and Population Development is also playing a valuable role in the independent and national states.

There are interesting statistics as far as population development is concerned. If the current rate of growth continues, South Africa’s population will reach approximately 140 million in 2050. That is alarming. That is dangerous. If the advice of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is not taken, and if the Blacks are to resist a compulsory pension scheme, it will be impossible for even 0,5% of South Africa’s aged to get social pensions in this country. The State will not be able to afford it. South Africa’s population could reach a staggering figure of 800 million in the year 2100.

Let us not look at history and judge these programmes negatively. Let us not make negative interjections. Let us face the realities. I am giving hon members figures in the present context. These projections are alarming. If the current growth trends continue, the size of the population will outstrip the country’s resources. This will have a profoundly negative effect on the total quality of life. It is estimated that the population will be approximately 119 million in the year 2100.

According to these statistics, if one puts all the country’s resources together, this country cannot afford to carry a population of more than 80 million. If we therefore concentrate on the reduction of the total fertility rate to be reduced to 2,1 by the year 2010, the growth of South Africa’s population will be stabilised. Our population will cease to grow and it will stabilise at 80 million.

I am sure that the hon the Deputy Minister of Population Development will give us statistics in respect of the results of this programme. I have a high regard for the future welfare of this country. I also think the Department of Population Development is one of the most important State departments. If their programme does not succeed, if the entire country does not support the programme and if people look on this programme with suspicion, this country is going to suffer. South Africa will have to curb its population growth.

I do not think it is too late. One should take the statistics into consideration. Let us take the Indian community as an example. There was a time 20 years ago when we were criticised for the high population growth rate in the Indian community but, thanks to the process of self-help in the Indian community where we started a programme for the educational upliftment of our people, we are receiving handsome rewards.

I believe prevention is better than cure and this also applies to the field of education on nutrition. Here I want to make an appeal that it should not be an insignificant part of the programme. The cost of food is high and the time will come when families will be required to miss a meal. I do not want to suggest that the department should build hydros throughout the country. Let us rather discipline the people.

We could start a campaign to teach our population from an early age about the advantages of good eating habits, the disadvantages of junk food and the advantages of not eating one day a week. This could even be done through religion. It is a very healthy habit because it gives the digestive system a rest for one day in the week. These things must be taught in our educational programme on nutrition.

The report states that there are difficulties in filling the posts because qualified nutritional educationalists are not available. I know from my own experience in the department that we advertised for such people but we could not find qualified Indians to apply for these posts. We must therefore encourage the educational institutions to encourage matriculants on their part to study nutritional education, seeing that there are jobs available.

A very important point was made by the hon member for Red Hill. I do not agree that the means test must be done away with altogether but the time is ripe for the discrimination in the means test to be eliminated. [Interjections.] It is compulsory for an own affairs Minister to implement this discriminatory regulation although he is not responsible for it. The days of talking are over and the time is ripe to act.

My colleague the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development yesterday made some excellent announcements in the House of Representatives. I quote from the Cape Times of this morning:

Let us learn from what is happening in the USA. The price of medicine for people in the Third World is the same as for people in the First World. The provincial administrations are beginning to charge fees for our social pensioners in the hospitals. Very soon there will be no such thing as a free lunch in the medical services in our country. I am convinced beyond all reasonable doubt that something must be done to control the rising prices of medicine and health services in this country. [Interjections.]

We are in favour of privatisation but that does not mean that every person who visits a doctor who has an interest in a private hospital should be hospitalised. I want to make an appeal that something should be done immediately about the rising price of medicine in this country.

The other aspect which was raised by the hon member for Havenside and my colleague the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare concerned the difficulty overseas graduates have with registering in this country.

We are spending large amounts on training doctors. I want to suggest to South Africa that we find out how many of those who are trained, remain in this country after qualifying and at which universities they receive their training. Other countries, such as India, are training doctors for South Africa and these doctors are good enough to man medical institutions in the neighbouring independent states, but they appear not to be good enough to man medical institutions in our country.

We fought for this when we were on the SAIC. At one stage the hon member for Reservoir Hills even suggested that we establish an own affairs medical and dental council. We are not going to do that. We have spoken enough; we have received enough representations. Those who are affected form an important part of the Indian community in South Africa. They are beginning to lose confidence in the ability of our House of Delegates to be of assistance to them. We must go out of our way to assist people on merit provided we do not sacrifice well-established values in the medical field. We should welcome those who are trained in other countries saving the South African taxpayer millions of rands. Here also I want to lodge an appeal for there to be less talking now and for there to be results as far as this matter is concerned.

I am sure that with the happy partnership our Ministers’ Council and our administration has with my colleague the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development he will most certainly try to find a solution to this problem.

Finally I want to place on record that the provision of health services as I indicated is an own affair. However, according to the Constitution certain decisions have to be taken in accordance with the national norm and in respect of services in our areas where a general affairs Minister has to assist firstly in a general affairs policy decision making. As an example of this the hon member for Actonville mentioned the opening of services in the platteland areas of the Transvaal. For this we are very thankful to the hon the Minister and here I want to thank him in advance for the excellent assistance that he has given our Ministers’ Council and our administration with regard to our proposed new Phoenix Hospital.

We are concerned about the creation of job opportunities. Our matriculants want to become nurses. I was given a task the other day and I can say that the Phoenix Hospital is going to be a reality. I am sure that with the assistance of my colleague we are going to see to it that it is going to be a reality.

However, let us not make the same mistake as the Transvaal Administration which built a beautiful hospital in Lenasia that is now standing empty because it cannot find the staff. If we do not take trainee nurses now and train them over a four-year period—that is the length of time nurses will now have to train for—we shall not have nurses to man our proposed Phoenix Hospital when it is ready. I now want to make an appeal that we must create the posts and the training posts now, not only for the purposes of manning the hospital but also for the purposes of creating job opportunities.

We are very grateful to the Department of National Health and Population Development and also to the hon the Minister for the excellent co-operation we have received.

Mr Chairman, once more we come to this hon House to discuss matters of vital importance. This House, Mr Chairman, has warmth, and this warmth is evidenced by the warm welcome which we have received today. I thank hon members for the warm welcome and for their good wishes.

It is true, as the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council so rightly said, that population development is an important task. I come very close to saying that it is even more important than the political challenges which face us in this wonderful land of ours. You will agree with me, Sir, that the fulfilment of basic needs and the quality of life are not so easily attainable. It seems to be an enormous responsibility and task. It must be clearly understood that the population development programme is targeted at the less-developed or under-developed communities of South Africa.

What this means is that the people at grass-roots level must experience in real terms an improvement in their socio-economic as well as the constitutional or political position. It is true that it is not easy for communities to break out of the vicious circle of high fertility, poverty and deterioration without external help. In other words, what I am saying is that there should especially be an attitude of acceptance and co-responsibility in supporting our developing communities in their progress towards reaching what we call the modern phase of development as soon as possible.

To develop the full potential of all people and communities implies that we have to maintain a balance between population growth and economic growth. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council made mention of this, and he is perfectly correct when he says that the emphasis on education led to the decrease in the birth-rate within the Indian community. This is but one example of what I am talking about. The two components—population growth and economic growth—are of great importance to the future of South Africa. We are living in a time during which development is the dominating theme of the socio-economic and political scene throughout the world.

If we can succeed in this, all our descendants will inherit a population of manageable size in terms of the available sources that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council alluded to. We will also leave our descendants a country in which they can live in peace and stability and—most important—where there will be a quality of life which will ensure everyone’s future.

A low quality of life places great stress on the community as well as on its neighbouring community. Because of this, the PDP is aimed at negotiating and working with the TBVC countries and the self-governing national states.

We find development is being implemented in other developing countries like South Africa, and we find that high priority is given to their programmes. Yet we find that poverty, unemployment, illiteracy, the dependency rate, the high population growth rate, the high infant mortality rate and other diseases still occur in places like Ethiopia and the Sudan. To assume that the solution lies in transplanting the development knowledge and know-how, which seems to be the key to progress in the developed countries, and to expect it to take root in developing countries is not the proper approach.

Our aim is to motivate neighbouring states to run similar population development programmes which will benefit the whole of Southern Africa. Again, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council quite correctly made mention of this—if we do not pay attention to the position of our neighbouring states, then however much one may want to disagree with it or dislike it, it is going to affect us in South Africa.

Southern Africa and more specifically the RSA will have to make every attempt to ensure a manageable population for the future, as it becomes clearer daily throughout the world that countries develop an inability to satisfy the needs of their surviving communities. South Africa is, in the true sense of the word, still a developing country. Hon members will note that I do not use the terms First World and Third World. This is one of my pet hates, because it sounds so much like a race that has already been won and where the other participants would seem to have no chance of winning at all.

The fact that South Africa is still a developing country is demonstrated dramatically in the level of education of the population and the distribution of skills in the labour force. The financing requirements for development in a developing country with an exploding population are immense. I will refer to this later in my speech, but to demonstrate this point the President’s Council found that, as a result of the youthful structure of the population, South Africa will have approximately 1,7 million more children at school by the year 2000 than any developed country with the same population. If parity in education is assumed, R1 000 per child per annum is required, which means that South Africa, with a semi-developed supporting economy, will by the end of the century have to foot an education bill of R1 700 million—in 1982 terms—which is more than that which has to be footed by a developed country of the same population size. However, it does not end there. Similarly other demographically related situations have to be faced in provision of health services, housing—the backlog of which has reached crisis proportions—and job creation, together with the implied infrastructures. If I were to sum up the demographic report of the President’s Council in one word, it would be “priorities”. I would like to underline the word priorities. In all development planning priorities will have to be determined all the way.

It is therefore obvious that the promotion of community involvement is essential to the success of the programme. To this end the self-help programmes are initiated whereby community responsibility and initiatives are engendered. In this way the human potential is developed and the dignity of all people is acknowledged and protected.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council again quite rightly said that the population development programme can only be successful if each interest group and every individual in the community is actively involved in actions to ensure the upliftment of the quality of life of all people in their communities. Only when people take part in their own development can that development be truly significant. It is only when people take part in other people’s development that they experience real inner satisfaction. The call on communities in our country is thus to help and support each other in actually reaching a state of self-help, personal initiative and total acceptance of that responsibility.

At this stage we can indeed ask the question whether the population development programme has had any successes yet, and whether there are any positive prospects for the future. Without hesitation the answer is yes, and I very much want to expand on this "yes”. I would therefore appreciate it if hon members bear with me a moment longer.

I would like to show the financial perspective and how this affects this country economically. The 1987 report on the progress of the population development programme reflects significant information compared to the 1986 report. It is an indication of the true situation of 1985 compared to 1984.

In this period the TFR or Total Fertility Rate, of White woman was reduced from 2,1 to 2,0 children per woman in her fertile years. In practical terms, this amounts to 41 160 fewer births. The TFR of Coloured women for the same period was reduced from 3,6 to 3,2 children per woman which, in practical terms, means 164 246 fewer births.

Likewise the TFR of Asians was reduced from 2,8 to 2,5 children per woman in the aforementioned period and this means 55 943 fewer births. The TFR of Black woman for the same period was reduced from 5,2 to 5,1 children per woman and this reduction presents 248 510 fewer births.

In total therefore, there were 510 000 fewer births in 1985 than in 1984. The question can rightly be asked what financial implication this figure has.

If we assume that these children were to receive primary and secondary education, to mention just one aspect, and that a mere 20% were to receive tertiary education, it would have resulted in a State expenditure of R5 700 million calculated at the present value of the rand. This expenditure has, in fact, been avoided and it could be stated that this amount could be utilised for other development programmes.

The Human Sciences Research Council recently announced new population projections in which it is estimated that in the year 2020 the total South African population could be 65,8 million, which is a high estimate. They also gave a low estimate of 59,6 million people. The impact of the population development programme was, however, not taken into consideration in arriving at the above-mentioned estimates.

Should we succeed in achieving the democratic objectives of the population development programme, it is estimated that the total population should be approximately 51,1 million by the year 2020. This is 8,1 million fewer people than the lower estimate of the Human Sciences Research Council and 17,3 million fewer than their high estimate.

Once again, let us convert that into financial terms. Our estimate is that the 8,1 million fewer people would result in a saving in State expenditure of R794 000 million over the next 30 years in the areas important for population development, such as education, manpower training, health, housing and welfare. This calculation is based on the present budget and value of the rand.

If regard is given to the high estimate of the Human Sciences Research Council, there would be 17,3 million fewer people by the year 2020 which, in turn, could result in a saving of State expenditure of almost double that of the lower estimate. It is therefore quite clear that the success of the population development programme is imperative for the future of South Africa.

Mr Chairman, in terms of the sociological axiom that the population growth of any group is inversely proportional to its educational standard and its standard of living, and having regard to the rising standards in Europe resulting in a negative TFR, would the hon the Deputy Minister concede that provided the standard of living and the standard of education of the Black people rises fast enough, we should also have a lowering of the TFR within that group?

Mr Chairman, the hon member is perfectly correct. These are precisely the areas we are concentrating on. Within our department we lay great emphasis on the whole question of our Black communities’ socioeconomic development, education and primary health care. In fact we have nine of what we call objective indicators whereby we measure the socio-economic upliftment of any community, but of the Black communities in particular.

Therefore we must increasingly focus our attention and efforts on achieving the aims and objectives of the population development programme. We must strive to attain the specific demographic objectives in each and every development programme that we undertake.

As always, it is a pleasure for me to address this House. I have no doubt that in the future, whenever we debate this important issue, hon members will stand up and say that they give this department their support.

Mr Chairman, it is obvious that the hon the Deputy Minister knows what he is talking about and I want to congratulate him on his speech and wish him well in exercising the very important duties that he is supposed to render to this country.

Quite a number of hon members in this Committee represent constituencies in the Natal region and I think it would be opportune for me to inform hon members of the problem of pollution in general, and more specifically water and sea pollution, in that part of the country. Hon members should be and are naturally interested in what is being done to combat this ever-increasing problem of pollution. The Department of National Health and Population Development and various local and public organisations and research bodies are constantly busy evaluating potential health hazards, from whatever source this may originate. Hon members will appreciate that areas that may constitute a danger to health can only be identified after all the results have been gathered scientifically and monitored over some period, and have then been put together and subsequently evaluated. Further investigation in such identified areas would necessarily be undertaken and measures taken to eliminate the causes of what I would like to call avoidable pollution.

Most hon members were in some way or another directly or indirectly involved with the Natal flood disaster. The after-effects of these floods in general—and the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council also referred to that—and the subsequent water and sea pollution in particular, and, I may add, the growing fears and emotions of the public at large, proved to be excellent material for television, radio and other news media to use in different programmes. Amongst the people reporting on these events and those exposed to the sad consequences of such a terrible disaster one will always find alarmists. I do not want to belittle and decry these reports and programmes, nor the viewpoints and outcry of the alarmists, for not only do they keep the public aware of the dangers, but they also keep us, the legislators and the administrators, on our toes.

Because of the growing interest in this subject, supported by findings of the monitoring teams and all the work that is being done in this regard, the Department of National Health, local authorities and other interest groups and individuals naturally became more and more concerned about water, sea and air pollution. For that reason I visited Natal on two occasions during the last quarter of last year. Firstly I went to the North Coast area, after having been invited by the Mr Renier Schoeman, the member for Umhlanga in the House of Assembly.

Later I went to the Umbogontwini area and Amanzimtoti. I was invited by the hon the Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology. After having held extensive talks with a large number of interest groups and individuals, it was obvious that our department had to embark on a more intensive project to evaluate the potential health hazards in order to gather more information regarding all the bodies and authorities involved in water and air quality monitoring. The purpose of this project would be to co-ordinate the sampling, gather more data, point out shortcomings and deficiencies, and to introduce additional monitoring programmes where necessary.

Let there be no doubt about the extent and vastness of the pollution problem. The only way to combat it effectively would be by implementing a well co-ordinated and scientifically substantiated total strategy. I think we have come to the point where we should put our minds to task in developing a national anti-pollution plan.

Apart from the good work that has been and is still being done by the Department of National Health and Population Development and others, I can think of no better example of a co-ordinated and well-planned action than is being undertaken at this point in time by interest groups in Natal to address the problem of faecal pollution in the larger rivers of Natal. Various observations during the last couple of months indicate that faecal pollution is originating mainly from stormwater run-off from non-point sources, such as low-level developed townships and rural settlements.

After identifying this problem a bilateral liaison meeting was held between the KwaZulu health authorities, the Department of Development Aid and the Natal Provincial Administration at the Prince Mshiyeni Hospital a few weeks ago. A resolution was adopted at that meeting, calling for a total approach to this problem and an invitation was extended to all concerned to participate in the action plan to cope with this problem.

Since that meeting was held, the Department of National Health has had its representation tabled for a meeting of the Health Subcommittee of the Joint Executive Committee of Natal-KwaZulu, under the chairmanship of Mr Tino Volker. Dr Naidoo, a member of the Executive Council, was also present at that meeting. This committee came to a number of conclusions which should be taken into account in further planning. These are, inter alia, that all population groups are affected. Secondly, it was identified as a widespread problem. Thirdly, it is indeed a growing health hazard. Fourthly, an effective plan to combat the problem would have heavy financial implications.

Furthermore, prevention and education is of utmost importance. Co-ordination between the central Government, the kwaZulu authorities, local authorities, provincial administration and the private sector is essential.

While mentioning all who should be participating as co-workers in this overall plan, may I single out a special group of people who, as part of the health team, did extraordinary work during and after the floods. I refer to the health inspectors, some of whom I met during a visit to our regional office in Durban. They played an outstanding role in identifying problem areas, in gathering information and normalising conditions at a time when we were actually dealing with a health crisis.

I met them personally and I was briefed on how they went about performing their duties. There were two Indians amongst them. I remember so well how one of them told us in a very capable way about their work of outstanding quality. They will be part of the team earmarked to assist the proposed monitoring of river waters all along the main rivers from the upper Tugela areas downwards to the outflow in the sea.

Most hon members of this Committee are acquainted with the living conditions of ten of thousands of people in the upper and lower Tugela location areas and all along the Umgeni River and others. In these rural settlements the conditions are in many areas totally unacceptable from a socio-economic and health point of view. Hon members will know how difficult it is to render a service where an influx of people take place at an enormous pace and scale and very often uncontrolled. Added to this is the total ignorance of many people about the problems facing us. They do not know what we are talking about when we refer to pollution.

The point I would like to make is that pollution is to a large extent avoidable. Each and every one plays the role of a polluter in some way or other because we are all polluting this globe. All of us should take hands to clean up this lovely country of ours and get rid of all the rubbish. In doing that we will actually be practising preventative-medicine and primary health care. We should all make an appeal to the people around us to enrol as co-workers in a national team to combat pollution in the interest of all the people of this country.

Mr Chairman, it is as always a great pleasure to be in this House this afternoon for my Budget Vote. First of all I would like to thank all hon members who participated in the debate. I must say that I think the debate was of a very high standard and very constructive. Very important issues were raised to which I would like to respond.

I would like to thank hon members who mentioned the fact that our Director-General is here for the first time. Dr Slabber had an excellent postgraduate, and I daresay also undergraduate, record at the University of Stellenbosch. He then became Dean of the University of the Orange Free State. He has considerable experience in the public sector as far as administration is concerned and we are indeed fortunate to have him as Director-General. I would like to welcome him here and to associate myself with the hon members who welcomed him. Not only he, but also his wide awake team are sitting here and listening to the debate. I am grateful that they came and that they heard the important issues that were mentioned. I am grateful for what they are doing as far as the health services of our country are concerned.

I would also like to thank hon members for the kind remarks that they made as far as the previous Director-General is concerned. I will convey this to him.

In responding to this excellent debate I would first of all like to turn my attention to the most important contribution made by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. He made some most important remarks concerning health services in South Africa. First of all I would like to thank him for his remarks concerning our assistance in the recent flood disaster in Natal.

I should like to place on record that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, his Minister of the Budget and his Minister of Health Services and Welfare played a very important role in the rapid rebuilding that followed, and in coming to the aid of these people who were in need. I was impressed with the administrative skills of this Administration and how rapidly they came to the aid of those who had suffered so much during this period.

There is no doubt that throughout this time of affliction and trials and tribulations since September last year it was a source of great comfort to many of us that those who were called to witness this unfolding tragedy first hand also witnessed the many acts of unselfish caring, aid and assistance rendered to those in greatest need.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council mentioned those who died and I am sure that all of us in this House would like to pay our condolences once again. As we know the floods occurred between 26 and 29 September 1987. The excess rainfall varied from 14 to 47 times more than was usual for that week. In some places outside Durban it was measured in the old system of feet and not in inches.

Two hundred and eighty seven flood-related deaths were documented. It may be of interest that 74,6% of these deaths occurred as a result of drownings, 15,7% died as a result of collapsing structures, 4,5% from exposure and the remainder from other causes.

Most drownings occurred on the third and fourth days of the flood, which is interesting. The flood related death rate per 100 000 persons at risk was 0,5 for Whites; 1,0 for Coloureds; 2,8 for Asians; and 4,3 in the case of the Black community. There was a 40% higher death rate amongst males than amongst females. Across the age groups the 35 to 44 year olds had the highest death rate, that is 6,7 per 100 000. The 15 to 19-year olds had the lowest death rate while the other age groups were all remarkably similar. One hundred and fifteen persons were reported missing and 112 casualties were documented.

In a disaster of this magnitude, taking into account the topography of the area, the danger of drowning is, as we can imagine, considerable. However, relatively few suffered injury. This is important to know in the context of planning relief measures in the future because when we are no longer here there may be another flood disaster. We must therefore learn from this one and apply our knowledge in future.

As far as the Disaster Relief Fund is concerned, I think the following data from the period up to 31 March this year is of importance to this House. Seventy three thousand six hundred and eighty five cash payments were made to individuals. The payments made to victims of the flood amounted to no less than R30 261 654,47 up to 31 March, which is a sizeable amount of money. I mention this because of the fact that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council alluded to the death rate in the disaster.

He made a very important point, and that is he thanked the Board of the Disaster Relief Fund and I should like to add to that that the board and its various committees worked tremendously hard from September until now. I should like to thank the Director of the Disaster Relief Fund Board who is present here this afternoon for the unstinting and, I think, most wonderful way in which they carried out their duties.

Fifty per cent of this board consists of members of the public sector and 50% of members of the private sector. I should like to thank the members of the board, who worked overtime to handle all the applications forwarded to them.

The hon member mentioned that there is a latent defect. I should like to say that should it be proved that this damage to houses was the result of the floods, this may then be paid out by the relief fund, because what was called a disaster was the particular event, namely the floods, and if it could be caused—I see that the hon member for Reservoir Hills, as a legal man, agrees with me, because that is the definition—if it could be related to that flood …

He represents the developer, too!

Oh, so that is why he listened to me so carefully; that is wonderful! I am now giving him expert advice for free.

The point I would like to make is that if it is proved beyond doubt that the present situation can be related to that flood which was called a disaster, then the board or the relief fund will consider those applications. Of course, the experts’ report will in this particular case be of the utmost importance.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council mentioned a golden rule in health services, and that is that prevention is better than cure. It is not only in health services that this is the case, and I am sure the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council will agree with me; it is also true in many other matters, including political ones. He made a very erudite speech on population development and I should like to congratulate him. The hon the Deputy Minister also did that, and I think that it was one of the highlights of this debate. I agree with him that the population development programme is one of the most important programmes for South Africa; not for any particular political party or any particular House, but for the future of South Africa. This is so because if we cannot balance our population growth rate with our natural resources and our economic welfare we are going to become an underdeveloped country; there is no doubt about that.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council also referred to the price of medicine and the price of the whole medical structure in South Africa. However, the price of medicine is the most important issue he raised as far as the price increases are concerned.

There is no doubt that every one of us here is greatly concerned about the rapid rise in the price of medicine in South Africa. It is quite true that I reported yesterday that both councils—the South African Medical and Dental Council and the Pharmacy Council—agreed that there should be no profit taking on prescription medicine. What should be done is that a professional fee should be given to the chemist as well as to the prescribing doctor. I think this is important, and I see that the hon member for Montford agrees with me.

He has a vested interest.

Yes, but he agrees with me, and that is important. He is a colleague, and he understands that these things are important.

The other important issue is that I have asked the Pharmacy Council to investigate the high price of medicine in South Africa. They came up with the following factors contributing to the high price. First of all, transfer prices, the customs duty on raw materials, especially the active ingredients; the 10% surcharge on raw materials; general sales tax; the lack of control over price increases in the pharmaceutical industry; wasteful promotional practices; and then certain institutional factors which influence the cost of medicine.

I refer to the State tender system and the supply of medicine by the State to private patients and members of the medical schemes; the registration of medicines; the legal restrictions on bulk dispensing; and medical schemes. These are the various factors which the SA Pharmacy Council furnished to me as being of importance. However, the Cabinet went further, as the hon member mentioned, and it enlisted the services of Dr Wim de Villiers to examine, inter alia, the high cost of medicine and also privatisation. I am sure his report on the high cost of medicine will be received this year still. I thank the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council for his contribution as far as this is concerned.

He made a point, as other hon members did, about the foreign-trained Indian graduated students; Omega and the rest. All of us are worried about that and I have addressed hon members on this before. I think that we should now settle this vexed problem.

The sooner the better.

I think so. However, we must understand a few facts which we cannot change. Firstly, there are certain norms which I do not think anyone in this House would like to lower. If we are agreed upon that, that is the first step.

Secondly, I believe that we should try to establish whether these universities, which are at present not recognised by the South African Medical and Dental Council, should not in fact be recognised. We should try to arrange for a committee. I am quite prepared to have a committee appointed by this House which can accompany the SA Medical and Dental Council to India to examine these universities and then come back and report to us.

That is a problem because they won’t let us come. [Interjections.]

How can we judge if we cannot see? That is the factor.

Mr Chairman, will the hon the Minister concede that medical doctors trained in Poland, Rumania and Czechoslovakia, some of whom could not even speak English, let alone Afrikaans, properly, have been allowed into this country and have been permitted to practise as doctors? Yet those doctors who have qualified at Delhi and Bombay—at first-class universities—are not?

Of course I would never concede anything to the hon member for Reservoir Hills. However, I will reply to his question. Had it only been the language situation, it would have been easy. Unfortunately the qualities of a doctor are not only related to the language he speaks, but to his medical knowledge. That is the first factor. I do not say for one moment that those who qualified in Bombay and Delhi are personally inferior.

They practise in London, Melbourne, Sydney and New York.

The hon member should give me an opportunity to finish and then he may ask another question.

I still remember the hon member’s story about the Zulu. That was in another debate, but I should come back to it. I still remember that specific Zulu, who trained in London and then returned here and suddenly could not speak English. Do hon members remember that case? [Interjections.] Yes, well, let us not get into languages again. That was a Zulu who trained in London in medicine. He trained in English and the hon member for Reservoir Hills said that he returned to Durban and all of a sudden he could not speak English any more. [Interjections.] He said that they failed him. That was a really funny case.

Let us get back to the debate. Yes, of course it depends on medical knowledge and a speaking knowledge of English. Those are the two factors. Personally I would not like to say for one moment that Bombay and Delhi train inferior doctors; not at all. However, we have to convince the SA Medical and Dental Council.

The hon members have convinced me, but then I am not a statutory body. That is the point.

The statutory body is a creature of Parliament.

Yes, the point is that that is an across-the-floor situation which I shall respond to.

Can we establish an own affairs council?

If the hon members establish an own affairs council, they are going to have a problem.

We could disband it after six months.

They are going to have a problem because if they were to do that they would be in cahoots with the Conservative Party, and that is something they will have to understand. [Interjections.] They will have to decide whether it is to their benefit or not.

It was suggested by the PFP.

I can tell hon members what they should do. We will tackle this problem because it is a vexed one. However, what they should do insofar as the legal situation is concerned, is to have their own Act governing the means test because although it is true that the means test exists in terms of the general Act, hon members have full autonomy to pass their own Act and to make their own means test. They could make it as low as R50 per month, or R12, or R10, or any amount the hon the Minister of the Budget chooses. I am now down to R10. Do I have any offer lower than R10? [Interjections.]

Going for the first time!

Going for the first time; going for the second time! I think R10 is the lowest offer! [Interjections.] Hon members may make a R10 means test. That is perfectly in order. They can do it. It is legal. That they can do, and I therefore think this is something they should consider.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council mentioned another important point, and that was the training of people and their education in nutritional aspects. The best way to do that is firstly to give bursaries—and I agree with him on this—to those who are training in the nutritional areas at universities and technikons. Secondly, nutritional education in schools is important. We must give this training in our schools, and I agree with him on that.

I now come to another aspect he mentioned, and that is the Phoenix Hospital. I have no doubt in my mind that the matter of the Phoenix Hospital has already been settled insofar as the needs of that hospital are concerned. The only thing we have to do is to budget for a new building. I will support that. There is no doubt about that. It is needed.

Will we have nurses when it is built?

You will have enough nurses. As a matter of fact, I should like to tell the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council how many nurses he has. I want to tell the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council that as of December 1987 he had 1 475 Indian nurses in South Africa, which is quite a sizeable number. At present there are 446 student nurses in training and there are 106 enrolled pupil nurses. Altogether there are 720 enrolled nursing assistants. I therefore do not think there is a lack of nurses insofar as that is concerned.

I should like to continue by thanking our two hon Deputy Ministers. First of all I should like to thank the hon the Deputy Minister of Population Development for his enthusiasm, his dedication and his knowledge of the subject of population development. I should also like to thank the hon the Deputy Minister of National Health. He has undoubtedly, as hon members have heard, great expertise, knowledge and an enthusiasm in regard to the pollution of South Africa’s waters and our country’s seas. I should like to congratulate him on his contribution.

I now want to come back to the hon member for Bayview because I should like to deal with everyone if I can. How much time do I have? Does anybody know?

Five minutes! [Interjections.]

Where is the hon the Chief Whip? [Interjections.] Well, I shall do the best I can.

The hon member for Bayview made a very good contribution. He said that tuberculosis in South Africa, and anywhere in the world, was due to socio-economic conditions, which is true. There is no doubt about it. However, there is one important aspect, and that is that we also measure socio-economic development in South Africa through the population development programme by way of the economic dependency rate, the per capita income, room density, the total fertility rate, the infant mortality rate, the teenage pregnancy rate and the life expectancy rate.

The important issue here is that as far as the community represented by hon members is concerned, all these incidences have improved. In other words, there was an increase in the quality of life, not only as far as the Indians are concerned, but, I am very grateful to say, as far as the whole Black population in South Africa is concerned.

The hon member for Bayview mentioned awareness in regard to Aids and the problem of the White prostitute in Durban. As he probably knows, that particular prostitute turned out to be negative when tested. The point is that our whole awareness programme centred around the fact that, firstly, we wanted to tell the people of South Africa that the only way to avoid getting Aids is to have a monogamous sexual relationship. Secondly, a promiscuous sexual relationship does result in definite and important problems and a high Aids risk. We should be aware of the fact that at present in New York in the United States of America Aids is the most important cause of death in young men between the ages of 25 and 44 and young women between the ages of 25 and 34. We must not in this case be caught unawares and napping.

Aids is an important disease in Africa and for that reason nobody from high risk countries will get a work permit in South Africa if they do not have a negative Aids serum report.

The solution referred to by the hon member regarding quarantine is not a viable option. We have between one and a half and two million positive Aids cases in the world. There is no way we can put one and a half to two million people in concentration camps, and for that matter, it would not help, because Aids does not spread through casual contact. It does not spread in toilets, by handshaking, kissing—unless one bites anybody—or by being in the same room with people. It spreads through sexual intercourse, intravenous needles, contaminated blood products and blood. For that reason incarceration is not a viable option.

To make it a disease that has to be reported and registered, in other words, a disease such as tuberculosis and others, which are recorded in a register in our department, is also not a viable option, because we will then drive the disease underground. There are only a few countries in the eastern bloc that make it a disease that has to be reported, or, as we call it, a disease under the section that deals with typhoid and others.

We are considering it very carefully. There is no doubt about it that our awareness campaign worked very well.

We are now examining the results of it. We will have in the near future, with our own resources, as well as those of the private sector, pamphlets of this. We hope to have them in every home in South Africa. The only way to deal with this disease is to inform the people of South Africa. It is not practical to have all high risk people with positive tests in concentration camps. One has to tell the population that to visit places where certain professional services are offered—the hon member for Bayview mentioned this—is at their own risk. At the moment not even condoms give total protection against this disease.

If one uses a condom, together with a chemical called nonoxynol-9, one will have more protection against this disease. However, one would still not be one hundred percent safe. I want that in Hansard, because I do not want any problems as far as my conscience is concerned. I would like to have that on record.

The subsidies for the training of homeopaths were mentioned. That is a situation for the Department of National Education and not myself. So that dispenses with the hon member for Bayview.

I now come to the hon member for Montford. As always, I enjoyed listening to my fellow colleague in this House. He says that the health care needs for non-Whites are different, and that is true. However, we have 950 clinics for Blacks in South Africa. I do not know if the hon member is aware of that. I think one should also mention the positive aspects. I think the hon member will agree with me that there is no country in Africa that can compare with that. There are, in fact, very few countries in the world that can compare with that.

Recently the American Medical Association said that every private doctor in the USA should now spend a week treating indigent patients for free; otherwise, the indigent patients in the USA will not get treatment of a satisfactory standard. At least we have that in South Africa. I think we should be proud of what we have. However, we must always strive towards offering even better services. There I agree with him.

I now come to the difference in curative treatment. I am on record as having said that the mother of the Siamese twins, which were delivered by Caesarean section at the Baragwanath Hospital, paid R6 for admission and R24 for the Caesarean section. Up to now the cost of examining her and the twins is up to R180 000. Her bill will be R31.1 think one should take these things into account. There has been a per capita income improvement of the Black community. I am very greatful for that.

The hon member also mentioned malaria and typhoid. Yes, malaria is a problem. There is a problem in that 30% of all people coming from Mozambique into South Africa do have malaria. That is one of our problems. A second problem is that Anopheles Arabiensis is much more vicious than Anopheles Cambiensis. Anopheles Arabiens is came with the building of the Tanzam Railway. This mosquito’s biting frequency is higher than the ordinary mosquito’s. It is interesting to note that only pregnant mosquitoes bite people. If a mosquito bites one, one can be sure it was pregnant! Male mosquitoes do not bite. The hon the Deputy Minister says he did not know that. Now he also knows. Because of these two factors, we have more cases of malaria.

We are dealing with that and a group from my department visited Maputo and had discussions with them on malaria. We have also had discussions with Swaziland. We must understand that malaria does not only occur south of Stanger but one can even get it in Durban. The hon the Minister of the Budget can get malaria where he stays. He must listen to me when I tell him that he can get malaria in Durban. [Interjections.] We must be aware of the fact that we have to deal with it.

On the other hand—and the hon member for Montford should agree with me—it was a great triumph that we did not get any cholera cases after the floods. We all did well in that matter, as did the Department of Health of the KwaZulu government.

I agree that the funds are insufficient—it is always insufficient. I hope the day will come when there will be sufficient funds. I agree with the hon member that the doctor is only a member of a team. The hon member is right in saying that. The hon member also referred to a substitute for doctors. The problem that we are dealing with concerns the traditional leaders. They are an important factor and they are also important where Aids is concerned. Clarification is important and can be a major source of communicating information on the Aids virus.

Our best auxiliaries are nurses—there is no doubt about that. They can prescribe today up to schedule 4. I think that is important. In 1950 our paramedical situation was 0,3 per 10 000 of the population. It increased to 6,7 per 10 000 in 1985. Nurses increased from 9,1 to 38,5 and doctors from 4,5 to 6,8.

Hon members referred to the King Edward VIII Hospital. We are aware of the situation and we are improving it. We are busy building a new out-patients area there.

The hon member for Springfield also referred to Aids. I think we have spoken about that. He referred to the private sector and Dr Wim de Villiers. He talked about own affairs again. Unfortunately, as he knows, the 1983 Constitution exists. I could detect the PFP words in the speech of the hon member for Springfield. [Interjections.] As he spoke I wrote his speech ahead of him. It was easy and I was correct every time because he spoke exactly like Dr Marius Barnard. [Interjections.] I enjoyed it—I think it is wonderful. I agree with the hon member that primary health care is very important and more emphasis should be placed on it. It was a joy as always to listen to the hon member.

The hon member for Allandale referred to the equitable distribution of health. This is of course true. Again I want to say: Where in Africa or India do we have a better situation than we have here? The hon member referred to the war veterans. It is up to this House to do something about it. The hon member also referred to the documents concerning the disaster funds. Let me have them so that I can look into the matter.

I want to say to the hon member for Havenside that we are going to do something about the foreign graduates. I referred to the number of doctors per population which is the mean for any country with our kind of income.

I see time is running out. I should like to congratulate my hon colleague Mr Bhana on the fact that he talked about our new Director-General. I also want to thank him for making me so welcome here.

I think that as far as the matter of the post mortems is concerned we can be proud of the fact that since September 1987 to February 1988, 120 post mortems were done after hours. The figures are as follows: Pretoria, 1; Pietermaritzburg, 12; Cape Town, 38; Johannesburg, 6; Durban, 14; Verulam, 18; Stanger, 6; and Chatsworth, 34. These were all done after hours and I do not think there is a problem anymore as far as that situation is concerned.

I wish that we could settle this foreign graduates problem in the same way as we have settled the post mortem problem. However, we have to tackle it and do our best because we should tackle every problem as it comes along and do something about it.

I now come to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. I said that this Administration can do something about its own pensions means test and I think that is important. Also, we must understand that the disaster in Natal, the OFS and the Northern Cape cost us R401 million and that is a lot of money for this Budget year.

The compulsory scheme to make pensions mandatory has, as hon members know, been investigated by the select committee. There is a technical committee under the chairmanship of Prof Mouton, the present Rector of the University of the Orange Free State, who is examining this. This is a very good idea, but the problem is in the Black trade unions. However, they are investigating it because theoretically the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is right about the fact that the more everyone works for his own pension the less the Government has to pay. I therefore entirely agree with the hon member.

I think I have covered the questions of paramedics and malaria. I agree that more money must be made available—if we could only get it. I agree with the hon member for Actonville’s congratulations to the Director-General. I have also covered the post mortems and the health hazards and it is true that diseases know no barriers.

The hon member for North Western Cape referred to drugs and he was quite right. The national plan for alcohol and drug abuse has been introduced exactly for the reasons highlighted by him and we will do our utmost in schools because that is where we should do our training. Mandrax is on the increase as are cocaine and dagga. Fortunately we still do not have heroin. The hon member speaks with knowledge and I am most grateful for his contribution.

In reply to the hon member for Red Hill I want to say that it is difficult to provide the services due to the size of the Cape and he is quite right.

I have already mentioned Phoenix. The imbalances mentioned are due to the per capita salary which is increasing. I told the House about the pensioners. The new Welfare Policy Council is important and that is something I should tell the hon member for Red Hill because his own Minister is going to sit down to make new welfare policies in the new Welfare Policy Council which was announced recently.

With regard to the concern for handicapped people, let me say that I agree entirely.

In reply to the hon member for Brickfield I want to say that I think we should again say that the post mortems have improved. However, we cannot do after-hours post mortems on everyone. Everyone would like to bury their relatives but we have restricted it to those who require it on religious grounds and I think that we should keep it that way.

In reply to the hon member for Newholme I want to say that I agree that we should prevent foreigners from spreading Aids and I have dealt with that.

We will look into the situation at Northdale Hospital. We cannot train male nurses, because we train ambulance drivers. We have a special course for them, but they should be trained better. I think I have now dealt with everyone.

I once again wish to thank every hon member who has contributed to this debate. I think it was a most constructive debate.

Mr Chairman, I would just like to know what the situation at the Lenasia Hospital is.

The Lenasia Hospital is an embarrassment to all of us. It has been completed, but we do not have the money to open it. I have made representations to the hon the Minister of Finance. I have told him that we should find the money for this hospital to be opened. If the hon the Minister of the Budget tells me that he has the money, he can open it!

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: It is in the Transvaal provincial estimates of expenditure. The Lenasia Hospital is a fully equipped hospital. All we need is personnel. One must refrain from calling it an Indian hospital, because that is the bugbear. We want the hospital open to all the people in the area.

I am so grateful that the hon the Minister of the Budget says the hospital can, in fact, be opened. If this is so, there is no problem. They must just find personnel, and that is where the problem lies. One must find money for the nurses and doctors. If the hon the Minister does not want it to be an own affair, there is no problem.

R3 million had been voted under the provincial estimates.

That is wonderful. I just hope it materialises, because it is an embarrassment to everybody. Are there any other questions before I sit down?

Mr Chairman, since the Transvaal Provincial Administration is obviously dragging its feet with regard to the Lenasia Hospital, could the hon the Minister not put a hatpin under the place that they sit on? [Interjections.]

Sir, the hon member for Reservoir Hills asked me in rather quaint terms whether we should not like to encourage that particular administration. Yes, we have asked the hon the Minister of Finance to do so. There are a number of areas which need financing, and we have asked him to provide it.

I would like to thank hon members once again. It was a most constructive, instructive and pleasant debate.

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, this piece of legislation does not really warrant much debate. It is, however, a very important piece of legislation. The standing committee that dealt with this, took ten minutes to have tea, three minutes to introduce members and one minute to dispose of this piece of legislation.

Now, this does not mean that this particular standing committee did not do its work. On the contrary, the committee was acquainted with the amendments and agreed unanimously that it accepted them.

Tell us something about it.

For the benefit of hon members like the hon member for Springfield who do not understand what it is all about, I will give a brief resumé of the Bill. Basically we are dealing with Chapter 3 and Chapter 9 of the Mental Health Act, 1973. The amendment involves Chapter 9 and it amends section 55 of this Act.

In the past any person over the age of 18 who believed that he or she was suffering from a mental illness to such a degree that institutionalisation was desirable could make a formal application to a magistrate on a prescribed form.

The magistrate can do one of two things. He can get two doctors—of which one must preferably be a district surgeon—to assist him or else he can have a full inquiry where he calls in two witnesses. If the magistrate is totally satisfied that the person is mentally ill and should be institutionalised he then issues an order on a prescribed form authorising the person to be received, detained and treated at an institution. Once he has issued that order, the magistrate must give notice to the Master of the Supreme Court who then acts as a curator and looks after the property of the detained.

All this is being changed by the new amendment. The magistrate must now first make a full inquiry as to whether it is necessary for the Master to be informed and to act on behalf of the detained patient. If there is no property to be looked after the Master of the Supreme Court does not need to be informed. That is basically all there is to it.

The standing committee was unanimous in passing this amendment and I urge the House to support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I think the hon member for Montford gave ample clarification of what this Bill is all about and what the situation had been hitherto. Rather than repeat what he said in different words I just want to say that my party has no problem in accepting it and we support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I regret that it will not be possible to have this Bill dismissed in one or two minutes. Mental health, of course, deals with persons who are deemed to be of unsound mind. A magistrate is totally unqualified to make out a reception order except on the basis of the opinion of experts. The hon member for Montford said it could be based on a report of a psychiatrist and a district surgeon. A district surgeon will, of course, also have to have the necessary qualifications. The doctors give their expert opinion to the court and the court uses this as a basis for a decision. It does not merely use two witnesses, as the hon member for Montford said. By the way, I was not aware that he had actually attended the meetings of the standing committee. He is so seldom here that one does not know whether he actually goes to the meetings of the standing committees or not. [Interjections.] However, that is a different kettle of fish.

Very often the patients received in mental institutions do not appear to be mentally ill at all—they look perfectly normal. When the hon the Minister of the Budget was the Minister of Health Services and Welfare in the House of Delegates he was a very diligent Minister. As part of his duties he paid a visit to the psychiatric unit in the King George V hospital in the constituency of the hon member for Springfield. There he met this very intelligent-looking patient.

The hon the Minister, being a courteous man, and knowing the problems with which this patient was confronted, did not take umbrage at that. He was polite and talked nicely to the gentleman. He continued further on in the institution and saw a man sitting on his bed with a fishing rod and a baited hook lying on the floor. The hon the Minister said to this patient: “My man, what are you doing here?" The patient replied: “I am fishing.” The hon the Minister, being a kind man and trying to humour the patient, said: “And so, my man, how many have you caught today?” The patient replied: “You are the third one.”

Seriously, Mr Chairman, we do have an increase in the number of psychiatrists, who are in a position to enable magistrates to come to conclusions on the basis of opinions given by these experts. However, we have lost several doctors because of the stupidity of the regulations of the South African Medical and Dental Council. This is why we object to it. A man who qualified at Bombay Hospital could not have his qualifications recognised in South Africa. He is now a professor of psychiatry at the University of London. He is teaching others. Of course, if South African medical students go to London to study medicine, they will be learning from this man who is deemed by the South African Medical and Dental Council to be incompetent to practice professionally in South Africa. This is the kind of situation we have when we have a racist attitude on the part of a statutory body. I have said before that it is a racist attitude and I repeat this. It is they who must change their minds:

Legislate if we have to.

We do not have to. All we have to do, is to do what they do in Soviet Russia to people who do not conform to the proper norms of society. In Soviet Russia they use the Mental Health Act to deal with those people. We must tell those who stand in the way of progress in this country that the Mental Health Act could possibly be used against them and magistrates could possibly be asked to issue reception orders.

The term “reception order” is a good term. There was a time when the term “committal order” was used. That, of course, had a certain connotation which is undesirable. In the same way, we no longer use the expression “lunatic asylum”. We do not even, if we are sensible, use the expression “mental hospital”. These are now referred to as “hospitals”, which is a very sensible development. The hon Leader of the Official Opposition is not here now, but he has said, concerning a certain individual who lives in Pietermaritzburg and who was making a nuisance of himself to the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare in this House over the Northdale Hospital, that that man should be referred to the other hospital in Pietermaritzburg.

What I am saying, is that there are factors that have to be taken into account. Psychiatric units in hospitals necessarily form a First World solution to a general problem. However, we must be very careful that we do not reach the stage in this country which the United States has reached, where, because of the high individuality, every other person has to have a “shrink”, and where the analyst plays a very important role in the functioning of that society.

In traditional society in South Africa, we have had priests. The hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development will know that amongst the Afrikaners, when a person had a psychological or nervous problem, very often it was the predikant who counselled that person and gave him spiritual sustenance and philosophical guidance which helped him to overcome his disability, or, if he could not overcome it, at least to live with it. [Time expired.]