announced that he had called a joint sitting of the three Houses of Parliament for Monday, 27 May, at 14h15, for the delivering of Second Reading speeches on certain Bills.

laid upon the Table:

To be referred to the appropriate Standing Committee, unless the House decides otherwise within three sitting days.

as Chairman, presented the Eighth Report of the Standing Select Committee on Constitutional Development and Planning, relative to the Natural Scientists’ Amendment Bill [No 33b—85 (GA)], as follows:

V A VOLKER,

Chairman.

Committee Rooms

Parliament

15 May 1985.

Bill to be read a third time.

Mr Chairman, on Friday we discussed private hospitals, care of the aged and other welfare matters. Continuing that discussion today I should like to refer the hon the Deputy Minister to a very vexing problem on which at least one report was published in the weekend newspapers. If the hon the Deputy Minister has not yet seen the report in question I will gladly hand over to him the clipping of that very report which I happen to have right here with me now.

The heading of the report reads: “Illegal rooftop death-row box for baboons.” The report carries on to give a description of “a smelly, inhuman death-row for more than 20 baboons.” Where is this place situated, Sir? Nowhere else but in the centre of the city of Johannesburg.

Who is running this smelly death-box? It is run by the Department of Health’s National Centre for Occupational Health Research, where those baboons have for years been made to inhale asbestos fumes and other mining dust.

It goes on to describe an experimental situation which, I believe, is totally unacceptable. Some of those baboons are said to have been there for over ten years now, while others have spent between three and five years in that hellhole.

The report goes on to say, and I quote:

He is the head of this Government department—

He went on to say the baboons should be properly housed. As a doctor who has experimented on animals for many years, I find this rather shocking. We prosecute the public for maltreating animals. It is a very serious offence, and it becomes even more serious if the director of this experiment himself agrees that these experiments and the conditions to which these baboons are subjected are illegal. I think that the directive that the MRC should control and monitor experimental work in South Africa is very good. I would, however, like to ask the hon the Deputy Minister that the SPCA should also take part in this monitoring of experimental work in South Africa. It is a very sensitive issue, but as an animal lover, I cannot accept that the hon the Minister’s own department should accept the ill-treatment of animals used for experimental purposes. I would like the hon the Deputy Minister to reply to that.

I was disappointed in the hon the Deputy Minister’s reply to my request for an organization to collect surplus foodstuffs and make them available to people suffering from malnutrition. His arguments that it becomes very expensive and that this was tried previously do not really hold water, because these surplus foodstuffs can be delivered to the pigs in Japan more cheaply than they can be delivered to deserving people in South Africa. I cannot believe that there is no organization available in South Africa which can deliver these foodstuffs more cheaply in South Africa than it costs to deliver them in Japan. I should like to ask the hon the Deputy Minister to reconsider that. It should not be left to the provinces or the schools, but the department itself should get involved in this. I think it is a serious matter and that should be considered.

The arguments of the hon the Deputy Minister and the hon member for Wellington concerning my colleague’s plea for legislation to control smoking are also not acceptable. The hon member for Wellington said: “As long as it is in moderation.” That is the point. At present smoking in South Africa is not done in moderation. The people who are trying to encourage smoking that is not in moderation have all the advantages over those who are trying to control it. I want to point out to the hon member for Wellington that nobody asked for legislation to ban smoking. We just ask for legislation first of all to warn against the dangers of smoking. Smoking will kill one. Secondly, we ask for legislation to prevent the people who advertise smoking from promoting it as a manly, youthful and wonderful experience. We ask that the harm smoking can do be featured as prominently if not more prominently.

I should again like to direct the hon the Deputy Minister’s attention to the MRC report. It is a vital report. I was very grateful for the hon the Deputy Minister’s response to this matter, but I think it has now become urgent. We should like to see smoking prohibited in public places. I should also like the hon the Deputy Minister to ask such Government institutions as the SABC and the SATS to stop promoting smoking. It is a matter of life and death.

I want to consider private hospitals, which is really one of the few own affairs we can discuss during this debate. I welcome the hon the Deputy Minister’s announcement that the possibility exists that in the near future private hospitals will be able to employ full-time staff. The hon the Deputy Minister referred to casualties and outpatients. That is very important but what is even more important is the staffing of intensive care units. In South Africa today very well equipped and manned private hospitals are carrying out major procedures. I was working in one just this morning. Not to have full-time staff looking after intensive-care units in private hospitals is, I believe detrimental to the wellbeing of the patients. Why can a Government hospital have full-time staff while a private hospital cannot do what is to the greatest benefit of the patients and that would be to employ people to care for them in the middle of the night especially when there are urgent cases? I therefore thank the hon the Deputy Minister for his reply and I hope that it will soon be implemented.

I should also like to refer to the question of separation or segregation in private hospitals. Last week I mentioned that Black or Coloured patients were only allowed in private wards and that Black or Coloured sisters or nurses were allowed to nurse everybody in private or in general wards. I should like to ask the hon the Deputy Minister whether he cannot start breaking down discrimination in the health services rendered by private hospitals. Basically this is already taking place since patients of all races are allowed in private wards. In the intensive-care units where the really acutely ill are, there is no longer any racial discrimination in private hospitals. The only aspect in respect of which there is still discrimination is the admission of non-White patients to general wards. The nurses of all racial groups are allowed to nurse in private as well as general wards.

I think this is where we can start breaking down discrimination because, strangely enough, nobody is complaining. What is more, everybody seems to be getting well in spite of mixing in health matters. There is no question about “own” or “general” getting healthy; everybody just wants to get well. I think it will make it much easier for them to become healthy if the staff can be used wherever they are needed.

A further discriminatory practice is that private hospitals are not allowed in terms of our laws to accommodate their nursing staff comprising of various racial groups in the areas in which those hospitals are situated. Nurses belonging to the Black or Coloured racial groups are not allowed to be accommodated in nurses’ homes next to the hospitals. The non-White nurses can only be accommodated in their own group areas, and this means that they have to live far away from the hospitals. Of course, this boils down to discrimination. If, for instance, they live in Soweto they have to leave home at 05h00 to get to the hospital at 07h00. If they work until 17h00 in the evening, they arrive home at 19h00. This is discrimination not only in the field of colour but also in so far as conditions of work are concerned. I object to this practice.

On a previous occasion I asked whether the hon the Minister could, in regard to the privatization of hospitals, look into the possibility of private hospitals becoming teaching hospitals so that this type of separation will no longer prevail. The separation between private and teaching hospitals should no longer be a characteristic of the hospital services of South Africa. The White teaching hospitals complain because of a lack of teaching material, but the 6 500 beds in private hospitals could be used for teaching purposes. I seriously ask the hon the Deputy Minister to look into this aspect. I think the private hospitals could be used for the training of nurses, medical students and paramedical staff. The doctors working in the private hospitals are good enough and it is no longer necessary for this type of separation to be continued with.

I should like to conclude by asking the hon the Deputy Minister to look into the possibility of private hospitals being used for State patients. In the debate on the general affairs Health and Welfare Vote I asked for this to be considered because if this is brought about, the hospital and health system will no longer be subsidized but the individual will be subsidized. The hon member for Worcester remarked how very expensive treatment in private hospitals was. He compared private hospitals with Government hospitals, but I should like to tell him that the costs are the same. The only difference is that in private hospitals the patients pay for everything while in the case of Government hospitals we, the taxpayers, foot the bill for a substantial proportion of the costs. The costs for the various hospitals nevertheless remain the same. Private hospitals are run per bed at more or less the same costs as Government hospitals, but quite often the private hospitals are more cost effective.

Since there is talk about privatization, I should like to ask the hon the Deputy Minister why medical schemes are protected by law so that only they can offer certain medical benefits while other companies are not allowed to do it. Here I am talking about the insurance companies. Why cannot an individual obtain his medical scheme benefits through his insurance company? Why must he of necessity become a member of a medical scheme? [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I will not react to the speech of the hon member for Parktown. I leave that to the hon the Deputy Minister.

Part of my constituency includes a long, narrow coastal strip of about 45 kilometres long and not exceeding three kilometres wide. In this area there are some 20 000 Whites of whom 60% are retired. Of this 60%, 38% are receiving social and old age pensions. There is only one hospital in the area, but this in itself is not a problem. The problem is that there is no public transport in the whole area. When people get old, they are subject to driving tests, and many have to sell their cars. It is, therefore, very difficult for them to make their way to the hospital which is situated at the northern end of the constituency. These old people have to ask neighbours for lifts or the district nurse to get their medicines, or rely on someone else to get their requirements from the hospital. Surely the time is long overdue for the introduction of a mobile dispensary, particularly in rural or semi-urban areas such as the South Coast, to assist the elderly and the indigent to get their medication. The use of a nurse operating under section 38A of the Nursing Act with a pharmacy technician is, as I see it, a distinct possibility. What one does not realize is that not every local authority has a clinic. Even some of the larger local authorities cannot even boast a health care centre. I think it is common cause that health care for the White population is increasing in cost at a far greater rate than inflation. In fact, it is getting very close to socialization. The question that has to be asked is how much longer the State can afford the present system.

I want to deal with two aspects relating to medication. First of all I want to talk about the patient on medical aid who can afford to pay but who is using the privilege of subsidized service from the State or province; and, secondly, the old age pensioner whose medical expenses are extremely high because of long-term chronic therapy. I will deal with the last-mentioned first.

In this instance the use of branded generics is cutting costs for the State but, oh my, what a lot of nonsense has been written and said about generic substitution for private individuals! The first point to remember is that generic substitution has been a fact of life in South Africa for more than 20 years in the public sector which, after all, is the largest dispenser of medicine, namely about 70%. It was therefore with amazement that I read an article under the heading “Why GP’s should resist generic prescribing”. I quote from the article:

To date there has been no litigation whatsoever. The other point is that it is quite obvious that the author, a doctor, is unaware of the Medicines Control Board. One can ask: “In ignorance?” Hardly likely. He knows that all generic products must be registered with the Medicines Control Board which thouroughly vets them for quality, safety and efficacy. To suggest that such products are inferior to original branded products is a slur on the integrity of the Medicines Control Board and a questioning of its capability as a registering authority. There has been to date, and I say it again, no case of litigation in respect of this at all. No one can claim that an original product is of a higher quality than its generic equivalent. Generic substitution is not about using inferior drugs but about not using overpriced drugs. In the UK 794 samples of generic and 829 of ethicals were checked. Fault rates were 5,03% and 5,06% respectively. In 1980-81,. 14 generics and 19 ethicals were recalled. In 1982-83, 15 generics and 14 ethicals were recalled.

A further argument put forward is that generic substitution will not signify lower prices. At this moment, one generic manufacturer who is by no means the cheapest, has prices 25% to 30% lower than those of the original products. It has also been argued that generic replacements will destroy any incentive for research and development. This is, of course, nonsense. In many instances research-based companies are also generic manufacturers.

Also not to be forgotten is that the patent protection of a product is effective for 20 years and during that time no generic replacement can take place. No one can tell me that it is in the public’s interest for companies to count on continued high profits from patent-expired products. Furthermore, last year in the USA 213 million prescriptions, 50% of the total, were filled generically. It is also a proven fact that researchbased companies are increasing their expenditure on research and development. Quite amazing too is the fact that in the United States the brand name companies spent up to nine times as much on advertising, some of which is directed against generics, as on research. What makes one wonder, in the light of the facts about generics, is the outcry by a certain section of the medical fraternity against generic use for the private sector. One would have thought that tangible savings for the patient would be considered in the light of today’s costs especially these of medicines.

This brings me to the price structure of medicines which in my opinion is the reason why so many people belonging to medical aid schemes and who can afford to pay, are using the subsidized service from the State or province. I am referring to the patient on expensive, long-term medication whose medical aid cover is exceeded after a relatively short period and who, rather than pay his own account, goes to the State or the public health system for his medicine. The pricing system for medication is a source of serious concern to the authorities and to private patients. It is all very well for some doctors to say that pharmacies are ripping off the public. I want to quote from the same article as I did earlier on. It is interesting to note the following. The same writer says here:

Let us look at the situation. The State, through the tender system, makes on average purchases of medicine at one third the price which wholesalers pay manufacturers. I certainly do not believe for one minute that the manufacturers are selling their products at cost to the State. Nobody in business sells without a profit otherwise they do not stay in business.

Then there are the dispensing doctors who also enjoy a differential price over the pharmacists. I quote from a manufacturer’s circular dated 7 February 1985:

The chemist’s wholesale price is R14,99—214% more than the price offered to the doctor. I quote another one: R80 per pack—R4 per month. That price is 370% higher than the wholesale price to the chemist. Let us go one further: 60 per pack—R7,20 per month, and the chemist’s wholesale price is R17,98. When one looks at that, I am the first to accept that some dispensing doctors pass on this preferential price to their patients, but not all do. That is for sure.

In my hand I have some invoices from a doctor to his patient and I want to quote his prices which make quite interesting reading. The patient’s name is Cherice. A certain drug is prescribed for him for which the doctor’s invoice price is R10,10 which is exactly the same price that a chemist would charge. There is another drug for which the doctor’s invoice price is R7,97 and the pharmacist’s price is R8,85. For a syrup of some kind the doctor’s price is R6,65 and the chemist’s price R6,66. There is another one, however. That is for tablets for which the cost price to the doctor is 11 cents per tablet. In this instance he has invoiced it out to his patient at 25 cents per tablet; in other words a 127% mark-up on the medicine that he is supplying to his patient. So one must ask the question: Who is ripping who off? [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I want to focus more on social welfare and so shall not be following up on what the hon member for South Coast said. To understand social welfare today we must go back a little in history because it is specifically the history of the Whites that gave rise to the development of welfare problems and the necessity of offering welfare services.

At the turn of the century there was a poor-White problem. There was poverty as a result of a lack of any means of subsistence after the devastating three-year war, the depression of a few decades later and urbanization. Unemployment as a result of the lack of money was also the order of the day.

At the turn of the century, just after the three-year war, we obtained a welfare worker of stature. I want to pay a small tribute to her. I just want to quote the following from Moeders van ons Volk:

Today the greatest poverty is spiritual poverty. Ignorance is the cause of this poverty of our times—ignorance and lack of insight. We no longer want to think for ourselves. The media now think for us. [Interjections.] People do not always understand the things that happen and become confused and frustrated as a result.

At the turn of the century people indeed encountered extreme poverty, in other words poverty in regard to material things. Among our people, however, one found a positive spirit and a will, a will to work for better means of subsistence for themselves and for their people. We now find the will of our people flagging and we find them sick in spirit. They can no longer deal with and adjust to present-day circumstances. There are consequently long lists of people waiting to be helped by psychiatrists. The hospitals and rehabilitation centres are also full to overflowing. People seek escape in alcohol and in pills instead of in faith and in trust. Materialism has taken hold of our people and a striving towards material success has begun to consume many of them. We have paid a very high price for economic success—in our heritage as a people, our cultural heritage and also in integrity. It gained such a firm hold on some people—this striving for success—that they could not accept failure. That is why we have had so many cases of suicide. The effects of these present circumstances place a terribly heavy burden and responsibility on the welfare and health services of our day. A large number of shocking conditions prevail today. Broken marriages and family murders are the order of the day. And how many maltreated children do we not come across? I just want to quote a few headings from one newspaper, namely Die Vaderland of 8 May 1985: “Ma hang haarself in die huis op”; “Hamerdood: Vrou het hom glo getart”; “Bieg oor owerspel—en hy wis toe sy huisgesin uít”. These days all this is an everyday occurrence.

Elderly people who are a burden on their families are also commonplace. Is it not a sorry state of affairs that material poverty has had to make way for this spiritual poverty we have to experience today? Suicide is actually only a method of attracting attention, particularly when we find it among children. It is the result of a lack of love and attention. I want to state here that it is not the amount of time a parent spends with his children, but the quality of the time spent with them, which is important. Sensitive children feel it very quickly if they are being neglected or are not receiving any love. Child abuse makes us do some deep soul-searching. One can understand that it is sick, crying children who are usually the victims of this abuse at the hands of mothers or fathers who come home from work tired and jaded. My question, however, is: What has gone wrong with our world that parents torture and even murder their own children? Is it frustrated parents who cannot cope with the pressure? Man has begun to wear himself out for personal gain, and now that things are no longer going so well the effects are manifesting themselves in the most sensitive areas, those of marriage, the children and the family. Truly this poverty is much greater than the material poverty that existed earlier this century. It places a very great burden on the welfare services, as I say, and it takes a lot to try to solve these problems. These problems are legion.

These days even the aged are just as subject to neglect and abuse, according to social workers. Children want money from their parents and this makes them unreasonable creatures. We now hear of cases in which the father and his sons murder the grandfather. More court cases are now indicating the extent of this wickedness. The lifespan of the aged has been increased, which means that there are many more elderly people than before. The old-age homes are no longer adequate for the needs.

In Die Huisgenoot of 16 May, Miss Marieta Grobbelaar, a social worker from Pretoria, recommends that there be more service centres for the aged in every town where they can meet to talk to one another, do a bit of handicraft work for relaxation, and even have subsidized meals. She believes this can serve as a lightning conductor as far as such abuses are concerned. The members of the family can then come home in the evenings to a happy individual rather than a frustrated old grouse. I would advise hon members to read this article in Die Huisgenoot—it is very interesting and informative. These service centres can relieve both the physical and spiritual loneliness of the aged and make them reasonable and satisfied people.

Let me now come back to the child, however, because this is very important to me. One must look ahead because one is continually building on the future. The child should spur one on to the greatest possible effort in securing a heritage for him—a material, but much more important, a spiritual heritage. Love is the greatest emotion—motherly love, parental love and the love of children. The child is actually the most important sphere of activity because the future of a people and of the church depends on the child. In his book Verwoerd aan die Woord, Dr Verwoerd makes the following moving statement:

Welfare services should therefore, at the present moment, be performing a major service. Each member of the family can be responsible for welfare services within the family—children in relation to their parents; parents in relation to their children; husbands in relation to their wives; wives in relation to their husbands, and family members amongst themselves. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I believe that the medical services of South Africa are in the process of degeneration, and the State is paying more and more for less and less. I believe that if we carry on in the way we are, the cost increases are going to continue and the services are going to worsen. In fact, any thinking person must be getting a little worried about the situation. The medical aid societies are having to push up their premiums enormously, and are, at the same time, reducing the facilities available to their members. One need only to look at the situation with our own medical aid scheme here in Parliament to get some indication of the situation where the benefits have been reduced drastically and the premiums put up substantially. I believe most other medical aid societies are in a similar situation. Now one asks oneself: How has this all come about? I believe it is because we have lost control of medical care and are spending far too much on exotic aspects of medicine and on building monumental hospitals which cost a fortune to run, and because we are allowing the White public in particular to be bled white by private hospitals.

For various reasons, mainly financial, most provinces have placed heavy restrictions upon the treatment of private patients, particularly on those who have medical aid and can otherwise afford to pay. Yet, with very few exceptions, the major provincial hospitals are underoccupied and have the very finest facilities available. In fact these facilities are far better than in most private hospitals. However, the facilities are not available to the very people who, through their very heavy taxes, have in fact paid for them. This is the case largely in major urban centres. These people have to go into private hospitals until the last few rand have been squeezed out of them, and then, when they have no more money left at all, they are pushed back from these private hospitals into the provincial hospitals. I am not sucking this out of my thumb. I know of several cases similar to those I have mentioned where they have been squeezed dry. Furthermore, in certain other instances sick people are put into these private hospitals which have relatively unsophisticated facilities as compared to the major provincial hospitals, and when the private hospital finds that it cannot cope with the situation—when the patient is virtually in extremis—it whips them out again into a provincial hospital and hopes to heaven that the patient will survive because of the facilities of the provincial hospital. In any case, it does reduce the death rate in private hospitals and jacks up the death rate in provincial hospitals. [Interjections.]

I know that the hon member for Parktown is shaking his head at me as though I am saying something absolutely horrible, but it is perfectly true. I know of such cases!

I know of the opposite!

I can assure the hon member that I was not an MEC for hospitals for four and a half years without learning a thing or two. [Interjections.]

As far as I can gather, one of the latest “in” words with the Government is “privatization”. This is a very interesting word. Included in this concept of privatization is the privatization of hospitals. We in these benches feel that this could be a retrogressive step—not privatization in general but the excessive privatization of hospitals. If privatization of hospitals is taken too far, I suggest that medical and emergency services would degenerate enormously.

Let me put a few questions to the hon the Minister directly. I wonder if he could tell me what percentage of nurses are trained, in all race groups, by private hospitals as opposed to various State hospitals. There are some, of course, and I am well aware of this, but relatively speaking there are few. How many hospitals have resident doctors on duty 24 hours a day? I can assure hon members that nearly all the provincial hospitals have, but very, very few private hospitals.

They are not allowed to.

That is irrelevant. They do not have them and this is the point I am making. How many private hospitals are suitable for doctors’ internships or specialization residencies? Again, very, very few indeed. [Interjections.] How many private hospitals have well-equipped and staffed emergency facilities where accident or disaster victims have free right of entry? How many of them? I have had something to do with this sort of thing and I can tell hon members that there are very few indeed. These are just a few of the points which have to be considered before one goes too far along the road towards hospital privatization. However, there are also many more points that one could raise.

My colleague the hon member for Durban Point raised a number of issues causing problems as a consequence of the fractionalization of hospital services among various Ministers. I was pleased to hear that the hon the Minister was honest enough to say that he did not know the answers to certain of these questions—like the question with regard to the sharing of facilities by the various race groups. I believe he should be thanked for being honest by indicating that those issues are being negotiated. However, I must tell the hon gentleman that removing the homelands hospitals from provincial control has caused more problems than it has resolved, and has certainly considerably reduced the facilities that were available not only to the White community but the Black community as well. The Prince Mfeshini Hospital in Durban, for example, has 200 maternity beds and is fully equipped, but has no patients. In regard to maternity cases the King Edward VIII, which is equipped to cope with 12 000 maternity cases per annum is, however, coping with 22 000 patients, and people are sleeping on the floors and under the beds because of the lack of co-ordination between these hospitals.

I sincerely believe that it is about time that we started thinking in terms of cost-effective medical care; otherwise the whole system will be such that only the very rich and perhaps the indigent will be able to get good medical care. I believe we must stop being fanatical about total racial segregation at and the control of the individual hospitals. We should rather get down to looking after the patients.

Finally, I believe that in the whole of the medicare situation in South Africa one should look to the care of the patient instead of looking after the pockets of all the people who are making fortunes out of it.

Mr Chairman, I agree with the hon member for Umbilo in that I believe we are all concerned about escalating medical costs. I know this is a matter that is receiving urgent attention and I think the hon the Minister will react further to it.

A matter people do not discuss easily, even today and which I want to discuss today, is the question of mental health. Balance in one’s life is a gift, but this characteristic evades many of us throughout our lives. The characteristic of making meaningful choices is, in my opinion, the essence of being a person. Education and schooling should not only provide us with the ability to perform our daily tasks, but should also form in us the ability to make correct decisions. Indeed, the course of our lives is determined largely by our day-to-day decisions. One wrong decision has often either influenced the lives of many people or cost them their lives.

Too many people are sent into society without knowing properly how to stay healthy or how to get the better of the problems of life.

Mental health services form a subdivision of the Directorate of Health. The aim of this Directorate is to provide a comprehensive psychiatric service to the White population, and to promote mental health in society. Details regarding the range and nature of these services, which are provided by the Department, are mentioned briefly on page 2 of the Directorate’s information brochure, as well as in the annexures. The amount allocated to these functions of the Directorate is R21 691 000. As a result of the shortage of funds more emphasis is at present being laid on the refurbishing of existing facilities, the improvement of emergency psychiatric and crisis services, and the promotion of mental health in the community through improved information and counselling services.

It is a pity that the work of the Directorate should now suffer the burden of a shortage of money just now. The statistics of the mental health organizations and institutions show that over the past six months there has been a tremendous increase in the incidence of conditions such as anxiety neurosis, tension and depression. These have been particularly evident in our larger industrial centres and are linked to the present recessionary conditions.

As a result of the tension and pressure our people experience today in a modern and competitive industrial and business community, mental health problems are developing to an increasing degree. As a result mental health services are becoming increasingly necessary in our community. They are essential for two reasons in particular: To try to prevent mental problems, and to try to rehabilitate mentally disturbed patients and return them to the community as useful citizens. To fulfil this task is the responsibility of our community as a whole.

†Many problem areas exist, for instance many people suffer from psychological and emotional discomfort, but they fail to seek professional help. A large proportion of our society suffers from time to time from mild to moderate depression, anxiety and other emotional disorders such as aggression, social strains, loneliness, lack of interpersonal skills, divorce traumas and many others. Although most of these problems do not constitute mental disorders as conventionally diagnosed, many of these persons need assistance. These problems can develop into more serious emotional disorders if not dealt with timeously.

The assistance and support of family and friends is not always sufficient or adequate. It is therefore essential that effective support systems be developed to prevent serious emotional problems.

*Young people who marry today begin with new relations and relationships. Apart from the usual marriage adjustments, new demands are made on both marriage partners. They have to learn to function as a new social entity vis-á-vis their friends, their family and the community. This leads to very complex problems for those young people. Community programmes to tackle these problems are essential.

The parent/child relationship, too, experiences the pressure of our time with its changed demands and standards. Not all parents have the background and the insight to deal with these problems without proper training programmes. Programmes such as these could help prevent the emotional disturbance between parent and child, but they would be of no use if the problem already existed.

In addition to education programmes such as these there is also an acute need for recreational facilities as well as opportunities for discussion for young people. This need can be relieved by direct parental intervention as well as by a community effort.

At the other end of the spectrum there is a need for social programmes and activities for the elderly. Although much is already being done in this respect, there is a need for coordination between mental health institutions and other hospitals and homes for the aged. Psychiatric hospitals are often seen as a dumping-ground for aged people with mental problems. This tendency is in contrast to the position overseas where the trend is more towards the integration of such cases into the community. This is possibly a development that can be linked to the fact that both marriage partners work, and that time and the proper care for such people is lacking.

This however, entails many disadvantages. One is that the responsibility of the State towards these people is increased, whereas the involvement of the community is decreased. Apart from the tremendous expense to the State and the taxpayer, the lack of involvement of the household, the family and the community is detrimental to the patient and also to every other person involved in the situation.

This is a growing trend, despite the development of better treatment methods and medication. In the present financial climate the State cannot afford to encourage this phenomenon. Although we have to accept that a section of all mentally disturbed and mentally retarded people will require permanent care, a large percentage of these people can be successfully absorbed into the community. Better co-ordination and an overall policy is necessary in this area. In times of disaster and other emergencies, closer interaction is necessary between organizations created for this purpose as well as psychiatric and medical services and organizations.

To summarize, greater co-ordination at the mental health counselling level and of the service in South Africa in this connection is therefore necessary. The provision of a better subsidy scheme for supporting services in the community is also essential, such as, for example, clubs for the mentally disturbed and stay-at-home schemes. Projects such as these will lessen dependence on full-time care projects and will promote the integration of the handicapped into the community. Better co-ordination of prevention services is imperative. A liaison body should be established, representative of all national or provincial institutions and organizations, public and private, that will be responsible for mental health, education and counselling, so that a national plan can be drawn up and implemented to obviate these problems.

Mr Chairman, although the hon member for Roodepoort raised a very important subject, I do not have the time to react to it. However, I should just like to make the point that I wish we could reach the stage where we could remove the stigma that is involved in regard to psychological illnesses in society generally. I think it is a very harmful thing.

In terms of the rules of this debate, I am limited to discussing the question of the pensions and problems of White pensioners. Although I am happy to do this, hon members must appreciate that it is difficult for me to do so because obviously what happens in respect of the pensions of other groups is going to affect White pensions. We have a very good example of this at the present moment. This year there was an increase of R14 per month for all pensioners. We welcome this because I believe we have no other path to follow in South Africa. However, I can see that the Government finds itself in something of a dilemma because, while it has to meet the aspirations of the non-White population groups, it is at the same time subject to attack from the right wing on the basis that it is doing too much for Blacks and too little for Whites. I say this because the concept of separate but equal is a myth. If this were actually true, the CP should be demanding equal pensions for all race groups. As yet, however, I have not heard that plea from them and I doubt that I ever will. If I am wrong in saying this, I should like hon members of the CP to stand up and tell me that I am wrong.

Many of the problems that we are facing could have been overcome if the Government had had more foresight. It has been in power now for longer than 37 years and it has done very little to solve our social problems. When we consider this matter, we find that many commissions have sat and have made recommendations but that those recommendations have not been implemented. The people who are paying the price for this are in fact the aged.

Let us look, for example, at the social old age pensioner. Last year he received an increase of 9,2% while the inflation rate was running at 11,7%. Therefore, he was 2,5% worse off. This year he will receive an increase of 8,4% while economists tell us that the inflation rate will reach 16%. Therefore, by the end of the year this person is likely to be some 8% worse off. However, he has to wait until October to receive his increased pension and, of course, if inflation is running at 16%, that 8% increase is going to be swallowed up completely by the time he receives his increased pension. Therefore, I think that, looking at the plight of the social old age pensioner, one will see that his situation is going to deteriorate. This is sad because already those people are facing a fairly deplorable situation. One has but to look at the sort of accommodation in which many of them live. In Johannesburg they are living in dark, depressing rooms and dark, depressing flats that contain only the barest essentials. The lifts, if they work, work inadequately. There is an excuse for a hot-water system if the plumbing system works and when it works. The electricity supply is poor.

One might argue that these people should have made provision for their retirement, but in 1959 only 1 million people belonged to pension schemes. It was not compulsory to belong to a pension scheme. A widow’s pension was a rarity, and we know that most social old age pensioners are female.

What about those people who did try to provide for themselves? Let us say a person retired in 1974 with R50 000. I think it would have been considered that such a person had made adequate provision. Today, however, one’s rand is worth 28 cents and that R50 000 would buy one what R14 000 buys one today. One would, however, have had no salary increases to compensate one for inflation and one would have had no tax-free perks as others have had. The worst insult is that, if one did try to provide for one’s retirement, one could be worse off than somebody who did not.

I specifically want to raise with the hon the Deputy Minister the question of the means test in respect of the social old age pension. The hon the Deputy Minister will know that, at present, if one gets R167 per month from a pension scheme, one does not qualify for a social old age pension. If one gets R84, and therefore made less adequate provision, one qualifies for a full social old age pension. One’s combined income would then be R250 per month. In other words, somebody who provided less adequately for his retirement would be better off than someone who tried harder. I have waited for a justification of this system in this House and I have heard none. I would love to hear what the justification for that is. In fact, if one made no provision whatsoever, one would get one’s R166 per month, one would get one’s bonus of R36 and one would get the various concessions. One could then in fact be better off than somebody who tried to provide for his retirement. I know that the means test is going to be adjusted, but I want to say to the hon the Deputy Minister that if all we are going to do is to adjust the means test for income by the same amount as we adjust the social old age pension, those anomalies are going to continue and I think that they are absurd.

As regards the means test, the point has been raised that, at present, if one is over the age of 100—I suppose that is the good news of reaching 100— the means test does not apply to one. If one was in the Anglo-Boer War, it does not apply. The hon member for Durban Point has asked that the means test for war veterans of the First World War should be abolished. I agree with him. I think we owe it to those people. There are very few of them left. I do not know how many people are left who are over the age of 85, but I would imagine that there are very few. We should therefore do something for those people.

Considering the plight of White social old age pensioners, it seems to me that the Government is going to have less and less flexibility in the future. Pensions are going to cost more because of the equalization programme and because there are going to be more and more people falling into that age category. The hon the Minister of the Budget will know that we are reaching the limit of our ability to tax people to pay for welfare benefits. The Government will no doubt argue that it cannot do more because it does not have the money, but it has been here for 37 years and what has it actually done in that time to solve these problems? It reminds me of the emperor in the tale of Hans Christian Andersen: The Government has no clothes in the sense that it has no solutions. The problem in South Africa is that the Government has the clothes but the aged do not have the clothes and are battling to get them, even second hand.

We in the PFP will ride this Government and expose it for its lack of foresight and inability to act in tackling the problems of the aged in South Africa.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Edenvale had a long story to relate here about the issue of pensions. We know that he is of course an expert in that sphere; a person who has made a study of this subject. However, we are acquainted with all the conditions to which he referred here. Indeed, they occur in all our constituencies—particularly the terrible circumstances in which so many elderly people live.

I really do differ with the hon member when he says that in a period of 38 years the Government has done absolutely nothing about this matter. I believe that this Government has done considerably better than any other previous government in this country. What the Government has done with regard to old age pensions is duly on record.

The way in which the Government has done its best over the past 38 years to improve poor conditions in this regard is duly on record. Therefore I believe that the hon member for Edenvale had better go and reread his history. Moreover, he is still somewhat too new to politics to realize what the National Party has achieved over the past 38 years.

I really find it tremendously encouraging to note how all the parties in this House are speaking so well on own affairs today. From all that we are seeing here, it is surely evident that own affairs are making tremendous progress now. After all, it is a matter of the preservation of the identity of the Whites, the self-maintenance of the Whites, the promotion of the way of life of the Whites. It affects the culture of the Whites. It affects the traditions and customs of the Whites. It affects social welfare in the ranks of the Whites as well as health services, hospitals, clinics, medical services at schools and for the needy, health and nutritional counselling, the registration and control of private hospitals and everything to do with the White community.

It is therefore gratifying that this Budget makes provision for approximately 80% of the money allocated towards the financing of health services in South Africa. Thus far this has been a function of the provincial administrations and we know, too, that the hon the Deputy Minister is striving to place these matters in their correct context. The functions transferred to this department thus far include medical care, mental health, nutritional services and hospitals. Since among the ranks of hon members of this House are medical practitioners who have taken courses in district surgeon services I believe they will realize how important are the fulltime services rendered by district surgeons from day to day in regard to care of the elderly.

The estimated expenditure on dental services already amounts to the enormous sum of R23 million out of a total of R28 million. These dental services include inter alia regional services with regard to the dental examination of all pupils at White schools and the dental treatment of preschool children and adults for whom the State is responsible. 942 324 pupils at 2 310 White schools in South Africa receive services of this nature.

The dental services mentioned above include the administration and maintenance of dental hospitals. Three dental hospitals—those attached to the Universities of Pretoria, Stellenbosch and the Witwatersrand—are now of course the responsibility of the Administration: House of Assembly.

Moreover, an amount of R21 million is being allocated towards mental health services. The hon member for Roodepoort has also referred to this. The transfer to the Administration: House of Assembly of a further five hospitals is not yet reflected in the present Budget although the agreement concerning the transfer has already been reached.

A programme about which I should like to say something more is the nutritional services programme. This section is responsible inter alia for the inspection of the food service of the 21 State institutions, hospitals, rehabilitation centres, places of safety and homes as well as all State-subsidized old age homes, nursery schools and crèches. Food service staff are also trained to assist in the compilation and revision of menus in all these institutions.

Then, too, there is the whole issue of R50 million eventually having to be found for additional matters, to the extent that the division between the Department of Health and the Department of Health Services and Welfare is effected. Perhaps considerably more than R50 million will be necessary for this purpose. The greater part of these health services still fall under the provincial administrations at the moment, but eventually they will be transferred to the department for own affairs.

In this regard I want to refer to the progress we have made with own affairs and own health services. The English-language Press has until recently not taken a great deal of notice of what is going on in regard to the Whites. Their interest has largely been confined to the non-Whites, whose affairs are at present to a large extent administered by their own Houses.

In this regard I refer to a report in The Star of Friday, 10 May, under the title “Hard times hunger hits White pupils”. It appeared as the main report in that edition of the newspaper and I think that this was also the title on its posters. I quote from that report:

The reporter goes on:

We know that there is unemployment. We know, too, that there is poverty. Moreover, as the hon member for Germiston District said, the NP has always looked after the poor people and those who live below the breadline. The report goes on:

I hope that in the light of this report we may give attention to this whole matter.

It is with specific reference to this that I should like to discuss briefly the issue of provision of food to elderly people as well. The hon member for Edenvale said a great deal about the elderly. In my constituency and in the constituencies of many other hon members there are people who live alone in little rooms.

These old people have little money. They do receive a pension, but the problem is that the rentals for those little rooms or flats are so high that they do not have sufficient money left to buy the right food. I myself have found that even a main meal consists of a cup of tea and a few sandwiches. I discovered this when I visited some elderly people.

In general our elderly people are very well cared for in our homes, where they are given balanced diets. It will become increasingly necessary for meals to be provided to elderly people in their own environments at specific times. It is not only the State that must ensure this; this is the task of the private sector as well. Certain religious bodies have with great success implemented a scheme, the so-called “meals on wheels” scheme. I think that this is a scheme that ought to be expanded on a co-ordinated basis. It must also be implemented by our Afrikaans-language churches and welfare bodies such as Christelike Rade. It must be provided for needy people as well.

Recently the wife of a clergyman of our church told me that she had achieved such signal success in providing meals and so on that she had established a whole panel of women. She then realized that the elderly people also had a need for dessert, because they provided no dessert with their meals. They are now making real “Boere” pudding and other attractive desserts for these people. [Interjections.] Yes, jelly too.

I therefore appeal to the private sector as well. There are motor car companies who are struggling to sell their cars today. What could be a better advertisement than if they were to donate a Kombi, say, to the organizers of nutritional services in order to convey meals from one point to another?

Moreover, on the shelves of many of our supermarkets stand groceries, the prices of which are constantly being increased; groceries that could be donated. The Department of Health Services and Welfare could further co-ordinate all these matters. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I am sure the hon member for Rosettenville will understand if I do not respond to him. I have very little time available. I agree with most of the things he said about the aged, anyway.

I want to start off by saying two things. Firstly, the views I am about to express are my personal views and are not that of my party. We have a free vote on the particular subject which I am about to discuss. Secondly, I want to warn the hon member for Pietersburg and any other hon member in the House including the Deputy Minister of Health Services and Welfare about the dangers of bringing any aspect of colour or racialism into the question of family planning or abortion in South Africa. To do that will backfire just as surely as the ridiculous proposal which was made years ago by Minister M C Botha about White babies for the Republic. Do not do it. It is a very dangerous line of argument and I hope members will avoid that as much as possible.

I want to discuss the question of abortion and what I believe to be the need for a proper judicial commission of inquiry into the existing Abortion and Sterilization Act of 1975. It has been on the Statute Book now for ten years and it is time that we had an independent inquiry consisting of members of both sexes, of all colours, duly qualified, to examine the workings of this Act. We do not want just the blank statement which was made on Friday by the Acting Minister that as long as this Government is in power there will be no such thing as abortion on demand in South Africa.

It’s the truth.

Let us rather not be so dogmatic and rather examine the workings of the Act and see whether it does not require amendment. That is what I request. Anyway, we should not talk about “abortion on demand” because the right terminology is “abortion on request” when one discusses the whole idea of liberalizing abortion laws. That is what I want to propose today, namely that the House appoint a judicial commission of inquiry with duly qualified members of both sexes and all races, as requested by several women’s organizations.

I understand that my colleague the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North has arranged for members to view the controversial film The Silent Scream. In fact, I think there are going to be three showings, an early show, a middle show and a late show. Before hon members get carried away by the ugly sight of a three months’ old foetus, which is the size of one’s thumb, dodging the depredations of a pair of forceps, let me tell them that Lord Thomson, who is the Chairman of the Independent Broadcasting Authority in Britain, refused to allow this film to be shown on British television. He said that the editors of the programme—

Prof Stuart Campbell of King’s College Hospital in London considers the film to be grossly misleading. Prof Ron Taylor of St Thomas’s Hospital, who is anti-abortion, is also sceptical about the genuineness of the film. I want to issue this warning to hon members before they rush off and come back with tears in their eyes about this film.

Whether or not members are emotionally disturbed by what they see if they view the film put out by Pro Life, let me give them a few statistics to show that whatever the Government decrees and that whatever the Right-to-Lifers expound, women who are determined not to continue with an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy will go to any lengths, including risking their lives, in order to end that pregnancy. According to the latest departmental report, which I have here, during the period December 1983 to October 1984, 566 legal abortions were performed in South Africa and 29 596 operations for the removal of the residue of a pregnancy were performed. Of these 1 578 were septic miscarriages, 17 with noticable signs of foreign material or injuries. There were 13 722 operations performed on single women and 576 on widows and divorcees. I believe it can safely be assumed that most of those cases emanated from self-induced or backstreet abortions. Indeed, the hon the Acting Minister himself said that he, too, believed that there were more backstreet abortions than there were reported cases of the removal of residue of pregnancies.

Of the cases which I have given, 17 422 related to Black women and 3 808 to Coloured women, thus giving the lie to the commonly held view that only White women would take advantage of liberalized abortion laws. That is for the benefit of the CP.

The figures I have quoted are for notified cases only and they therefore represent just the tip of the iceberg. Mrs Nan Trollip, President of the Family Planning Association of South Africa, told a conference at Grahamstown earlier this year that, on a conservative estimate, about 200 000 illegal abortions are performed annually in South Africa. I believe these figures tell a very poignant story of desperate women determined to end unwanted pregnancies, who do not have access to safe, modern methods of abortion.

There have been indications and there have been statements in the Press that the Government is considering legalizing abortions for girls under the age of 16. I do not know whether this thought is in the mind of the hon the Deputy Minister. If so, that would be an advance and it is certainly something that women’s organizations and I myself have repeatedly requested. It would be a vital step in reducing population growth—which is very important—since postponement of the first pregnancy is an essential factor in achieving this objective.

However, I believe it is equally important that we review the entire Act, bearing in mind that to many older girls and married women, pregnancy, unplanned and unwanted, represents a total disaster, especially in poor economic conditions where many women are the sole breadwinners of the family. We need also to review the Act in relation to women over the age of 40 and women with large families who do not want any more children.

I believe there is no way in which we are going to achieve the ideal 2,1-child family which has been recommended by the demographic study of 1983, and endorsed by the Government, unless the Abortion and Sterilization Act is amended so as to liberalize our abortion laws. I by no means say this is the only way in which we must limit population growth. Obviously, family planning and raising the standard of living of all our people are the real keys. We know perfectly well that poverty and a high fertility rate go together in every country in the world. So, I agree absolutely with the hon member for Parktown who made that point in an earlier debate this year. Nevertheless, there are subsidiary measures whereby we can do something about the population growth, and I think it is very important that we use them.

I believe that the present unrest—and I say this after having given the matter considerable thought—throughout the country is one of the results of uncontrolled population growth in this country. I want to end by quoting the words of Robert McNamara in 1969, which I believe are very relevant to South Africa in 1985. This is what he said:

For those reasons I hope very much that the hon the Deputy Minister will consider the appointment of a commission of inquiry to review the workings of South Africa’s Abortion and Sterilization Act of 1975.

Mr Chairman, I listened attentively to the hon member for Houghton and I agree wholeheartedly with the extract she quoted from the book by Mr McNamara. However, as regards a liberal view of abortions in our country, I think this is a matter which we must approach with the utmost circumspection. A great many voices are raised against it from moral and social points of view. I think that we in this country—particularly if we take it that we are a Christian country—want to limit this matter to a large extent, or to the utmost possible extent, and only allow abortions in certain instances. We shall very probably deal with that later.

I just want to come back to the hon member for Edenvale who discussed pensions. I think it is important that we should take just two facets of his speech into account. We on this side of the committee genuinely appreciate the problems of pensioners. When we look at the speeches made by hon members on this side of the House—in the past and in this debate as well—there is no one in this House who can say that we are not sympathetic towards them. However, whereas we have the utmost compassion and piety for these people we must also be practical. Therefore I want to say to the hon member that for any government—a PFP government, a CP government and our Government—it would be meaningless to hope that the pensioner will be able to maintain the same standard of living as he enjoyed before retirement. The problem of the means test that he quoted is that whatever limit we may determine there will always be a certain number of people above that limit who will be treated “unjustly”. Even if we set the cutoff point at R1 000 per month there would be people earning R1 010. We could try to alleviate this matter to an extent but we really cannot do away with that limit entirely.

In any event, I wish to address this problem of pensioner and income, because I appreciate that there is a problem. I wish to say that any degree of relief that we afford the pensioners, viz the social pensioners, is accepted with the utmost gratitude. Then, too, at this point I wish to convey my thanks to the Government for nominating the Joint Committee on Pension Benefits. This to me is in any event an indication of the serious intentions of the Government in that regard. We must simply press through with that Committee and I am sure that towards the end of its proceedings we shall know a great deal more about this problem than we do now. Moreover, we shall have been acquainted with a far wider range of possible solutions to this problem that we are aware of at present.

At this point, however, I wish to touch on a matter which is very close to my heart. I mentioned it before here but thus far it has not been attended to. The matter concerns that group of pensioners who earn between R5 and R200 per month more than the social pensioner receives. In other words, they are the people who do not qualify for social pensions and who therefore form that borderline of “hardship cases”. This group of individuals undoubtedly have the thin end of the ledge. As hon members know, this group of people has a very big problem particularly with regard to their medical care. When they retired on pension, a pension of R200 or R250 a month sounded reasonable. Let us take the case of a pensioner who retired in 1979. At that time they could still afford to pay to go to a provincial hospital. Since then, inflation has taken a heavy toll and the purchasing power of their pension has declined considerably. I repeat: We appreciate this problem. Let me mention just one example: If a person retired in 1979 on R250 per month and if we take it that he was one of the fortunate ones who received an increase of 5% per annum in pension and if we also take it that the purchasing power of his pension therefore declined at only 7% per annum, then his purchasing power declined to a little more than R173 per month. This means that he is now having a hard time of it financially. That is so and we recognize it.

Nevertheless, such a person receives no assistance with regard to his medical care. Because he himself has made provision for his old age, we provide no assistance. It is true that he can obtain treatment at a provincial hospital for R7,50, which includes the necessary medicine, but we have the problem that certain pensioners live far from the provincial hospitals. This is a very great problem for us. In my own and other rural constituencies there are pensioners who receive between R5 and R200 per month more in pension than the social pensioners and are accordingly not entitled to that benefit of services and so on at the hospital. In other words they have to pay for them. Many of them are in fact prepared to pay for that treatment but in the interim the cost of transport to the provincial hospitals has increased to such an extent that they can no longer afford to travel to provincial hospitals. In my constituency there are many of these people. If they want to travel from Orkney to Klerksdorp, where the nearest provincial hospital is situated, it costs them R15 per journey. In other words, it costs them R30 to travel to and fro. Hon members will certainly realize that people who have to pay R30 for transport plus R7,50 for medical service plus, say, R2,50 for a midday meal cannot afford to pay R40 for one visit to the provincial hospital, on a pension of R200 per month. As a result there are old people in my constituency—I know that I must not become emotional about this—who really do not see their way clear to going to the provincial hospital in Klerksdorp when they are ill. I know that the same goes for people in other constituencies. The result is that such a person prefers to lie at home for days receiving absolutely no treatment than to incur the expense of getting to the provincial hospital.

The question is now: What is the answer? The social pensioner is in the privileged position of being able to consult the district surgeon, who is within reach if he is far from the provincial hospitals. Then he does not have the problem in connection with transport costs and so on. The ordinary pensioners, particularly those who draw just more than R200 in pension, must pay a vast sum either to consult a private medical practitioner or to incur the expense of travelling to the hospital. In both cases it is financially impossible for them to do so. I want to submit the following proposal for serious consideration today, bearing in mind that in doing so we should try not to impose an additional financial burden on the State and that it should be practicable. In the light of this I want to propose the following: All pensioners above the age limit of social pensioners should be permitted to consult the district surgeon if there are no provincial hospital services available in the nearest town. As in the case of the social pensioner his medicine must be provided to him locally. In this case he would also pay R7,50 to the office of the district surgeon, as in the case of a visit to the provincial hospital, and a receipt would be issued. In other words, that R7,50 which he would pay at the provincial hospital, he would also pay to the State at the district surgeon. Alternatively he could pay it to the pharmacist, as payment additional to the medicine. There are ways of replacing the pharmacist’s medicine, on the basis of stock replacement or by paying him the cost price.

The very first argument to be advanced would undoubtedly be that of numbers. People will say that too many people would abuse the system and that it would cost the State too much. Is this really so, however? Several of the pensioners belonging to private medical fund associations are still members of those associations. In any event, they have the benefit of being able to consult a private medical practitioner and obtain their medicine from a private pharmacist. Why then should such people go out of their way to abuse or use the district surgeon if they have their own private medical fund and private medical practitioner available, where they do not have to wait so long for treatment? Moreover, the majority of our population lives in the towns and in regions and cities where provincial services are available and this would in any event eliminate the problem to a very great extent.

If hon members have seen, as we have, how the health of senior citizens deteriorates because they are not within easy distance of a hospital and are prevented from consulting the district surgeon merely because they receive R5 or R10 per month more than the social pensioner, they could not but agree that we should help those pensioners.

Mr Chairman, in connection with the hon member for Stilfontein’s last point, I want to say that we would certainly support that proposal, but I think one would need to investigate and consider what the administrative implications would be. However, we share his concern for the needs of pensioners, and that has been expressed adequately by my colleague the hon member for Edenvale.

As my senior colleague the hon member for Houghton has pointed out, the question of an attitude to abortion is a matter of a free vote in our party because the question of abortion is obviously fundamentally a question of one’s attitude to life and to people. That is a matter of conscience and conviction, often a religious conviction. Regarding the film about which the hon member is obviously excited—I am not sure whether she is going to come to the Tuesday, the Wednesday or the Thursday showing of the film—I should point out that Dr Bernard Nathanson who made the film, was himself a man who had a very large abortion clinic and would hold, I imagine, the same religious convictions as the hon member for Houghton in the sense that he would describe himself as a secular humanist. He changed his view on abortion and has now taken an anti-abortion stand. In making the film they have apparently made use of some of the most advanced photography developed for in-utero foetal photography. I do not hold any brief for the film, but I think it is important for us to see it. I think it is important for members of this House to consider all aspects of an issue as vital as abortion.

However, a number of the issues that I wanted to discuss have been raised by the hon member for Houghton, and I think they should be dealt with. The first one is the question of a commission of inquiry. I believe that in any legal system there is reason to investigate and look at an Act. In principle, I have nothing against a commission of inquiry, but anybody who listened to the motivation of the hon member for Houghton will realize that the only motivation that the hon member has is to liberalize the law to in fact make it easier to have a legal abortion. I think that should be made clear from the start.

The second issue was the figure of 200 000 illegal abortions. The question of abortion is a very complex matter and to throw figures around like Nan Trollip does, which are given an air of authority by being used in this House, is no service to rational debate. First of all, how can one in any event confirm or disprove a figure of 200 000 illegal abortions? By definition, there can be no statistics on it. It is a guesstimate and, at its most charitable, I should say it is a wild, unfounded guess. It is precisely because of the importance of statistics that I am pleased to say that I was one of the people who persuaded the department to include in its annual statitics a statistic on the number of removals of the residues of a pregnancy. I believe that that statistic does at least give South Africa some idea—I am not saying that it is a perfect statistic—of the extent of the problem. Of course, anybody who is concerned about the right to life, about saving human life and who is anti-abortion would be very concerned even if there were 5 000 apparent abortions. Our concern for the right to life is for the right to a decent life and a decent quality of life. The figure of 200 000 is easy to remember, but it is a thumbsuck. It is nothing more than a thumbsuck. I believe that we should understand that in this House.

Furthermore, regarding the question of abortions on demand, I believe it is important to avoid emotive arguments, but I think we should also understand that the back-street abortion issue is as big an issue as it ever was in the UK, for example. The back-street abortionist still operates efficiently. She is not usually an old hag with a knitting needle. In many cases, in fact, it is a qualified medical practitioner or a senior nurse with considerable experience who applies a relatively high standard of hygiene and cleanliness in the way in which it is done. It is often for financial reasons that this practice persists.

I want now to spend a little time looking at the Population Development Programme. I believe that what we ought to do is to look at, for example, the White community in this country which has effectively reached a population growth rate of 2,1%. The White community has reached that population growth rate essentially through social upliftment by means of education and urbanization. It has not been achieved through an abortion law. I believe what we should deal with in regard to a population development programme is upliftment and social improvement.

For a number of reasons it is nonsense to tag the issue of abortion onto a population development programme. Firstly, abortion is expensive—much more expensive than contraception. Secondly, if we are having difficulty in getting the communities, in which we believe abortion should be applied, so far as to accept contraception, these people will view abortion with horror because in their societies that is unacceptable. Thirdly, an abortion is potentially a dangerous operation. There need to be back-up facilities in the form of blood, plasma and operating theatres. There is a risk that things might go wrong when an abortion is performed. Therefore, for purely practical reasons—financially, medically and as far as social acceptability is concerned—I believe it will be extremely irresponsible to attach an abortion tag to the whole question of population development.

I think it is as well to remember that there was another attempt to apply a population control programme some 40 years ago, of which we have been made very aware this year. I do not believe that in principle we can start to use that kind of argument. I am pleased that the hon the Deputy Minister gave an assurance on Friday that the department’s attitude is not to regard abortion as being in any way related to or an aspect of the population development policy. I believe that that assurance is important, and if he had not made that statement on Friday, I would have asked him for such an assurance this afternoon.

I should like to switch from the abortion issue and assure the hon the Deputy Minister that the Population Development Programme certainly has the support of this side of the House. I believe it is going to mean a great deal for South Africa.

Before I sit down I want to deal very briefly with the question of primary health care services. I am sorry that the hon the Minister is not in the House because I know that when he was Minister of Health before the present dispensation, he had a great deal to do with “beefing up” the primary health care services. I have an example here of a tour which one of the four-wheel drive vehicles does—some sections of the primary health care services have such vehicles—in one of the rural areas of Natal. I believe they do a fantastic job. I do, however, want to appeal to the hon the Minister and his department to consider being of assistance in the establishment of small clinics in the areas where these primary health care mobile units operate. These clinics—even if they were just clean wattle-and-daub structures which could provide privacy—would mean a great deal more to the community. I know that after I had raised this matter the hon the Minister did supply all these mobile units with small shelters in the form of tents or screens where there could at least be some privacy. I think we all know that if we have to discuss our health or an intimate problem, we do not really want our neighbours and the whole community to know what we are discussing with the nurse or whoever it is. Therefore, I want to urge the hon the Deputy Minister to do something about that.

Mr Chairman, I do not often find myself in the position where I agree with the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North but in this case he really expressed my sentiments about abortion.

The speech of the hon member for Houghton was verbally the same as the one she made last year or the year before, and our sentiments are exactly the same now as they were then. Our moral Christian ethics preclude us from allowing abortion either on demand or on request.

The only matter on which I do agree with the hon member is that she said we must for heaven’s sake not make race or colour an issue in our family-planning organization. I fully agree with her; it is fraught with dangers to follow such a policy.

I can state categorically that we are not prepared either now or in the very near future—unless there is a change of government—to subject the Abortion and Sterilization Act to a judicial inquiry. Our laws are scrutinized continuously and if they require improvement we shall do so without necessarily having a judicial commission.

*We were privileged to listen on Friday to an exceptional anecdote. This was the first time in my life that I have encountered anything of the kind. The hon member for Worcester regaled us with a certain story. We in the department have a great deal to do with people who drink alcohol to excess and in doing so cause a great deal of expense and inconvenience. However, this is the first time I have heard of a drunken pig making a positive contribution to the welfare services of South Africa.

I have half an hour at my disposal and in that time I must reply to the speeches of 21 hon members. The committee will understand that this is a superhuman task and that I shall simply have to select certain speeches because I think that they are of general importance and because there may be information which I could convey to the committee by way of these speeches.

I want to say to the hon member for Parktown that I am fully aware of those baboons on the roof. I have seen it with my own eyes, to my disgust. At that stage I expressed my opinion on the matter and recommended that their cages be removed at once. I can only say that it is not only the Institute for Occupational Diseases that is guilty of this, because it is a joint project together with the University of the Witwatersrand. I wholeheartedly agree with the hon member that that mess must be cleared up, and I have said this before.

I take cognizance of the fact that the hon member proposed that clinical material should be available for the training of medical students in private hospitals. The hon member for Umbilo, however, asked that the interns, specialists and others be trained in private hospitals. That is simply impossible because private hospitals are not controlled by the South African Medical and Dental Council, whereas the training hospitals are. Their doctors do fall under the SAMDC, which also stipulates the curriculum offered, the standards and so on. Therefore the hon member will understand that we cannot train people there. There is nothing to prevent a medical practitioner who wishes to specialize, from going to see patients there, but he cannot, unfortunately, be trained there. However, he can use the material for his training.

I sincerely regret having to speak so cursorily about many of these things. It is simply impossible to deal with each speech individually.

On Friday afternoon the hon member for Meyerton spoke with great compassion about the aged, and in the process swallowed an own affair whole. Nevertheless I should just like to make a few remarks with regard to his speech. He spoke, for example, I think, about the issue of the abolition of the means test with regard to veterans of the First World War.

No, that was not I.

Oh no, it was the hon member for Nigel who discussed that matter. I beg your pardon. The hon member for Nigel referred to the fact that last year we increased these pensions by a mere 8,7%. The hon member for Edenvale also referred to that.

At this point let us just go back to 1 October 1970. In 1970 we paid R35 per month to individual pensioners. That amount was gradually increased until on 1 October 1984, it had reached the amount of R166 per month. Therefore the percentage by which pensions had been increased during the relevant year, was 374,2%. The consumer price index had reached 64,9 points on 1 October 1970, whereas on 1 October 1984 it had reached 303,7 points. Therefore it is clear that there was an increase of 238,8 points—or 367%—in pension payments since 1970. This is truly an exceptional achievement. If the bonuses made payable since 1979 are also taken into account, pensions increased by 382% as against the increase of 267% in the consumer price index. Therefore that is a totally different picture to the one presented to us by the hon member.

The hon member for Meyerton in fact discussed the question of the elderly who ought to receive a subsidy if they are still paying house or flat rent or if they own their own houses in municipal areas. He describes it as an incentive payment. We have investigated that possibility. Administratively, however, it will cause us tremendous difficulties and would lead to a total imbalance in our pension structure.

Since July 1978 the value of the property owned and occupied by an applicant is deemed to be worth not more than R9 800, irrespective of its true value. This system that is advocated by the hon member is in fact, therefore, incorporated into the means test as a whole. Whatever the house may cost, for the purposes of the means test we estimate its value at R9 800.

As far as the farms are concerned, the agricultural value of the land is calculated, plus an amount of, at most, R9 800 with regard to that dwelling. It is therefore clear that as far as that aspect is concerned we are not at all unsympathetic as regards the whole issue of relief with regard to the means test. What I have just said also applies to the speech made by the hon member for Edenvale.

The hon member for Parys also made a plea here for the care of the aged. Naturally every community would like an old age home in its town. However we must guard against old age homes of this nature becoming prestige institutions which will be impossibly expensive for the public and the State. I admit that if it were possible we would want to have an old age home in every town. However we must adopt a realistic approach to these matters. I know that the hon member has a specific problem. Indeed, I have a great deal of sympathy for his problem. However, as an hon member also argued here, we must guard against making these buildings so luxurious that they eventually far surpass their conventional aim.

Then the hon member also referred to service centres. This, of course, is the alternative where old age homes are not practicable or cannot be afforded. The hon member referred to the issue of the provision of medicine at such service centres. We could consider this, but I can see at once that such a system would entail many problems for us. In the first place, where would the medicine come from? Would a pharmacist or sister be available to hand out the medicine? I can see many problems in this regard and would therefore prefer to give the matter consideration before furnishing a reply in this regard. There is a great deal to be done in this regard that could have an influence.

The hon member for Overvaal referred here to the issue of malnutrition. We have not heard a great deal about malnutrition in this debate but hon members will excuse me if I devote some time to the matter because we are already laying down certain norms in this regard. In this country, with its variety of foodstuffs, food shortages are not per se the cause of malnutrition. The alarming ignorance, that we are in the process of combating, is in fact the chief cause of malnutrition particularly among our children older than five years. This applies in particular to the protein energy values that leave much to be desired among many of our children. At one end of the spectrum there are those who for various reasons want to sketch a pessimistic picture with regard to the malnutrition conditions in this country. At the other extreme one finds those who contend that malnutrition does not constitute any problem in the RSA. Accordingly it is the endeavour of my department to determine as precisely as possible the true extent of malnutrition, qualitively and quantitatively. Malnutrition is a broad concept and it includes all abnormalities arising from faulty food intake. Even the overfat child may be malnourished. The thin child with kwashiorkor may also be a malnourished child.

The Department of Health and Welfare is anxious to know what the nutritional status of the population is. It is important for us to know this. Accordingly, since March 1983 the department itself has undertaken several field surveys to ascertain the incidence of acute protein malnutrition among Black children under five years. These surveys were supplementary to the anthropometric surveys. Six of these surveys were in rural areas and one was in the slum area of Inanda, near Durban. No crisis of acute malnutrition was found. This is important, because that slum is regarded as one of the poorest in this country. Further investigations are necessary, however, to provide unambiguous support for this finding.

According to the information at the department’s disposal the international norm for children below the age of five years, as published by the World Welfare Organization, is a general one and applies to all children of the world. This norm is accordingly used in regard to the children under five years of all the population groups in the RSA.

For children older than five years the normal growth pattern of the various population groups is at present still totally unknown. There is no clear indication that all people in the world follow precisely the same growth pattern. On the contrary, the contrary has been the experience, with clear ethnic and geographical differences. Nevertheless, several scientists adopt the USA norms in their evaluation of the results of surveys. The result is that a steadily increasing group of children above the age of five years appears to be malnourished, the number increasing with age. The annual anthropometric surveys has indicated no significant differences from one year to the next. Accordingly it has been decided to analyse the anthropometric data once again to determine whether the four sets of data may be regarded as one large set. In this way an RSA norm may be obtained for children older than five years.

Because there is a possibility that the department may be accused of discovering no crisis because officials choose known, well-nourished groups on a subjective basis, contact was made with the organization that spreads reports of large-scale famine. It was found that the crisis does not, in fact, exist or cannot be proved. Nevertheless the department is keeping its eyes open in this regard and is constantly collecting data to establish whether such a crisis does exist.

The hon member for Winburg made a very interesting speech about the issue of mentally retarded children and their care. He referred to the after-care centre in his constituency. He went on to refer to the correspondence that he had exchanged with the Minister to which he had not yet received a reply. I can only tell him that I shall go into the matter. We shall then finalize what he began with the previous Minister.

I want to tell him what we are spending in subsidies on homes for the handicapped. The purpose of homes for the handicapped is to provide full social care for every physically and/or mentally handicapped adult who is unable to be placed in sheltered labour in the open labour market. It is interesting to take note of the amounts we spend. The unit cost of these homes for the handicapped amounted to R372,70 last year. Of this amount we deducted, by way of board and lodging, two thirds of R195, which amounts to R106 per month. The maximum subsidy was R266,70 per month. On furniture and equipment we provide a subsidy of 75% on total purchases, up to a maximum of R400 per person. Special equipment is also provided at a subsidized rate of 75% on the total purchases, up to R200 per subeconomic handicapped person.

We must distinguish between homes for the handicapped and protective workshops for handicapped persons. I think that the hon member for Durban Point also confused these concepts, because there are these protective workshops for handicapped persons as well as the so-called “sheltered workshops”. The latter do not fall under this department but under the Department of Manpower.

I want to point out that as far as the protective workshops for handicapped persons are concerned, we subsidize 75% of the approved administrative expenditure up to a maximum of R350 per subeconomic handicapped persons, and furniture and equipment up to 75% of total purchases, up to a maximum of R400 per sub economic handicapped person.

I think it is essential that I should refer to the existence of the National Plan for the Prevention and Combating of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism in South Africa. Not a great deal has been said about this programme in the course of this debate, but I feel that certain information ought to be brought to the attention of the committee. The instance of alcohol abuse and alcoholism in South Africa has assumed such proportions that it may be regarded as a national issue. It is therefore essential that a national plan be established to prevent and combat alcoholism in order to ensure purposeful action.

Stop advertising it.

Order!

Sir, did you give that hon member a turn to speak, because if that is the case I shall resume my seat immediately.

Order! I called the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North to order. The hon the Deputy Minister may proceed.

The objectives are, primarily, to prevent abuse of alcohol and alcoholism in the community. At this point I shall not go into everything we are doing, but shall merely give a summary of what we are doing. It seems to me as if the hon member who is now sitting there gaping at me is under the impression that we do absolutely nothing to combat these problems. I just want to inform him that we are doing certain things. He adopts the same attitude as the hon member for Hillbrow does about smoking. That hon member and I agreed and I hope that we, too, shall agree. The objectives are to prevent alcohol abuse and alcoholism in the community by establishing an effective treatment service for the alcohol abuser and the alcoholic. We are trying to achieve those objectives by way of the provision and utilization of the following: A national information programme. We place articles in newspapers, periodicals and trade journals. Then, too, there is the transmission of programmes of various kinds on all the channels of radio and television, the manufacture of films, the drawing up and distribution of pamphlets, the use of slogans, participation in welfare and other exhibitions, the making of speeches and the arrangement and presentation of conferences, symposia and discussions, as well as the training of information officers.

We also have a national education programme covering a wide spectrum of services. There are facilities and services for the treatment of alcohol abusers and alcoholics, and here we include the following: The equipment of technical staff, in particular social workers, for the undertaking of preventive reconstruction and after-care services to the addict and his family. Moreover, there is the utilization of general hospitals and outpatient clinics and the construction, maintenance and administration of crisis clinics. Then there are the detoxification centres, registered rehabilitation centres, rehabilitation centres and registered homes. The department is also concerned with the formulation, evaluation and extension of the treatment programmes in the treatment institutions, making facilities available for undertaking family therapy at the treatment institutions, the provision and effective utilization of staff and the promotion of effectively functioning multidisciplinary treatment teams. We also undertake the coordination of these services because they are, to a large extent, provided by welfare organizations. This includes the research we have done on alcohol abuse and alcoholics, which is geared towards achieving the objectives of the national education plan.

I wanted to bring these data to the attention of the House because it seemed to me that little was being said about it.

The hon member for South Coast discussed the cost of medicine and generic equivalents. I shall leave the whole matter at that.

The hon member for Germiston District paid tribute, in admirable fashion, to the women of South Africa, particularly the welfare workers. I want to draw her attention to the fact that the State and voluntary organizations have since the earliest days—I have spoken “‘about this before—co-operated in a traditional partnership as far as welfare services are concerned. In terms of the agreement between the department and the private welfare sector, the department undertakes the statutory tasks, whereas the welfare organizations accept responsibility for the broader sphere of family care, including preventive services. The department subsidizes welfare organizations for this purpose. At present 732 posts of social worker at private welfare organizations are subsidized at a cost of R14 million per annum. The hon member may obtain further details in our information brochure.

†The hon member for Umbilo expressed the fear that we are overprivatizing our hospitals. I am inclined to disagree with him as far as that is concerned. We have allowed hospital facilities to be built by the Government and provincial administrations at enormous costs for too long. This is a task that could well have been undertaken by private entrepreneurs. I can assure the hon member that the fees are more or less the same. Where we do have certain difficulties is with the provision of medicines in these private hospitals. In many cases the prices charged are exorbitant—we are aware of that. Right at this moment we are investigating a particular complaint that has come to us in regard to the excessive charges levied for medicine for patients in private hospitals. If the hon member is aware of such cases, he is welcome to bring it to our attention. As I have said on a previous occasion—I think it was on Friday—we are looking into this whole question of the regulation of private hospitals. This will, however, form the basis of discussions with the private hospitals’ organization.

We expect of them at least to render a comprehensive service, which means not only beds in the hospital but also an outpatients’ service. With that we have certain difficulties. It is not the fault of private hospitals that they may not employ or do not want to employ full-time medical practitioners. The fact is that the South African Medical and Dental Council has an ethical rule that a doctor should not be in the employ of private organizations. That is our difficulty at the moment. However, it is our intention to discuss this matter with the Medical and Dental Council in order to have this ethical rule abolished so that medical practitioners may be allowed to work in private hospitals so that those hospitals may provide a comprehensive service for the patients.

I can also tell him that at least for the last six months and even longer it has been our policy to licence the new private hospitals on condition that they undertake the basic training of nurses, and we are, in conjunction with the South African Nursing Council and the Nursing Association, paying attention to this matter. We expect these hospitals to train their own personnel because they have been pirating from other hospitals and they have a duty also to spend money on the training of their own nurses, even if they do not train them in their own hospitals. We are thinking in terms of a levy per nurse which could go towards reducing the cost of training nurses in provincial hospitals.

The hon member mentioned the lack of beds in the King Edward VIII Hospital in Durban but, as he knows, that hospital will be replaced in the near future—as soon as money becomes available.

Is that the end of the story? They have been replacing it for 20 years.

Just be patient. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon member for Roodepoort certainly made a very impressive speech. We are deeply aware of the importance of mental health services, and we are constantly expanding them. Particularly with the new medication at our disposal it is now possible to treat an increasing number of patients at clinics, and we actively pursue this policy. Cases of mental disability and personality deviations such as addiction to certain drugs, alcoholism etc are treated with great success at crisis institutions but particularly at clinics, which include crisis institutions.

My time has unfortunately expired. Once again I apologize to several hon members whose interesting speeches I should have liked to reply to. I have a whole list of 21 of them here but at this point it is simply impossible to refer to them. I should just like to convey my sincere thanks to the officials of the Department of Health Services and Welfare for the patience they have displayed here in the past few days and for the information they have given us, information that is not always readily available to us.

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 Speaker, the hon member for Edenvale put his party’s standpoint in respect of certain clauses contained in this Bill, viz clauses 2, 4 and 5 to which the PFP objects.

In the first place I want to mention that the standing committee took note of the commentary made by interested parties in connection with the Bill. The standing committee also had the advantage of hearing the standpoints of the respective parties. Despite this the standing committee found that the Bill is in the interests of the industry concerned and of the country.

I want to refer briefly to the statistics to indicate to the House how widely petroleum products are distributed in the country’s economy. After that I shall return to the hon member for Edenvale’s argument. The importance of petroleum products in the country’s economy at the current prices is indicated by the amount of R2 286 million which was spent on petroleum products by private individuals during 1984. It is a considerable amount. After expenditure on food, drink and tobacco, which amounted to R19 523 million, expenditure on petroleum products was the largest single spending item in respect of non-durable goods.

Fuel prices rose by 40% on 24 January 1985 and the figure will therefore be considerably higher now. It is anticipated that the total intermediary outlays and final demand for all petroleum products will amount to approximately R14 000 million during 1985. At current prices this amount includes more than R900 million in respect of GST.

As far as clause 2 is concerned, the hon member’s objection amounted to the fact that the clause authorizes the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs to control the price of these products. The PFP’s objection is that it prevents certain chain groups from cutting prices. The Government declared through the Minister of Finance that it is in earnest in wanting to combat inflation. That is what the hon member asserted, and naturally that is correct. He said the decrease in the fuel price will counteract inflation. We cannot differ from him on that point. The method he is suggesting is not so simple, however. I want to point out that there is no complete free market system. We must accept that. We can only speak theoretically of a free market system, and that applies in all countries in the world. We have the Competition Board, import control and many other imperative measures. We are slightly in error, therefore, when we speak of a total free market system.

The marketing of petrol is an indispensable element in the motor trade. A price battle will entail a disruption of the trade practice, which is not in the interests of the motorist. A fixed price for petrol forces the dealers to compete on a basis of the quality of service. The price will definitely have a detrimental effect on that trade. Fuel sales are associated with additional services and facilities, such as rest-rooms, tyre service, etc. The supply of fuel requires a considerable capital outlay for the small businessman. The smaller filling stations’ fuel supply is worth no less than R50 000. It will also affect the Coloured and Black entrants to the trade. Electricity is associated with the provision of fuel; petrol attendants have to be paid, and so forth. I hope the hon member for Edenvale is not waging a campaign against the smaller dealers. If I understand his argument correctly, and if fuel prices were to be cut and the large groups were to affect the smaller dealers detrimentally, it would also affect the young entrepreneurs detrimentally.

He is only interested in the “fat cats”.

Yes, the hon member for Rustenburg is correct. He says the hon member is really only interested in the large groups; the so-called “fat cats”. If he wants to promote the large groups, it is true that he wants to promote the interests of the “fat cats”.

As far as clauses 4 and 5 are concerned, the hon member asserted that obtaining oil is no problem at present. That is why he objects to the clause that determines that the Minister can organize or prohibit, by means of regulation, the publication and announcement of information concerning the acquisition and production of petrol and petroleum products. He feels it is not necessary. He says the provision and the acquisition of oil by this country are such that arrangements of this kind are unnecessary.

He wants to justify the reason for the PFP’s change of standpoint by saying that conditions have changed. Earlier they did support this regulation. In this way the hon member is admitting that the acquisition of oil is subject to fluctuations. That is only logical. It is not constant and can change overnight. We know that the United Nations and their member countries still have a boycott policy against South Africa.

In addition he objects to the control taking place by means of regulation. A rapid adjustment is necessary because we know that it can differ from day to day. A Parliamentary Act cannot be amended speedily, and a certain degree of elasticity is necessary so that the regulation can be amended when it is necessary to adjust it.

The PFP’s assertion that there are no problems whatsoever is definitely not correct, and I think the hon member is aware of the fact. He is merely using it as an argument. He said that the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central will again, for the umpteenth time, raise the Salem episode on this occasion. That was really not very good news. We all know the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central by now. He is—I almost want to say an expert poisoner—like a spider. He sees a dark motive in any step taken by the Government and that is why I believe the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central will raise that matter again on this occasion to try to derive benefit from it.

I know the NP too well.

The hon member is becoming so upset about the statement I am making that I want to remind him of the bomb incident in Pretoria. After the bomb exploded in Pretoria, he reacted immediately, not to criticize the people who had killed innocent people, Whites and Blacks, and injured many of them seriously, but to say that the Government’s action causes these things. He did not condemn those people therefore. He said: It is a pity, these things happen.

That is not true. I did!

That is why I do not expect the hon member to have a balanced approach. [Interjections.] In addition it must be remembered that financial control over oil transactions is rectified in an effective way by the State Oil Fund Act of 1985. If there is anxiety about secrecy or whatever regarding the financial aspects, the matter has been rectified and is subject to control.

I should therefore like to support the Bill in the full conviction that it is in the best interests of the country, the motorists and the motor industry. Indeed, this was the decision of the standing committee after the commentary of all bodies had been considered and that is why I believe, despite the objection by the hon member for Edenvale to these few clauses, that it is in the best interests of the trade and the consumer.

Mr Speaker, the whole matter in connection with petroleum product transactions is actually a sensitive matter because of sanctions and boycott threats which are a reality in this connection. It was imperative, therefore, for the Government to take certain steps in view of secrecy and also for it to ban the publication of certain information in connection with petroleum products and transactions. Obviously it is true that when there is secrecy about a matter, certain things incur suspicion. The situation has developed in such a way that certain suspicion has arisen concerning the whole question of secrecy in this connection. On the other hand certain things also happened which were not cleared up in time in such a way as to clear suspicion that had arisen concerning the matter. These problems have become serious now. In addition there were loopholes in connection with the whole question of the secrecy of petroleum product transactions. People used these loopholes to circumvent the legislation. That is why it became imperative for these matters to be considered again.

In the first place this amending Bill has the object of giving the Minister the authority—it places a very great responsibility on the Minister concerned—to decide about secrecy using his own discretion and deciding on the grounds of merit. In future it will be his responsibility to limit this secrecy or allow it to be relaxed to the degree he regards necessary. At the same time the whole question of the prohibition on the handling of information also crops up. In this connection the Minister receives the authority to act and to declare what can be published and what cannot.

I do not want to react any further to the speech made by the hon speaker of the Official Opposition. In this connection I associate myself with the hon member for Welkom by saying that we are getting a slightly exaggerated reaction to this from the PFP side. I want to express the confidence that this amendment, and the fact that the responsibility in this connection is now being placed on the Minister concerned, may clear up this problem in future. If it is not cleared up, I believe the hon the Minister will return to the House to request the necessary amendments to the legislation, so that the problems which emerge from the question of secrecy and the ban on the announcement of certain information, can be combated. We believe it to be imperative to withhold certain information.

The second matter under discussion—and perhaps it is this aspect that is creating the greatest problems in certain circles—is the fact that the selling price at which certain business undertakings sell petroleum products, should be limited. This amending Bill provides for the fact that certain limitations can be placed on such undertakings. In my opinion we are dealing here with the battle that arises between large companies that are prepared to sell certain products even at a decreased price on the one hand—but at the same time do not provide the full service—and on the other hand the garages, which notably render certain services, and in particular the small business man, who has to sell the petroleum product, but also has to render necessary additional services. I do not believe this amendment is really going to satisfy the large business undertakings such as the chain stores. I am referring here to those who sell the petroleum products, but do not render all the additional services. It is definitely not going to satisfy them, but I regard it as imperative to have a protective measure built into this amending Bill in respect of those people who are in the garage industry and who render additional services as well as selling fuel. I want to express the confidence that the amendments which are being introduced will give the necessary protection to those who need it. I think the future will teach us how to work with the large companies which may seek further loopholes to try to circumvent this legislation.

In respect of the amendments made, I merely want to draw the hon the Minister’s attention to the proposed section 2(1)(e), in which the term “petroleum product” is replaced by “petroleum fuel”. I believe, however, the word “any” before “petroleum fuel” has become superfluous in that connection. When it concerns “petroleum products” and one has any “petroleum products” in mind, I think the word “any” is correct. When we are specifically saying “fuel”, however, the word “any” should really have been deleted as well, for in that particular context and in respect of what we want to achieve, the word is superfluous. With these few words we on this side of the House support the amending Bill.

Mr Speaker, at the outset I want to make it quite clear that we in these benches will be supporting the Bill before us.

That is a big mistake, Ralph.

It may be a mistake, but we shall see.

The most controversial clause in the proposed legislation is obviously clause 2(b). The question at issue here is whether the proposed power as envisaged in this legislation and as stipulated in the proposed new section 2(1)(d) and (e) is in the best interests of the public.

Without wishing to reiterate to any degree previous arguments, I must emphasize that the unrestricted discounting of petroleum fuel can, if allowed to expand unrestrained, destroy the existing structure of filling stations as we know them throughout the country. This could even result in established businesses having to close.

We must ask ourselves two basic questions. Firstly, is it right that petrol should be discounted as a catch line and consequently affect detrimentally the viability of businesses which are dependent on petrol sales for a livelihood? Is this in the best interests of the general public? The answer can only be “no”.

Let me elaborate on some of the reasons.

Local option.

That is a stupid remark from a stupid person. Existing service stations are committed to individual oil companies and they are required in terms of their contract to provide certain essential services other than petrol alone for the motoring public. Oil companies also see their image being judged on the services provided by these filling stations with which they have an agreement. These stations are consequently required to comply with certain standards in order to provide certain services for the motoring public.

Let us look at some of these essential services and envisage whether, when next on a long motoring journey, we would happily do without some of the facilities that are presently taken for granted when one pulls in to fill up one’s tank. Would we be happy to see cloakroom facilities disappear at filling stations because of a standardized self-service system having been introduced? Would we be happy if we did not have access to oils and lubricants on our travels? Furthermore, what about motor accessories? What about tyres, fan belts, minor repairs, checking tyre pressure and all those other incidental services which we presently take so much for granted?

No, Sir, fuel, and petrol in particular, is a strategic commodity and the State has a responsibility to ensure that motorists have easy access to supplies at all times. The State also has a responsibility to ensure that road travellers in the country areas are also provided with adequate motoring services.

When one comes to weigh up the pros and cons of clause 2, it becomes abundantly clear that it is in the public interest that the hon the Minister should have the power envisaged under this clause.

We should take note of the problems created in certain European countries by the development of self-service stations and the discounting of petrol. We should not be carried away by arguments that proposals contained in this legislation should be opposed because they are contrary to the free enterprise concept. This may be true to a certain extent, but the interest of the public must take precedence over all else.

Returning to the legislation itself, one appreciates that the powers that are vested in the Minister under clause 4 should be welcomed. These envisaged regulations were made available to the standing committee and met with unanimous approval.

No!

Yes, Sir, there is no need now for a flip-flop. [Interjections.]

We must accept the need for strict secrecy but not total secrecy. That the hon the Minister should decide in his discretion what information can be released is sound. It is incorrect to suggest that sources of supply of all our crude oil purchases are public knowledge. This is not so, Sir, and we have a moral responsibility to observe a standard of secrecy in order to avoid embarrassment to our suppliers. We must not get carried away by the fact that crude oil is relatively easy to procure at the present time. Who knows what the future will hold in this regard?

The provisions contained in clause 9 are essential in the light of the Salem experience and the general sensitivity of our oil supply situation.

With these words, Mr Chairman, I repeat that we in these benches have much pleasure in supporting this piece of legislation.

Mr Speaker, I listened very attentively to everything that the hon member for Welkom, the hon member for Koedoespoort and the hon member for Mooi River said. My comment on everything said by these few hon members is: Well said!

Having said that, Mr Speaker, nothing more remains but to say Amen to that. This piece of legislation is therefore wholeheartedly supported by all as a sound and essential measure.

Mr Speaker, there is not much to react to in the speech of the hon member for Kimberley North. What I should like to do, however, is to consider this Bill in its two important parts. There is the part that has come to be known as the Pick ‘n Pay clause, and then there is the part dealing with the secrecy provision.

Supporters of the so-called Pick ‘n Pay clause argue that jobs have to be protected and that the existing distribution network of filling stations must be preserved. On the face of it these are plausible sounding arguments, and we in the PFP would of course not wish to add to the present level of unemployment in this county. We would also not wish to disrupt the existing distribution network.

What is missing, however, from the arguments of hon members opposite in their support of the so-called Pick ‘n Pay clause is any factual evidence of the effects of discounting fuel. What evidence is there, for example, that a hypermarket discounting petrol in Johannesburg or anywhere else has a significant effect on a platteland garage selling petrol at the normal retail price? There must obviously be some effect on the sales level of petrol selling competitors in the immediate vicinity of a discounter, but what evidence does the Government or the hon the Minister have of the concentric effect of, for example, each one cent discount that might be applied? Are there any graphs or analyses in existence which measure the effect of each one cent discount over any distance from the discounter in question? If such evidence exists it was not presented to the standing committee.

Secondly, in view of the fact that discounting has been applied in South Africa over a period of some years, what evidence is there of specific closures of filling stations in the vicinity of those discounters? Have any filling stations within the Boksburg vicinity, for example, actually closed during the past few years? If so, such specific evidence was also not presented to the standing committee.

Thirdly, what evidence is there of an actual loss of jobs as a result of the activities of discounters? I have seen no such evidence. All we have had are warnings and threats in connection with possible losses, but factual evidence there has not been at all.

Finally, Sir, what proof is there that people will act irrationally and travel much further than the available savings would justify? We need to put this into perspective. At the Boksburg discounting outlet the maximum discount is available which is four cents per litre. That is the maximum discount available in SA. On a 60-litre tankful—which is a substantial tankful; it is more than most people would put into their tank at one filling—the saving on a total bill which would exceed R50 would be R2.40. Surely, we have to ask ourselves: What rational person will go far out of his way to effect that level of saving on a bill of R50 plus?

It cannot possibly be a large proportion of people who will go very far out of their way to effect that kind of saving. It is very marginal. In other words, if substantive evidence exists in support of the Government’s plan to prevent discounters from operating, if substantive evidence exists in support of the arguments that have been advanced, it certainly was not submitted to the standing committee. All we have had are broad assertions of ill effects which are going to be experienced unless the Government steps in. I want to put it to the House that, if the Government’s line of argument had been applied to the grocery industry at the time when supermarkets were beginning to open up in this country, we might never have had supermarkets or hypermarkets selfing groceries at discount prices. It is a fallacious kind of argument.

In place of factual evidence, what do we have? I want to refer the House to an article that was published in the Financial Mail of 3 May in which, with reference to a spokesman of the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs, it says:

A bit lower down one reads:

This implies that the evidence is not there at the moment. It is something that might arise. The word “if is used: If there is evidence of negative effects, then there will be some action. What we have here is that, after years of discounting, on the eve of introducing drastic legislation to prevent discounting, it would seem that the Government can go no further than to say: “If these undesirable effects are found …” Surely there should be no legislative action until it is found and proved that this discounting has had specific detrimental effects.

What we do know, on the other hand, is, firstly, that the marginal benefit of cheaper fuel in some locations, a benefit which some members of the public have enjoyed, is going to be closed off by this Bill. That is a fact. Secondly, we know of at least one case, which was put to the standing committee, of a filling station in a platteland town—not one of the big chains as far as I am aware, but a single business—wanting to cut one cent off the price of petrol as a result of being able to achieve efficiency while still offering all the normal facilities such as toilets, a workshop and spare parts, but being prevented from cutting the price by the big oil supplier which supplied them. That is also a fact. Thirdly, we know there is going to be no right of appeal against any Ministerial decision in this matter.

In the light of this situation and in the absence of hard evidence of the so-called ill effects, we cannot accept that the Government should intervene in the marketplace to keep prices higher than necessary, especially not when fuel prices have rocketed by 40% in the last few months. The Government should be exerting itself to keep prices down, rather than to keep them up.

Now I should like to deal with the secrecy provisions of this Bill. Before I do so, I want to clarify something the hon member for Mooi River mentioned in his speech. I think he suggested in his speech that the standing committee was unanimous on the secrecy provisions in this Bill.

On the regulations.

We did not vote on the regulations. We voted on the Bill and I personally voted against the relevant clause.

[Inaudible.]

I voted against this clause very specifically and I am sure that the chairman of the standing committee will confirm that. The hon member for Mooi River might have been asleep at that point in the discussion.

We have argued that the situation today is very different to what it was in 1979 when the principal Act was introduced. Firstly, we say that the difficulty of procuring oil for South Africa is today less of a problem than it was in 1979.

The hon the Minister is shaking his head. Does he not agree that it is easier today than it was in 1979? There is suddenly no reply now, but I saw a shaking of the head.

Secondly, in 1979 when the principal Act was introduced, we had reassurances from the Government that they would not abuse the powers that were going to be given to them in the principal Act, but today we know that they did not stick to those undertakings. The Government has a track record of having sought to cover up embarrassing situations in respect of the Salem and other specific issues.

During the speech of the hon member for Edenvale the hon the Minister interjected to the effect that the oil supply position today was as critical as it had been then. I want to ask the hon the Minister specifically whether he appreciates the great difference between the word “critical” and the word “difficult”. Of course oil supply is critical for this country; so are a number of other raw materials. We have no quarrel with the word “critical” in this respect, but in spite of oil supplies still being critical for this country, it is far less difficult to obtain oil today than it was then. Today there is an oversupply against world demand. Does the hon the Minister not agree with this statement? There is surplus oil that dealers and suppliers are most anxious to offload at favourable prices. There is discounting occurring. We therefore contend that the supply position is easier for South Africa today in spite of our pariah problems as against the situation which pertained in 1979.

In support of my assertions I have a very interesting quotation taken from a source none other than the annual report of the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs on page 57:

This comes from the department’s own report.

That is no secret.

In the Financial Mail of 17 May one reads that oil is still a buyers’ market and will be so for the foreseeable future. This report reads further:

Can you guarantee that that will continue?

Of course not.

What sort of a silly question is that from the hon member for Mooi River? We are saying at the present time there is a marked …

I wonder whether the hon member for Mooi River can guarantee that it will not continue.

One should provide for the future.

The hon member for Mooi River should make sure of his sources. These sources I have make it very clear that the foreseeable future, even to the end of the decade, is likely to be a buyers’ market.

We should like to ask the hon the Minister to address himself in his reply to the debate specifically to the question of the difficulty of supply because it has a great bearing on the acceptability of this clause.

A further aspect which is of great concern to us and which has not been dealt with by spokesmen on that side of the House is whether the Government could or would use the provisions of this clause to attempt to prevent the reporting of speeches made in Parliament. It is significant that the Government tried to do this two years ago when the hon the Minister’s predecessor tried to prevent speeches on the Salem issue from being reported. Presumably the Government was unable to prevent the publication of Opposition speeches on the Salem affair at that stage because inter alia in terms of another Act this House enjoys absolute privilege of speech. Section 4(1)(a)(iii) of the Petroleum Products Act provides for the dissemination of information when required by a court of law or in terms of any law. Presumably in terms of that section, and possibly for other considerations too, there could be no question whatsoever of preventing the publication of a speech in this House on the subject of the Salem affair at that time. In terms of this amending Bill, however, we are not so sure that the same protection exists, and I request the hon the Minister to be absolutely specific on that point when he replies. We will never accept that there can be any reduction in the privilege of this Parliament. This is an issue which cuts to the heart of the democratic tradition and we cannot allow any grey area around this point.

Furthermore, we cannot accept that what may be known to overseas readers through the overseas media should not also be known to the South African taxpayer. We do not take this stand to frustrate the security position of this country in obtaining our oil. Indeed, the Government knows full well that the PFP has co-operated in the past to prevent genuinely sensitive security information from being disseminated. We need only refer to our role in respect of the report of the Advocate-General on the select committee last year to support that assertion. The Government should therefore not try to score a cheap point in regard to this matter. Our key purpose in taking this stand is that there should be proper knowledge available to the public and proper monitoring of public funds. It has been said that daylight is the best auditor and we are concerned that there should be no cover-up, there should be no excessive secrecy, and there should be no limitation on the watchdog role of the Opposition in assessing whether public funds are being properly expended in our procurement of oil.

We are not alone in this. For the record, I want to refer to evidence which was received from the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut and the Newspaper Press Union. The AHI said the following:

We in the PFP agree with that sentiment and feel that the main purpose that could be served by this measure would be to provide the Government with legal instruments to cover up embarrassing situations.

The NPU which is perhaps most directly affected by this provision also made its views known. I want to take four excerpts from its three-page submission which I believe crystallizes their attitude. It says:

In view of these questions which remain unanswered, I would ask the hon the Minister to respond in his reply.

A second point from their evidence is that the NPU’s attorneys “point out that the new section 12A will give the Act extra-territorial effect, which is fairly rare in our law”. That could affect journalists submitting copy from overseas to local newspapers and could place them in a most invidious position. Thirdly, it says:

The NPU continues:

In the light of its submission, the NPU asked for a further consultation to discuss the matter. We supported that request in the standing committee but the suggestion was simply swept aside. I therefore submit that this measure is being bulldozed through by this Minister and the Government against weighty representations without taking adequate representations from the most directly interested party. It is the NPU which is going to be faced primarily with the sword of Damocles represented by this Bill which provides for a maximum penalty of seven years imprisonment or a fine of R7 000, which is a Draconian punishment for what may be an error made in good faith on the part of some newspaper.

For all these reasons we therefore do not see our way clear to support this measure—in fact, we oppose it vigorously.

Mr Chairman, we have now listened to several arguments advanced by the PFP. When one considers the arguments they advance and analyses them to some extent one sees how thin those arguments really are. Before they begin to attack me, let me admit in public that at one stage I, too, had no reservations about the Bill but after we had discussed the whole matter in the standing committee I reached the conclusion that, bearing in mind the amendment effected, one cannot but support this legislation as it appears before us at present.

The PFP advances the argument that it would not matter if one cut prices at a fuel distribution point, because only the people in the immediate environment would make use of that benefit. The hon member for Constantia asks what proof there is that people from further away would also make use of the supply of cheaper petrol. I wonder whether the hon member was ever at the hypermarket in Boksburg when they began to cut prices. There were queues of hundreds of cars.

What is wrong with that?

I am coming back to that in a moment. There is a great deal wrong with that. In the first instance we are trying to regulate matters in this country in an orderly fashion. What that hon member said, viz that the savings would be R2,40 on a fuel tank of approximately 40 litres, is quite correct, but there are people who travel from as far as Roodepoort to utilize that saving. If one travels 15 to 20 kilometres in both directions for the sake of a saving of R2,40 then surely there is something wrong with you. [Interjections.]

Order!

If one travels 15 kilometres to save R2,40 then the running costs of one’s car come to far more than the savings. [Interjections.] Surely that happens.

This kind of fuel price cutting appeals to the gullibility of people. A person sees that he can save four cents per litre and does not really calculate what the effect on his pocket will be. He just runs, merely because he is saving four cents per litre. [Interjections.]

Then there is the ridiculous argument that we want to try to protect the oil company. This is one of the most ridiculous things one could say because the oil companies do not make a cent more or less profit if the garage owner wants to sell his fuel at a lower price. Let us also forget about the idea that a garage owner reduces his fuel price by a cent merely because he operates more efficiently. Surely that is not true. There is only one reason he does so, viz to enlarge his turnover. Hon members must not think that if a garage owner reduces his fuel price by one cent he does so because he is so well-disposed towards the consumer.

Order!

The only reason he does so is to increase his turnover and do more business, and to that end he is prepared to accept a smaller profit. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Bryanston must contain himself.

The hon members of the PFP now say that we are going to cause inflation to increase—and I can quote from the speech of the hon member for Edenvale—because he wants to impose price control. [Interjections.]

Order! Will the hon member for Bryanston repeat what he has just said.

Mr Chairman, I said that it was not every day that one had the opportunity to listen to unadulterated Marxism in this House.

Order! Did that in any way constitute comment on the ruling that has just been given?

No, Sir.

Order! The hon member for Stilfontein may proceed.

That is a typical inference, just like the one that they wrongly make with regard to this legislation that is before us. I guarantee that this is not a “pink” piece of legislation. He need only examine it. I doubt whether the hon member has looked at the legislation. Nevertheless he makes more noise than any other hon member of the opposition parties.

The hon member for Constantia asked us how we knew, and what evidence we had, that this legislation would have an influence. I just want to say this to him: He quotes the supermarkets, but how many smaller dealers and shopowners have not had to close as a result of the supermarkets that have opened? All we are trying to prevent is garage owners having to close down because these people reduce their fuel prices. That is all we are trying to do. Let us take a careful look at the situation: In the same way as the supermarkets have expanded to parts of the rural areas, this type of discount petrol could be extended to the rural areas in the same way. I want to say that if this happens, the small businessman will have trouble keeping his head above water.

The hon member for Edenvale, for example, said here that it was merely a question of management and service. However it is not a question of management and service; there are many other things involved. I want to say to the hon member that the profits that the retailer makes on his fuel help him to keep his head above water. We are here looking at the broad interest of the public, not at the interests of the fuel companies. In terms of this clause the Minister can also impose restrictions on the oil companies; not only on the people selling fuel. Any practice aimed at doing this, viz at reducing fuel prices, can be limited by the Minister. He may do this in terms of this legislation. Therefore the oil companies are in the same position as the retailer in this regard. The hon member for Edenvale says, and I quote his words:

However, I think that he is being very unjust. Just as there are indeed people in the motor trade who give poor service, there are also, for example, plumbers and restaurants that give poor service. In fact there is a whole series of people of this kind. Television repair services constitute another example. Many of these people provide poor service, but many provide good service. I therefore think that he really made a somewhat gross statement when he singled out this one sector. We know that in the public sector, too, we sometimes have this problem that poor service is given—after all, it is only human, because we are dealing with normal people! I do agree with the hon member that there are not 45 000 job opportunities that could be endangered. I cannot see that this may be the case in the short term, but in the long term we may create a problem there. In the broad sense, however, this will certainly have a ripple effect on other service industries surrounding those service stations.

He told us here that people would not travel further to fill their petrol tanks, but we have seen that they do do so. This legislation addresses a problem situation that we have experienced in the marketing and distribution of fuel, a strategic product. Accordingly we support this legislation.

Mr Speaker, the hon member who has just sat down seemed to think—it seemed so to me as I listened to his speech—that a reduction in the price of petrol should not come about for three reasons. He said first of all that people should not be allowed to drive from Roodepoort and so travel a long distance in order to buy cheaper petrol. That is a ridiculous argument. Secondly, he seemed to think there was something wrong with the country dealer reducing his price by 1 cent per litre in order to try to increase his turnover. What, however, is the sin in trying to increase one’s turnover? Surely it is normal business practice to try to improve one’s business. It is also one of the best features of the free market system that if the businessman is enabled to reduce his price and to build up his turnover, the public could benefit from the cheaper price while the businessman himself benefits from a reasonable return on his investment. In fact, this is what free enterprise is all about.

He also said that one should stop some people from getting lots of business so that smaller garage owners will not go out of business. This is rather like saying that one must stop the manufacturing of motorcars because the oxwagon manufacturers are going out of business. We are living in a changing world and, if changes come, as happened in the grocery business where supermarkets came in and lots of those little grocers’ stores on the corner disappeared, we have to accept them. It was sad, and I did not like to see them disappear, but at the same time the overall benefits to the buying public in getting cheaper products is such that those grocers’ stores became outdated and they disappeared from the scene. I believe that it would have been as wrong to introduce legislation to protect the little grocery store against the Pick ‘n Pays that offered discount groceries as it is to prevent the discounting of petrol to protect the small garage owner.

However, I did agree with him on one point, namely when he referred to my colleague the hon member for Edenvale when he made some unkind remarks about the motor trade. Perhaps hon members will bear with me if I tell a little story which is a bit against the motor trade but which I personally found quite amusing. In the old days when the commercial travellers used to go from village to village with their packs on their backs, the robbers used to come down from the hills, and they could run faster than the travellers could, because they had no packs on their backs, so they stole their goods from them. Then the commercial travellers got donkeys and put their goods on their donkeys, and once again they were able to get away from the robbers, until the robbers got donkeys too and they were able to catch the commercial travellers and steal their packs. Then the commercial travellers got horses, but once again eventually the robbers got horses too, and once again they were able to steal the packs of the commercial travellers. Finally came the day of the internal combustion engine. The commercial travellers got motorcars and they put their packs in the backs of their motorcars and they went round from village to village, selling their goods. This puzzled the robbers for a long time, but eventually they bought garages. [Interjections.]

I should like to ask the hon the Minister a question across the floor because I do not think we have heard an explanation from the hon Minister himself. In clause 2(b) of the Bill the Minister is given the power to—

I should like the hon Minister to answer this question across the floor: Is it the intention of the hon Minister and his department to stop the sale of petrol at anything other than the regulated price? May I ask him again: Is it the intention of the department to prevent discounters selling petrol at a cheaper price? [Interjections.] It is said that his department said this very thing in the Financial Mail, and the hon the Minister did not disagree.

I should like him to explain to us how it is to the benefit of the public that petrol should not be sold at a discount in South Africa in the future. This really does puzzle me. Here we have the situation where Mr Ackerman of Pick ‘n Pay is discounting petrol by something like four cent per litre. The public living in that vicinity are able to benefit from it. I am sure that if one went to every member of the public, one would find that they approve. After all, we are meant to be representatives of the public. We in this House are supposed to look after the interests of the public. Certainly the public does not always have an overall view of the situation, but here we have an instance where petrol is being supplied to the public at a discount of four cents per litre. Now it becomes apparent that we need to have legislation in this House to prevent that from happening. This really does not make any sense to me whatsoever. Why should they not be entitled to do so? If somebody wants to go out of business selling petrol at a discount of 10c per litre, surely it is his right to do so! He will go bang, and then there will be somebody else, but if there is an organization that can afford to give the public a discount and continues to do so, why on earth should they be stopped? Listening to the debate, I actually have not heard any real reason for supporting this clause. The hon member for Welkom and the hon member for Mooi River seem to feel that toilet facilities at filling stations provide such a reason. Filling stations are expected to supply these facilities, but if other people cut the price of petrol, they will not be able to keep going and all these facilities will disappear. May I ask the hon member for Welkom how often he visits these facilities when he fills up at a filling station? One in ten times, one in twenty times? [Interjections.] I am also prepared to bet that many members of the public will forgo using those facilities if they can get a discount on the price of petrol. Why not let them make the choice themselves?

I don’t know. If you’ve got to go, you’ve got to go!

Well, then one must choose not to go when one is filling up at a place which does not have facilities.

Really, I cannot understand how a party and a government can deny the public the right to buy petrol at a discount, because I cannot believe that the hon the Minister should be on the side of the big oil companies in this thing. Sure, it is in their interests to regulate this whole matter, but it is not in the public’s interests to prevent goods being sold at a lower price. I can see an argument for regulating a price so that it does not go up; I can see an argument for preventing the public from being taken for a ride should petrol be sold at a higher price. I concede that argument, although I do not entirely agree with it because, again, the free market system should apply. However, if one prevents somebody from selling goods to the public at a cheaper price, one is going along a very, very wrong road. It is a road which should not be embarked on by this Government. It is against the free enterprise system and it is against the capitalistic system. Moreover, it is not going to benefit the public one little bit to have this particular clause relating to the Pick ‘n Pay discount.

While we are on the subject of the price of petrol I think it is also time to talk across this floor with the hon the Minister about the present price of petrol because, when South Africans woke up with a shock one day—I think it was in January this year—and found that the price of petrol had been increased by no less than 40%, they also read at that time that the hon the Minister had based his calculations on an exchange rate of 46,5 American cents to a South African rand. Now, I ask the hon the Minister across the floor if that is correct. He nods and agrees. Practically from the day that increase was announced, the exchange rate between the rand and the dollar altered and we ended up with the situation where in fact, since that increase in price, the rand/dollar exchange rate has generally been of the order of 50 American cents to a South African rand or better. If one takes 10% of 46,5 one gets about 51. So it is an improvement of slightly less than 10%. At the same time, as my hon colleague mentioned, the price of crude oil per barrel has dropped—not very much; it is of the order of a dollar per barrel. So there is a slight saving involved there as well. What it all boils down to, is that we, the South African public, are paying a price for our petrol which is based on the exchange rate of 46,5 cents per litre. [Interjections.] I see the hon the Minister is trying to stop me talking along these lines. He is suggesting to his hon Whip that this is not relevant to the Bill.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, I thought that was what he was saying. This Bill states that the Minister may regulate the method of trading etc including the price—”the purchase or selling price of petroleum fuel at any outlet”. I am talking to him about the price of petroleum fuel at an outlet which it is his duty to regulate and I am saying that he is regulating it too high at the moment because it is based on an exchange rate of 46,5 cents and the exchange rate is now of the order of 51 cents. I think it is 50,6. However, the point is that ever since he announced that price, we have been able to buy more favourably, and the South African public is not benefiting from that.

I think it is fair to ask the hon the Minister across the floor of this House—I hope he will reply—as to why he has not seen fit to reduce the price. He says he will not reply to it. I think the South African public should note that the hon the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs has indicated that he will not reply to the South African public as to why he will not reduce the price of petrol at this stage. This is not an attitude that I believe should be admired.

In clause 4 of this Bill we are not dealing with the right of the Press to publish as much as we are dealing with the right of the public to know. The Petroleum Products Act destroyed that right of the public in regard to their very own money because it is their money that goes to buy the petrol, Sir. It is their money which that hon Minister’s department and SFF spends when they buy petrol. We in this party supported the 1979 amendment because we believed that it was imperative to safeguard our oil supplies. We still believe that it is necessary to safeguard our oil supplies. We are still in an embargo situation; there is no question about that. No oil company would happily supply oil to South Africa because they would know that they would then be in a lot of trouble in their own country. I grant that there is secrecy, but perhaps the hon member for Mooi River will tell me what the situation would be if we did not pass this particular clause. The old section of the Act would still apply, so there would still be a certain amount of secrecy—adequate secrecy for the hon the Minister’s purposes. Right?

That is right.

That is why we are against this Bill. The problem that we have is that the Government has used this clause for its own ends. That is the problem. They have not used it for the purposes of protecting South Africa or our oil supplies, but to protect themselves, their own bungling and their own inefficiency. [Interjections.]

As I have said, we believe it is important to safeguard our oil supplies, but it must not be overdone. I have information from various sources in regard to oil supplies and the role played by people—also by Mr Chiavelli—tankers and places in this business. In fact, I gave some of the information to the hon member for Mooi River after he made his speech this afternoon. I do not know how much of that is known overseas, so I have never mentioned the details involved in this matter in the House. However, too much secrecy—and secrecy used for the wrong purpose—is a danger to democracy. It is our duty as MPs to try to stamp out abuse.

This Government has used this provision to conceal at best negligence and at worst corruption by Government. The NP has a history of hiding corruption. We know that a Minister has lied in this House to the certain knowledge of other hon Ministers present, in particular the Prime Minister of that time.

What?

Yet that hon Minister stayed in the Cabinet.

You are being nasty!

Is that hon member contesting my facts? Are my facts not correct? [Interjections.] The NP did just that. I should like to ask the hon member for Swellendam across the floor of the House whether it is worse actually to lie to Parliament or to say from Opposition benches that a Minister has lied?

I am just saying that you are being nasty. [Interjections.]

I do not believe it is sensible to give more power to those who have abused those very powers. In terms of the present provision the public has been kept in the dark in regard to at least three major issues. Firstly, the Salem issue; secondly, the Chiavelli case; and thirdly, the Sasol and SFF case in which they were sued by a gentleman from overseas. In the Sasol case …

What was the judgment?

I am coming to that. In the Sasol case the public stood to lose at least R89 million. The judgment in fact went—thank goodness!—in our favour. The South African public thus did not have to pay out that money, but the mere fact that there was a court case and that this was kept from the public is not good news. In the Chiavelli case the subject relates to a deal which is now about five years’ old and based on a contract which, I believe, expired a long time ago. Time will and has already whittled away some of the need for secrecy in that affair.

Furthermore, I contend that the Salem affair was a prime example of abusing secrecy for reasons unconnected with the security of South Africa, but had every connection with the interests of the NP. One need only look at the background to this. Everything that I quoted in the House with regard to Salem had been published in the Press world wide. It had been published in detail in Lloyd’s Law Reports. A book entitled The Piracy Business by one Barbara Conway had been distributed world wide—I have a copy here with me. It contains the full story of Salem.

It is also a fact that South African publications had written to the hon the Minister at that time requesting permission to publish details. I saw a copy of that letter. The Minister at that time—it was not the present hon Minister—refused permission for any publication. When I raised the matter in February 1983—as my hon colleague has said—the hon the Minister attempted to have my speech censored. Fortunately it was ruled that parliamentary privilege was such that one could make this kind of speech, and I believe we are indebted for that decision because it is important that there should be freedom of speech in this Parliament to debate these matters.

At the outset of my speech I informed the House that I had taken my facts on Salem from the Lloyd’s Law Reports and I said that they were thus part of the public record in Britain and available to all and sundry. The world Press had reported in full on the matter.

Obviously we have had many results from that secrecy. One of the crucial things that has happened is that we have not recovered our $30,5 million that we lost on that occasion. That $30,5 million is worth much more now than at that time; at present market rates it is worth about R61 million.

It is interesting to note that there has finally been a court case this month in Houston, Texas where one of the perpretators, Ed Sudan, was found guilty by an American court of his part in this affair. I read in the Press that some $4 million had been recovered from him but that South Africa—which was the biggest loser in this whole affair—had actually got nothing of that $4 million. I think that also needs some answering. There have been court cases in Holland, Greece and the USA, and yet we in South Africa who are the biggest losers have still not received our money back.

I believe that behind all this lies the clear and undisputed fact that section 4A of the Petroleum Product Act was the mechanism used for covering up. This section was brought into law on 22 June 1979. Within seven months the Salem affair occurred and the section was then being abused.

I urge the hon the Minister to ensure that there is a proper investigation of the Salem case by the SA Police. I know he will not do so but I have asked it every time and I must do so again. I urge the hon the Minister to call for whatever evidence and reports he can get from Scotland Yard, the FBI and the Dutch, Greek and Swiss police. He should find out who the shadowy figure was that was behind J C J van Vuuren. Let us at least make some effort to recover the money that was lost in this disgraceful manner. [Interjections.]

After all this the hon the Minister wants wider powers. I believe the hon the Minister to be a capable and reasonable man but even so, I believe this House would be wrong in extending his power; it should rather be curtailed. Oil supplies are not the problem they were in 1975. The import of crude oil is easier. The Sasol process is providing a considerable percentage of our needs. In addition, we are replacing oil usage with electricity. However, this Bill seeks to extend the hon the Minister’s powers of secrecy. Freedom of speech is a fundamental democratic principle. In times of great crisis this principle is restricted but there always exists the danger of abuse. Surely the public of South Africa are entitled to know facts that the rest of the world discuss and publish.

I would like to quote something that was said by one Lord McGregor who headed a British commission into freedom of the Press. He said:

I believe those are wise words which we need to think about when we look at legislation of this nature.

With my hon colleagues I will not be supporting the passage of this amending Bill.

Mr Speaker, it is quite amazing to listen to the hon members of the Official Opposition. Apparently they are the only people in step, and for that reason they scratch around for arguments. Just where they did not scratch is not worth mentioning. I shall come back to a few points which have been made by hon members, but I want to start off with the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central.

I do not really like to reply to him because I think he still owes this House quite a number of answers. He preferred to refer again to the Salem issue. On various occasions I have put certain questions to the hon member and his party about certain documents which, according to them, came into their possession anonymously, and they still have to reply satisfactorily to this House on how they got those documents, whom they are protecting and why they removed the covering documentation before they presented them to the State President—the then Prime Minister. One may also ask whether they did not abuse the privilege of this House with ulterior motives. [Interjections.] Until they reply to those questions …

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: It would appear to me that the hon the Minister is implying that we have abused the privilege of this House, and I should like to ask you whether that is permissible.

Order! The hon the Minister said the question may be asked whether the Official Opposition did not abuse the privilege of the House. The hon the Minister may proceed.

The Official Opposition still has to furnish those answers and, until they do so, I shall not reply to their speeches on these matters. [Interjections.]

It was an anonymous letter.

I do not believe that it was an anonymous letter.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: The hon the Minister has clearly said across the floor that he does not believe my interjection that it was an anonymous letter.

Order! It was by way of an interjection. It was not a specific reply to a specific question. The hon the Minister said that he was still awaiting replies to various questions which he had asked in the past.

Mr Speaker, on a further point of order: May I ask you to reconsider that. What happened was that a letter was received last year or the year before—I am not sure. It was the contention at the time that this was an anonymous letter. That was stated from this side of the House. The hon the Minister has said this afternoon that he does not believe the statement made from this side of the House that that letter was anonymous.

Order! Who made the statement?

We have always …

Order! I want to know whether it was made by a specific member.

Mr Speaker, we have always contended that the letter was anonymous and that was repeated just now by the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central. The hon the Minister has just said: “I do not believe your statement that the letter was anonymous.”

Order! Did the hon the Minister mean that he definitely did not believe what the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central had said?

Sir, I withdraw that.

Let us take the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central’s remark on the 46,5 USA cents per R1 according to which the petrol price was fixed. The hon member contends I do not inform the public of what is happening now that the exchange rate situation has improved to 50 cents per R1. It is very clear the hon member is an absolute Rip van Winkle. On 27 April 1985 I made a full statement in another House on the entire matter. I said what the effect on the petrol price was. I shall not repeat it. I think that hon member can take the trouble to read it—he will then have a full statement.

I wish to repeat, however, that those hon members have no case whatsoever. They are completely out of step with the general approach to this legislation, with the public out there and also with this Parliament. Yet they still say they are the only ones in step.

Let us examine the position in Parliament for instance. What is the position in Parliament? Who is in step and who not? The House of Delegates and the House of Representatives unanimously accepted this legislation. Unanimously! Yet the PFP says it is in step—it is totally out of step.

Let us examine the approach of the Press Union.

†The hon member for Constantia quoted from the Press Union’s report. However, he selectively left out certain paragraphs. I just want to repeat one of those he left out, namely paragraph B:

*This means the Press Union, in fact, voiced certain criticism but accepted the legislation in principle. In our discussion with the Press Union about three years ago we pointed out this approach to them. It was for this very reason that this legislation was not introduced in Parliament last year. We wanted to add these amendments. Consequently the Press Union accepts the legislation in principle but with certain reservations which satisfy us entirely. [Interjections.]

Tremendous mention was made here—especially by the hon member for Constantia—of who out there in the private sector reflected the PFP approach. Let us examine the actual facts, however: The Public Carriers Association supports this Bill. The Suid-Afrikaanse Gefedereerde Kamer van Nywerhede also supports this legislation. Its members put forward certain proposals and comment; we are satisfied with these and prepared to examine them. The entire oil industry in South Africa, as well as the Automobile Association, supports this legislation.

Let us see what the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut, the body quoted by the hon member, says: “Die vraag ontstaan of die strenger maatreëls enige betekenis het,” were the words with which the hon member closed the quotation. But what was the Handelsinstituut referring to? Was it referring to clause 4 or perhaps to clause 2? We do not even know to what it was referring. [Interjections.] In my subsequent consultations with the Handelsinstituut, its members were totally in agreement with the Bill in principle. The hon member is therefore totally out of step.

The Motor Industry Federation of South Africa supports this legislation. Assocom does not support it because, according to this body, it infringes upon the so-called free market mechanism. We conducted a long conversation with Assocom after which its members put their notes in their pockets and said they were satisfied in principle and would get back to us to make certain proposals. We shall accept those proposals if they are an improvement upon the legislation. [Interjections.]

Let us take this a step further. Who else supports this legislation? The Motor Industry Employees’ Union of South Africa supports it as does the Motor Industry Combined Workers’ Union and the Motor Industry Staff Association. It also has the support of the hon members for Stilfontein, Welkom and Mooi River.

†The hon member for Mooi River really emphasized the reasons why this legislation is necessary. I do not think it appropriate for me now to repeat those reasons. They are valid, they are correct and they substantiate the approach we have adopted towards this Bill at this stage.

There are one or two institutions in the entire Republic of South Africa which do not support the legislation and now hon members cite those institutions and say they are “in step”. When two Houses of this Parliament support this legislation, and I wish to say this evening that all three Houses support it, those hon members say they are the only ones “in step”.

They are opposed to regulation but we have obtained a document which is in circulation. It is stated in that: “The world’s biggest gasoline market in need of protection.” This document refers to problems existing in America at present. It is currently stated that that industry requires protection. Why is this the case? There are 120 refineries and over 100 000 service stations which can close. Chaos results if there is not a specific power regulating this industry.

I do not know why the hon member for Edenvale and others are stressing the fact to such an extent that we are now able to buy oil more easily. It is a fact that we are buying oil more easily but 90% of the people offering us oil are in truth not offering us oil at all; they are offering us the opportunity of selling us oil. I can show hon members the files. There is a small percentage of institutions which tell us they can deliver a certain type of oil from a certain source at a specific price to us in South Africa. As I have said, they form a very small percentage of the whole. The others say they can purchase oil for us but, on my enquiring into its land of origin, they list all the producing countries in the world and say they can buy oil for us from any of those.

That is not the point at issue; hon members do not understand the entire problem correctly. There is still an embargo against us and the situation is still absolutely critical for the simple reason that it is of no avail to come to this House with an argument and to ask why the list of names cannot be published in South Africa if those people publish it abroad. I am speaking from first-hand information at present. The sources I dealt with personally—not through a middleman but personally—all made it clear to me that they were not worried about what was published abroad but about what I would confirm in my country.

Surely we saw the effect last year when the Salem affair received so much publicity and that AG investigation into the so-called secret document was in progress. They made it very clear that, if we did not put an immediate end to the publication of their name in our newspapers, they would discontinue their oil supply to us. They were sitting in my office upstairs. Fortunately this did not eventuate because the importance of publication disappeared and the names were no longer published.

After all, we have a responsible Press in our country—even if we are often annoyed with its members. The Press discontinued the publication of the names after we had held consultations with their editors. We saved oil supplies from certain sources regardless of the fact that we can buy it anywhere. The reason for this is that the crux of the matter is not what is said overseas but what we say in South Africa.

I now wish to quote something for the benefit of the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central. At one stage he made a hobby of bringing everyone to us who could possibly supply us with oil. I shall read only two quotations from letters from his suppliers dealing with secrecy. They say specifically:

This could happen only under “very strict confidentiality”. They do not want their names published or to have it made known in any way that we support the idea that they supply oil to us. Here is the next one:

Those are arguments put forward by hon members and now they say security no longer rates such a high priority in oil purchases. This is not actually the truth. We are still faced with the same problem because, if we in South Africa were to confirm for one moment that we were buying oil from country A or undertaking B, we would lose our oil supplies from those sources as surely as we are all sitting in this House. I have no doubt on this score and think it very important that we should conclude this legislation as soon as possible.

I could go on talking for a long time but I just wish to say that on Friday, 24 May, we are publishing the following regulations in the Government Gazette on aspects which require secrecy. Except for the introduction, they read as follows inter alia:

No person shall, except with the written permission of the Minister, publish, release, announce, disclose or convey information regarding—

1. (a) particulars of negotiations regarding the acquisition of petroleum products for the Republic;
2. (b) business transactions pertaining to sales of petroleum products for or on behalf of the Republic;
3. (e) the storage and stock levels of petroleum products in the Republic;…
4. (f) the quantities of petroleum products which are consumed in the Republic; and
5. (g) petroleum products which are manufactured.

These are regulations which we shall proclaim in terms of this legislation.

In consequence of the time factor, I cannot reply to all hon members. The hon member for Stilfontein gave a very good exposition and I do not think I need repeat it. I wish to thank the hon member for Kimberley North for his support. I also want to thank the hon member for Mooi River for his support. The hon member for Welkom has my thanks as well for his support. I think it is in the interest of South Africa that there should be regulations for the ordering of the petroleum industry in this country. If we fail to do this, we are heading for absolute chaos of which we have much evidence available.