Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The relevancy of the point of order which I now wish to raise came to my attention yesterday and that is why I am putting it to this Committee at the first possible opportunity. I contend that the sitting of this Committee is in contravention of the provision of the new Rules and therefore null and void ab initio. The reasons supporting my statement are based on Rule 66 (4) (a)—I hope hon members will pardon me but I intend referring them to every Rule—which reads as follows:

Rule 66 (4) (c) (i) reads as follows—I shall omit certain phrases so that it may be more meaningful:

This is followed by other provisions as regards where sittings may take place and the days on which such sittings may take place.

Rule 163 (1) (b), the relevant part, reads as follows:

Rule 163 (2) reads as follows:

1. (a) the joint committee (on) financial matters … to a maximum of seven consecutive Parliamentary working days; …

The provision is therefore not that it may be extended but that it may be limited—

In the present case the Budget Speech was delivered on Wednesday, 16 March. The business of the joint committee was to be concluded within “seven consecutive Parliamentary working days” in terms of Rule 163 (2) (a). Because this is a joint committee on provincial affairs, in terms of the proviso in Rule 163 (2)—which I have just read— Mr Speaker may further limit deliberations to the days and times determined by him after consultation with the Chief Whip of Parliament. I repeat, he may therefore limit deliberations but he cannot extend them.

The Cape Provincial Joint Committee sat on Thursday, 17 and Friday, 18 March and again as from Monday, 21 to Friday, 25 March. They therefore sat for the full seven days permitted. However it may be calculated, the maximum of seven consecutive Parliamentary sitting days expired on 25 March.

Rule 35 is at issue as regards public committees. This Rule provides that—

Mr Chairman, the crux of our objection lies in the following: That during the periods in which an Appropriation Bill for provincial services is before the joint committee in terms of Rule 136, as laid down in this Subrule, the Vote may be discussed in an extended public committee which shall consist of the joint committee and other members, as contemplated in Rule 35. It is therefore very clear that this extended public committee may only function within the period in which the Appropriation Bill is before the joint committee, that is, within the prescribed seven days to which I have referred and in the current case they fell between 17 and 25 March.

In other words, if this joint committee had wanted to accomplish its functions as part of an extended public committee, the extended public committee would have had to be in sitting before 25 March 1988. Any subsequent sitting does not fall within the period regarding the Appropriation Bill referred to in Rule 163 and which is before the joint committee concerned. This may occur only within seven days.

The only question is whether the provisions of Rule 66 (4) (c) (iii) alter the position. In my view they do not alter the position in any way because that provision reads only that—

This provision of time and date may still only be intra vires if it falls within seven days or if the Rule is suspended. This Rule was not suspended. Suspension must be explicit and take place with the intention to suspend. The only way to suspend the Rules must be in terms of Rule 3, of which Rule 3 (1) provides the following:

This did not happen in this case. According to us this meeting is therefore invalid and this committee cannot give effect to the Rules in any way. [Interjections.]

Order! To my knowledge, there is only one presiding officer in this Committee and not two.

With reference to the point of order raised by the hon member for Ermelo, Mr Speaker has already given a ruling which reads as follows:

In this regard I also refer the hon member to Rule 2 which provides for unforeseen eventualities. Rule 2 reads as follows:

1. (1) Mr Speaker may give a ruling or frame a rule in respect of any eventuality for which these Rules do not provide.
2. (2) A rule framed by Mr Speaker shall remain in force until a joint meeting of the Rules Committee has decided thereon.

As far as I am concerned, I am bound by Mr Speaker’s ruling and the proceedings will continue in terms of his ruling.

Mr Chairman, could you please tell us when that ruling by Mr Speaker was promulgated because we cannot find anything of the kind in the minutes of the House.

Order! The date of Mr Speaker’s ruling is 18 May of this year.

Mr Chairman, was it recorded in the minutes?

According to my information it was not recorded in the minutes but it is a ruling which was given by Mr Speaker and with which, to my knowledge, the presiding officers of the four extended public committees were furnished by Mr Speaker.

Mr Chairman, may I address you further on a point of order? The further point of order that I wish to raise is that in terms of Rule 2 Mr Speaker may frame rules in cases where no rules exist and for eventualities for which no provision has been made in the Rules. That is when he may frame rules.

That is the empowering provision of Rule 2. I quote from the Standing Rules in this regard:

It is only if these Rules had not provided for the specific case that Mr Speaker could have given a ruling on it. In the case under discussion very explicit provision is made in the Rules for the matters which are now being debated by this Committee and provision is certainly made in respect of how this should be done. That is why my submission as regards your ruling was that in the first place it could not apply because Mr Speaker’s ruling was not intra vires Rule 2. In the second place, we are faced with the problem that Mr Speaker framed a rule which was not known to anybody before the hon the Chairman announced it just now. I regard it as questionable whether those Rules can be binding in any case, especially considering their date, in the light of the fact that, let us say, they were not promulgated in the House or wherever. There were other Rules in respect of matters regarding these circumstances and a ruling was explicitly given on them in the House, I think it was on 5 May and again on 9 May, which was recorded in the minutes of the Houses. My question and my submission is therefore, with respect, that that Rule of Mr Speaker’s is not binding because it was not actually promulgated.

Order! The hon member for Bethal may proceed.

Mr Chairman, to elucidate this point of order and in reply to this argument and the questions which were put, I wish to raise as a further point of order that Mr Speaker’s amending rule, on which your ruling is based, was actually not a valid rule and that that rule itself is invalid because it is in direct contravention with the existing Rules. Mr Speaker cannot amend existing Rules.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: What the hon member is doing is appealing in essence against your ruling and not putting a valid point of order.

Order! I shall afford the hon member for Sundays River an opportunity later to address the Chair on the point of order as well. The hon member for Bethal may proceed.

Mr Chairman, according to the Rules, by which all the Houses are bound, the position is that Mr Speaker may give a ruling or frame a rule as regards an eventuality for which these Rules do not provide we submit that these Rules already provide par excellence for these extended public committees, that the procedure for them is very explicitly prescribed and that there are no rules lacking as far as this aspect is concerned. In fact, it is very clearly explained here. Mr Speaker certainly dealt with these aspects on 5 May and issued a proclamation saying that Votes which had not yet been agreed to by the Houses would in future be discussed and disposed of according to the new procedure. The Speaker stated emphatically that the new Rules were to be followed. The new Rules make provision for extended public committees to sit within seven days. The fact that this year’s seven days have elapsed is something of the past. This Committee has already done its work, it has fulfilled its duty and its seven days have elapsed. As from next year, it must take place according to this procedure. Explicit provision has been made for this, however.

It is also very clear that it was not foreseen that this proclamation by Mr Speaker should have a bearing on this joint committee which had already concluded its work. It deals with the question of the First Reading and Second Reading stages. The Second Reading stage of the Main Appropriation Bill has already been concluded in each House in terms of the Joint Rules and its Standing Rules and Orders and is regarded as the First Reading stage in the application of the new Rules. Votes which have already been agreed to are regarded as concluded. Votes which have not yet been agreed to by the Houses, will in future be discussed and disposed of in terms of the new procedure. In other words, the old First Reading and Second Reading stages are being changed here. This is all it comes down to.

This joint committee became functus officio on 25 March and the only power it subsequently had was to submit its report to the Houses the following Monday. After that it had no further function. The committee was functus officio but now its members are being constituted into a new committee, this public committee, which may only sit, however—specifically in terms of these new Rules for procedure—during the seven days which have already elapsed. Consequently I support the point of order that Mr Speaker’s ruling, which was not made known to us, was not promulgated anywhere and was not put before the House, is invalid per se and cannot transform this invalidity with which we are occupied now into a reality of any kind.

Order! The hon member for Sundays River may put his point of order now.

Mr Chairman, I should like to emphasise that the point which the hon member has just held up to hon members is a repetition of arguments which were relevant to the first point of order. No arguments were presented to hon members as regards any possible second point of order. What I am actually saying is that the second point of order is no point of order because it merely questioned the ruling of the Chair, and did so in regard to arguments which were relevant to the previous point of order.

Mr Chairman, in the first place, as regards the hon member for Sundays River’s argument: The hon member for Bethal was not putting a second point of order. Further arguments were raised in support of the arguments regarding the point of order which was put by the hon member for Ermelo and I need not refer back to them now because then I should certainly be repeating them.

What I wish to emphasise further is the distinction which should be drawn between Rule 2 and Rule 3 of the Rules of Parliament. It is very clear that they regulate different situations. Rule 2 deals with a case in which Mr Speaker may give a ruling or frame a rule as regards a case for which these Rules do not provide. If we are therefore dealing with a case for which provision is made in the Rules, Mr Speaker cannot make use of Rule 2 but should make use of Rule 3. Rule 3 regulates a different situation and I hope my learned colleague, the hon member for Sundays River, will agree with me now that this is a totally new argument. When we are therefore dealing with something laid down in the Rules—as we wish to suggest is the case here regarding the extended public committees on provincial affairs—and Mr Speaker wishes to change it, he in fact has to suspend the Rule, but he has to do it because each House has to approve the suspension.

Consequently Rule 3, Subrule (1), lays down the following:

I am stating this to distinguish it from Rule 2 and wish to underline it very strongly. When one looks at Subrule (1) of Rule 2 and at Subrule (1) of Rule 3, one sees two very different situations.

Subrule (1) of Rule 2 provides that Mr Speaker may give a ruling in cases for which the Rules do not make provision. It is our submission that the case under review is one for which the Rules do make provision. This is in sharp contrast to a case in which any provision of these Rules may be suspended. I therefore wish to conclude this argument by saying that Mr Speaker should have made use of Rule 3 in this case and that he should have notified each House of Parliament to provide for suspension in view of the hiatus pointed out by the hon member for Ermelo. Because this was not done, the situation is therefore that these Rules apply and, as the hon member for Ermelo argued, because these Rules apply, the requirement of the seven consecutive parliamentary days was not satisfied.

In the second place, an age-old legal rule is involved here and I want to state it by means of the following argument. If I may use the expression, it is trite law that one is dealing with a valid rule of law only when it has been promulgated. In this regard I am referring in general to Steyn’s Uitleg van Wette, as updated by Van Tonder. There must be promulgation. It must be announced officially because the entire underlying ratio in the case of a law is that the citizenry must have knowledge of it. The proverb runs: Ignorantia iuris neminem excusat.

On what page is that?

It does not matter on what page it is. The hon member can listen to the argument. If he can possibly follow it, he will be able to answer it and then he will agree with me.

Nobody can be guilty of something of which he was ignorant. This does not only apply in respect of ordinary laws. It does not only apply in respect of regulations but it must also apply in respect of the Standing Rules of Parliament.

In fact, if we could have a situation in which Mr Speaker—and I am saying this with every respect for the position but I must conclude the argument—were to frame rules from time to time and even at will, which he did not promulgate, these Rules which were agreed to by Parliament would of course be nullified, and this can certainly not be the legal position.

Mr Chairman, I want to summarise this argument. This extended public committee, in fact Parliament, cannot be bound by a ruling which was given by Mr Speaker and not promulgated.

I want to put a third argument, Mr Chairman, and I want to refer you to a ruling given by Mr Speaker on 5 May 1988. We are now actually dealing with two rulings given by Mr Speaker, namely a ruling of 5 May 1988 which I now want to hold up to you and the one of 18 May 1988 to which you drew our attention. I want to submit to you that there is an inherent contradiction between the ruling given by Mr Speaker on 5 May 1988 and the one of 18 May 1988 which you mentioned.

The ruling of 5 May 1988 reads as follows and I shall read only the relevant portions. I shall read the last line of the first long paragraph on page 172:

I want to suggest that this is the relevant portion because this Vote has not yet been agreed to by the House—

That is to say from 5 May—

In other words, the point at issue here as regards Votes is these new Rules which were promulgated, proclaimed and agreed to by the various Houses.

The question which now arises here is the following: If a conflict arises—as I want to argue is the case here—between the rulings given by Mr Speaker on 5 May and on 18 May, I wish to suggest that at least some doubt exists on what is at issue here. Mr Chairman, how can you therefore regard us as bound by a ruling in respect of which doubt exists?

As a result of this, I wish to conclude by telling you, Mr Chairman—with all due respect for the Chair—that you cannot hold this Extended Public Committee to a ruling which was not promulgated.

I want to point out three important legal implications which may arise from this.

Order! I do not wish to restrict the hon member but he must really bring his point of order to some conclusion.

I shall conclude, Mr Chairman.

There are three legal implications. If we receive a ruling here while we are dealing with invalid procedure, that invalidity applies to both the validity of this sitting and the question of validity surrounding the vote which is going to take place afterwards. It also applies to the invalidity surrounding the entire budgetary matter. It is not the CP standpoint that we want to make political capital out of this point but it is certainly our well-considered opinion that we are dealing here with an invalid sitting ab initio in this case.

Order! I think the hon member for Losberg will concede that, if his argument is correct that we have a gathering here which is invalid ab initio, we certainly cannot reach a decision here on a ruling by Mr Speaker. The fact is, furthermore, that nowhere in the Rules is there any requirement that Mr Speaker’s ruling be promulgated anywhere. As regards the hon member for Losberg’s argument that it is trite law, I think that the facts on which the hon member based his argument are very clearly distinguishable from those under discussion.

The argument that an amendment of the Rules is involved here and that Mr Speaker should have had recourse to Rule 3 will not hold water because, as I interpret it, there is no attempt here to amend the Rules. This deals with a specific eventuality for which Rule 2 provides. Mr Speaker gave a ruling on this and, as far as I am concerned, I am bound by Mr Speaker’s ruling in this regard. Rule 2 provides for revision by the Rules Committee and I think that the arguments put forward by the hon members for Losberg and Bethal amounted to an appeal against Mr Speaker’s ruling, as it were, which does not belong here but which may possibly be taken up with the Rules Committee.

Under the circumstances, as I do not accept the points of order raised by the hon members for Ermelo, Bethal and Losberg, the proceedings will continue.

Mr Chairman, I should like to say the following in explanation: In view of the fact that our statement to you was that we considered the proceedings invalid and that they could possibly give rise to consequences, we now say that we intend to withdraw from these proceedings. We wish to assure you that the reason for this is not your ruling. It is not resistance to your ruling but the reason is that we are convinced that these proceedings are invalid and that, if we were to participate further, we believe that we would sanction something which is invalid and therefore we are withdrawing. It is not out of disrespect for the Chair.

Mr Chairman, permit me first to declare my interests here. On Saturday 15 players from South West Africa made history here and I should like to mention that one of the smart forwards, Mr Beukes, represented Walvis Bay in that team. I want to say that, if the hon the Administrator requires the services of Walvis Bay, he can provide for those players’ travelling expenses in the budget. [Interjections.]

I consider it an exceptional honour to appear in the old Senate Chamber again today. It so happens that I am doing it from the bench I vacated in 1980 and I share that honour with my benchmate, the hon member for Kuruman. We are the only two links with the old Senate. While I sat listening to the debate yesterday, I wondered whether there was any real appreciation of the sacrifices that had been made in this regard. The dissolution of the Senate was the first step in the institution of this tricameral Parliament. We listened to hon members of the PFP yesterday and also to hon members of the other two Houses who were very critical of the NP. They said the NP was merely entrenching apartheid, that we begrudged other population groups everything and claimed it for ourselves. In this respect I have the greatest appreciation for the hon member Mr Lockey’s speeches. In comparison with them, we listened to the CP yesterday disparaging this gathering as total integration. This morning they withdrew again after a long demonstration.

Mr Chairman, I want to remind you that these standing committees on provincial affairs have functioned since the inception of the tricameral Parliament. Hon members of the CP participated in them when the Cape Province budget was being discussed there. The same Administrator and members of the Executive Committee were present. It is true that this committee is larger but it remains mixed. The great difference, however, is that those sittings were held behind closed doors whereas these take place in public. The question now arises whether the point at issue is that this sitting is taking place in public. I should like to express the hope that, when hon members put their standpoints, make statements and exchange ideas, they will remember that the NP moves between two extremes. The NP has to take its supporters with it. The NP’s task is to build structures in which all may participate.

I take pleasure in supporting this budget and want to take the opportunity of presenting the Walvis Bay budget to the committee. Before I do that, it is probably necessary for me to sketch the background of Walvis Bay to the committee because to them it is merely a distant place. It is certainly distant; an air journey of four hours away.

The area of Walvis Bay was annexed by Britain in 1878. It became part of the then Cape Colony and part of the Union of South Africa in 1910. In 1961 it became part of the Republic of South Africa. The rest of South West Africa was annexed only six years later by Germany in 1884. On the occasion of the Peace of Versailles in 1919, South Africa was given the mandate over the area of South West Africa and for practical reasons the Government decided to administer Walvis Bay from Windhoek.

In consequence of this, from 1922 to 1977—a period of fifty-five years—Walvis Bay was subject to South West African decrees. That region, comprising a surface area of 1 124 km2, of which the greatest portion is State land, is an outpost of the Republic of South Africa. To visiting ships and foreign visitors it is their introduction to the Republic of South Africa—it is therefore the display window of the Republic of South Africa.

Over the years, the South West African authorities did not promote tourism in Walvis Bay at all because Walvis Bay was regarded as an industrial town. Nevertheless tourism is the industry of the future; it is great earner of currency. Walvis Bay is a place of great diversity. We think for instance of its flamingos with their wings red as flame. We think of its unspoilt desert life. It is an area which is trapped between sand and sea, with high sand dunes on the one side and the cold Benguela Current with its rich sources of fish on the other. That area has much to offer the tourist. Together with the West Coast of South West Africa, it is an anglers’ paradise.

On the recommendation of the Walvis Bay Development Advisory Committee, at the time under the chairmanship of the current Director-General, Mr Bill Visagie, the Cabinet granted Walvis Bay development aid to an amount of R1 million per annum for the promotion of tourism. We therefore find it regrettable that even this R1 million has fallen away this year. We want to point out that it was principally intended for beach development—beach development which is already in process and consequently means obligations by the city council toward its contractors.

It is also noted that the Walvis Bay budget has been cut back by R7,9 million—from R24,35 million to R16,42 million. Percentagewise this is an enormous cut-back, proposed employment creation projects having been curtailed by 99%. Employment creation is a great problem in Walvis Bay as the seasonal fish factories are responsible for 80% of all job opportunities in the industrial centre.

Walvis Bay has a great backlog in this regard and finance is urgently required. I therefore want to express the hope that the Executive Committee will see its way clear, later in the year, to examining the Walvis Bay budget again and possibly making finance available after all. I wish to give the assurance, however, that Walvis Bay is greatly appreciative of the assistance we receive from the Cape Provincial Administration. I am referring to repairs to schools, to hospitals, to housing, roads and so on, which already run into enormous amounts.

On the positive side, I am pleased to be able to announce that, as in the past, Walvis Bay is contributing sturdily to the national economy by means of the fishing industry which alone causes about R17 million to accrue to the Treasury by way of tax. In spite of the economic recession, the Walvis Bay harbour continues to function on a profitable basis. The chemical salt industry of Walvis Bay provides almost the total requirements of the industries of the Republic of South Africa. This is made possible by centralisation benefits which are furnished in Walvis Bay.

Hon members will therefore note that the Walvis Bay enclave is not merely a financial loss to the Republic of South Africa but makes a significant contribution in its own right to the South African national economy.

As far as the fishing industry is concerned—the goose that lays the golden eggs—I should like to know how much progress has been made in the application of the R5 million which has already been voted for improvements to the boatlift and boat platforms and dredger work around the fishing quays. It is a fact that there is an urgent need for additional berths for boats after they have been lifted from the water so that even more boats may be accommodated and repaired at the same time.

It is also true that our larger boats, when fully laden and especially at low tide, find it difficult to reach the landing stages at the private fish factories and we request that urgent attention be paid to dredging there.

We should like to point out that representations have been made to the SATS in regard to dredging work for the commercial harbour. We hope that there will be consultations about this because, if the dredging can be done jointly, there will be an appreciable saving in costs.

I consider it a privilege to support this budget.

Mr Chairman, at the outset I want to thank the hon member for Walvis Bay for what he said about the course of events here and for the words he addressed to me. I want to tell the hon member that he must not always consider our criticism to be destructive, but should rather see it as constructive. He must remember that we have been excluded from the decision-making processes in this country for 300 years. We could therefore be far more negative with regard to these matters, and the hon member must see our actions against the background of years of having no vote and no representation.

I also want to thank the hon members of the CP in absentia—particularly the hon members for Ermelo and Losberg—for the legal lectures they gave us here today, free of charge.

I want to dwell briefly on Vote 4: “Roads and Traffic Administration” and bring two matters to the attention of the hon the Administrator and the MECs. In our report we asked that as a matter of urgency a traffic light be erected on the corner of the road to Stellenbosch and Symphony Road, Belhar, during the present financial year. This is an extremely dangerous road and during peak periods it is impossible to turn into the Stellenbosch main road from this road. I also want to thank the hon members of the House of Assembly for the fact that they supported us as regards this recommendation. I know that there are a number of Nationalists who also use this road!

I also want to ask that serious attention be given to the N2 route to Cape Town. This situation is getting completely out of hand. It is extremely frustrating, particularly on rainy days, to travel to or from Cape Town during peak periods in the morning or afternoon. It sometimes takes an hour and a half to reach the city centre. I believe this should be treated as a matter of urgency. I do not know whether there is anything in the pipeline but I am asking that this matter be considered extremely urgent.

Under Subhead A. 1—“Secretariat” we also recommended that all temporary employees of the Cape Provincial Administration who have held a post for more than two years be appointed by the hon the Administrator and the Executive Committee on a permanent basis to the posts they are at present holding. We asked how many people fell into these categories. I suspect that there is a large group of people of colour in these categories and I also want to ask that this recommendation be dealt with as a matter of urgency.

As regards medical aid schemes for the employees of the Cape Provincial Administration we asked that medical aid schemes be rationalised and that parity in medical benefits for all officials of the department should be treated as an urgent priority.

Also as regards the entire matter of district surgeons, we were very disappointed to hear that there were no district surgeons of colour in the Cape Province. I believe this is also a matter which should receive very urgent attention. We also requested the province to give urgent attention to the appointment of people of colour in order to have a better balance in the population composition in this regard.

This is also the second year in succession that we are recommending that all the libraries which receive a subsidy from the Cape Provincial Administration should immediately be thrown open to all population groups. If this was not possible, if local authorities refused, we recommended that subsidies be withdrawn with retrospective effect over 15 financial years. I am saying this because it is a very drastic measure. It is a disgrace that there are still people who do not want to share something as basic as a library with other population groups.

As regards Annexure 8 of the Estimates of the Cape Province we asked that all nature reserves and facilities at these nature reserves, such as caravan parks and rondawels, be thrown open without delay to all population groups in the province.

I should like to support the idea of the hon member for Newton Park that we should have a game farm in the Cape Province. A province which is far smaller than the Cape Province, namely the Orange Free State, already has a game farm. I only lay down one condition, namely that this game farm should be open to all population groups from the outset. I do not want to make a recommendation later that the farm should be thrown open; it should be open right from the outset.

I want to thank the hon the Administrator for the fact that he reacted in writing this year to the recommendations on which the three respective select committees agreed. I also want to ask him to react in writing to the points on which we disagreed with hon members of the House of Assembly. We would like a reaction to this too.

I want to react briefly to three hon members, but first I want to thank the hon the Administrator for the establishment of the post of senior library assistant. The post was established in consequence of a recommendation we made in our previous annual report.

I come back to the hon MEC entrusted with local government, Mr Theron. The hon MEC spoke about the combating of poverty and said that in the provision of housing we should also see how poverty could possibly be combated. He referred to the fact that employment opportunities had to be created as close as possible to the residential areas. He also referred to the Piazza complex planned for Khayelitsha and the possibility that this could create up to 500 employment opportunities.

I want to support the hon MEC very strongly in this regard. I think that if we are serious about establishing orderly urbanisation we will have to take a serious look at the establishment of employment opportunities for people as close as possible to where they live. In the Western Cape we have the position that people spend between a third and half of their salary on their daily journey to and from their place of employment.

The hon member Mr Van Wyk, MEC, said he felt very strongly about the under- and over-utilisation of hospitals and certain facilities. He spoke about the Mowbray Maternity Hospital and the Vryburg Hospital. I also want to thank him for the way in which he has handled the problem at the Vryburg Hospital thus far.

I want to tell him that I am looking forward to the publication of the report on the nurses’ homes. I hope this will eventually lead to the establishment of these homes, not only in Vryburg but also in places like Uitenhage. I see the hon member who represents Uitenhage is also here.

The hon MEC said there was no such thing as inferior treatment and that everyone should be free to choose. I think if one wants exclusivity one must pay for it, but when we pay tax in this country we pay it into one coffer. For that reason we are entitled to the same service on a nonsegregated basis.

If there are racists in this country they must pay for their exclusivity, but facilities which are established with tax funds must be opened without delay to all inhabitants of the province.

The hon MEC said we should not squeeze this fruit in an effort to make it ripen more quickly. We have been squeezing it for 300 years now and it is now high time it started to ripen.

The hon Mr Schoeman, MEC, spoke about the Abolition of Development Bodies Amendment Bill. I should like to point out to him that the legislation makes provision for the partial transfer of functions and assets of development bodies which have been dissolved. I accept that because it is a partial transfer the process must take place gradually, but I want to ask the hon MEC to see to it that all 22 functions mentioned in the schedule to the Regional Services Councils Act will eventually be transferred to the RSCs.

I am requesting this because if this does not happen, essentially this would amount to our duplicating matters at the third tier of government in the sense that we would have two authorities supplying the same service. In essence this would therefore amount to our having duplication instead of rationalisation, which is one of the primary objectives of the legislation. We must rationalise services so that they can be made available to the consumer more cheaply.

I should also like to request the Executive Committee and the hon the Administrator to take urgent steps to speed up the registration of leasehold and freehold for Blacks and to facilitate this process. The Standing Committee on Constitutional Development and Planning is discussing a Bill concerning the registration of leasehold and its subsequent conversion to freehold. For our part we shall do everything in our power to support this because the freehold of Black people is also a very urgent priority for those of us in Parliament.

Mr Chairman, it is a privilege for me to follow the hon member Mr Lockey, who is acting in a very responsible way in this committee.

Hon members will forgive me if I refer to the CP first. I am referring in particular to yesterday’s boycott debacle and this morning’s demonstration. Although the CP complained yesterday about the so-called objectionable system which gave them too little time in which to speak in this sitting, it is the same system which gave them a right to sit in this extended provincial committee, although they do not have a seat in the Cape.

I think we are all know the story of the little boy at school who the moment a game does not proceed as he wishes says: “I am not playing anymore”. Then he stands by himself in a corner. The CP must carry on with its boycott strategy, because this will simply hasten their inevitable political end. Yesterday we saw how the atmosphere in this committee changed and improved after they had left. We will have to eliminate these people from politics if we want to build a future for South Africa and if we want to solve our relations problems.

For that reason I also want to make an appeal to our colleagues in the other Houses. We must eliminate those people at the polling booth, and hon members of the other Houses must therefore not obstruct us in this process. They must please not put unnecessary spokes in the wheel. We must eliminate the CP.

I should like to say a few words about roads in this debate. Firstly I want to refer to the establishment of the regional office of the Provincial Roads Administration in Graaff-Reinet. I am convinced that this is the logical centre for the establishment of this regional office. As a matter of fact I have been told that there is enough work for this office for the next 25 years within a radius of 100 km around Graaff-Reinet.

I specifically want to give recognition to the thoroughness, quality and permanence of this move. As a matter of fact this is only the second time that such a move has taken place in the province and been housed in permanent buildings. This is the first time that a construction unit and a maintenance unit have been housed under the same roof in the province.

Not only are the offices, the laboratories, the workshops, the fuel depots and the stores of these regional offices an asset to Graaff-Reinet, but the 120 or so homes of officials of all population groups are of the highest standard and they make a pleasant sight. If we take into consideration that parity in respect of salaries for officials of different population groups holding the same rank was introduced with effect from 1 March 1988, it is understandable why this accommodation is and must be of a high standard in the Coloured and Black residential areas.

As has been indicated, this unit consists of two divisions, namely a construction division, which moved from Beaufort West, with Mr Conradie, the resident engineer at the helm, and a maintenance division, which moved from Middelburg, with Mr Hattingh, the district roads engineer, at the helm. I want sincerely to welcome these two engineers and their officials to the Graaff-Reinet constituency and express the hope that they will derive great satisfaction and happiness in Graaff-Reinet from the quality of the work they are going to do in the divisional council areas of Midland, Upper Karoo, Central Karoo and Kamdeboo. We are looking forward to good and sincere co-operation with these residents of Graaff-Reinet. As a matter of fact they are already a great asset to us.

The next point I want to touch on is the possible tarring of the road from Aberdeen, through Aberdeen Road and Klipplaat to Baroe—a distance of 107 kilometres. Since 1967 urgent representations have constantly been made for the tarring of this road. Up to and including 1979 the Divisional Council of Aberdeen tarred 21 kilometres of this road and approximately 85 kilometres of gravel road therefore remains.

On 31 October 1986 a mass-meeting was held in Aberdeen at which approximately 60 interested parties, including organised agriculture, municipalities, divisional councils, the SA Transport Services, the commando and the regional development advisory committee, were present. The meeting was also attended by my predecessor, the local MP, Minister Hayward. In a detailed memorandum Mr J M Nel, the secretary of the Aberdeen Farmers’ Association, submitted all the necessary information to Minister Hayward. He referred it to the Administrator. In his reply on behalf of the Administrator, the MEC entrusted with roads, Mr Van Wyk, said that the application could be resubmitted as soon as the financial climate had improved to such an extent that the requirements for the tarring of a road could be lowered.

This road offers an alternative route to the road via Graaff-Reinet and Jansenville to Port Elizabeth from the hinterland, which extends as far as Carnarvon, Calvinia and Beaufort West. The route is approximately 60 kilometres shorter than the route via Graaff-Reinet and cuts out several steep mountain passes. It has been ascertained that a large lorry uses up to 45 litres less diesel on this route, and up to an hour can be saved in travelling time. At present the road has a gravel surface which causes severe losses as regards tyres. The incidence of accidents on this road is exceptionally high. According to the SAP between 1981 up to and including May 1986 a total of 85 accidents occurred on this road, in which 15 people died and 35 were injured. Motor vehicles are inclined to skid on the loose gravel, in combination with a corrugated surface, and leave the road. The hon member for Port Elizabeth North has first-hand experience of this.

The maintenance of this road is relatively expensive. To regravel the road properly would cost as much as R134 000. On the other hand the road can be tarred at a relatively low cost, mainly because the road runs through a fairly flat region and crosses few rivers. According to the Provincial Auditor at that stage the cost of tarring a portion of the road by the Municipality of Aberdeen was the second lowest in the Cape.

To qualify for a permanent surface a road must carry traffic equal to 400 equivalent vehicle units. Yesterday we heard that this number was going to be lowered. At present the traffic on the so-called Baroe road equals approximately 150 equivalent vehicle units. Apart from the economy this was the major reason why the road could not be tarred. However, these vehicle units can be very misleading.

Although not directly comparable, no vehicle unit travelled through the Huguenot tunnel before its completion. However, today we all know how many vehicle units travel through this tunnel. I am absolutely convinced that if the Baroe road were to be tarred the number of equivalent vehicle units would rise dramatically. That is why I am broaching this matter here today. Can we not at least bring the rural areas into line with the more densely populated areas in this regard. Give us the Baroe road as the first toll road in the rural areas with toll fees equivalent to half of the financial saving which this shorter road with its fewer steep gradients result in for vehicles. For farmers in the immediate vicinity who cannot use an alternative route, free access through the toll gates can be arranged by means of permits. On this basis I can today justify representations in the interests of the rural areas.

In conclusion I want to say something with regard to minor roads, and I want to associate myself with the hon members for Springbok, De Aar and Aliwal North. I am grateful for the positive statements made by Mr Van Wyk, MEC. However, I believe that a few more ideas in this regard could strengthen his hand. The province makes a financial allocation to divisional councils for the maintenance of main and divisional roads only. Divisional councils must decide for themselves how they are going to deal with minor roads. At present the point of departure throughout the Cape is that minor roads may only be graded once a year and then only if funds are available.

Minor roads are usually the stretch of road which leads to the last farmer at the end of that road; in other words the farmer who lives furthest from town and who also has to transport his products the furthest to the market in a specific area. The standpoint of the province has always been that the traffic which these roads carry does not justify any financial allocation. Unfortunately this amounts to discrimination against people who, usually owing to circumstances beyond their control, own remote farms. In a city or a town houses in the street furthest from the power station or reservoir are not deprived of electricity or water. These residents are not expected to provide their own pipes or power lines. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is indeed a privilege for me to take part in this debate once again. Although I said this yesterday I once again want to say that it is an historic occasion for me to speak here. We must realise that for our people there is a lot of history attached to this House. It was in this House that the Coloured people lost their vote in this country and it was in this House that Coloured people first re-entered Parliament and it is in this House that we are holding the first joint debates. I think we are privileged to be the forerunners in that.

I think it must be spelt out very clearly to the outside world that the obstructionists in this system—those who do not want people other than the Whites to be rulers in this country—are the CP. I think perhaps the newspapers have said that it is the Black radicals who are the obstructionists, but I think once again the CP has proved that it does not want power-sharing in this country.

I should just like to talk about three points. Firstly, R16,25 million is being provided for the Cape Town City Council by the province for the provision of fire stations and their services. Many years ago when an investigation was carried out it was felt that Athlone needed a fire station. The standards laid down by South Africa and the international world indicated that there was a need for Athlone to have a fire station because it is on the perimeter of the 12 minute radius from a fire station. Approval went through, the planning and the staff were there and every aspect of the plans for that building were approved. Then Mitchell’s Plain came into being and it was found that it had a greater need. We in Athlone were given the assurance that Athlone would get its facility the following year. We then gave up our fire station to the people of Mitchell’s Plain.

There are many things that must be taken into account, for example, right up to the present moment Mitchell’s Plain does not have an industrial area which Athlone has. Mitchell’s Plain only has a residential area. However, we felt that those people were the furthest away from a fire station and we acceded to this request with the blessing and the approval of the local authority. It is now almost 10 years after that and year after year we are told that there is no need for a fire station in our area. Just the other day—and we saw this in the newspapers—the city council again saw a need for a fire station in Athlone, but this time their argument was that they did not have the staff to man the fire station. It was very strange to us that they have now approved a fire station for Milnerton and Brooklyn in their budget. However, if one looks at the matter one sees that there are almost half a million residents in Athlone alone which is not in the Brooklyn area. Athlone has an industrial area. It is a high risk area and it is very sad that when we have a fire be it in the industrial or the residential area, be it a car or a bus that has been set alight, by the time the fire brigade turns up it has already been destroyed.

In Athlone we have to rely on the fire brigades of Wynberg, Mitchell’s Plain or Epping. I want to appeal earnestly to the Province to take into account, in their allocation of this R16 240 000 to the local authorities, that Athlone is now the priority. I do not think that Athlone can go through another year without a fire station.

It is true—the hon member of the ruling party who have just spoken pointed this out—that the Progs are the guilty ones. Now, Sir, for how long is this ruling party going to allow the Progs in the Cape Town City Council to undermine management committees? [Interjections.] Requests are often turned down because they come from management committees. These hon gentlemen who provide the money will have to take a stand for what is right, and not for what is good for a political party. [Interjections.]

The Province has certain big chunks of land within our area. One massive chunk of land in our area which belongs to them is the land adjacent to the railway line between Heideveld and Manenberg. This land was set aside for a hospital to be built. The plans of that hospital have not merely been shelved; they no longer exist. Therefore, Province will no longer provide a hospital in Manenberg. We want to ask now that housing be provided on that land, which is prime land closer to the city.

I want to go further. I want to ask Province not to give that land to the Cape Town City Council. Sir, you can have a look at the type of homes that those people are providing in our communities. That type of sub-economic housing, or what they refer to as self-help houses, is a factor which contributes to the unrest in our areas. [Interjections.] We know what type of housing our people want. We live there; not those White city councillors.

Including me?

No, we have two or three very, very good friends on that city council—the Mrs Chaits, the Mr Jouberts and the like! We have much appreciation for them. In fact, we would like the hon member Mrs Chait’s party to take a stronger stand in the municipal elections. [Interjections.]

Sir, we want to ask that that land be transferred to the management committee or even to the department of the hon the Minister of Local Government. Housing and Agriculture in the House of Representatives. I do not know what the legal implications will be, but I want to ask Province not to transfer that land to the Cape Town City Council. We, as a management committee, would like to do the planning …

Private development.

Yes, private development is no problem, as long as the Cape Town City Council does not do the planning for us.

Lastly, Sir, we have received certain reports from people up country which cause concern. When people are discharged from hospital, no transport is available for them. We ourselves have witnessed people who have been discharged from hospital hitch-hiking, or sleeping in subways or on platforms at stations. People come from the “platteland” to hospitals such as Tygerberg and Groote Schuur where the facilities are better. When they are then discharged, there is not a railway bus leaving Cape Town, nor does the hospital provide transport for them to get back home. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I hope the hon member for Bonteheuwel will pardon me if I do not follow on his speech. I think our problems are rather divergent.

I should first like to declare my interests. As I stand here this morning, I am the representative of Beaufort West but also the last captain of the Association of Divisional Councils of the Cape Province.

I should like to associate myself with the hon member for Springbok who warmed my heart when he spoke about the inferior roads in his part of the world. I believe that, if the Chairman of the Namaqualand Divisional Council, Mr Jannie van der Westhuyzen, could have heard him here, he would probably have given him something to slaughter. I hope the hon member still recalls the term “something to slaughter” (’n slagding)? [Interjections.]

I should also like to associate myself with the MEC, Mr Pieter Schoeman, in his praise of divisional councils, their councillors and their officials here yesterday. I should like to express my thanks here this morning to the hon the Administrator of the Cape Province as well. I do not think the Association of Divisional Councils of the Cape Province has ever had anybody who has loved them so much and has gone so far out of his way to benefit that Association. We shall erect a statue to him for this one day.

I should also like to associate myself with the hon member for Graaff-Reinet’s splendid speech. I think he could send that speech to his local paper just as it is—it will definitely gain him votes. He also spoke about inferior roads which remain the most important roads for farmers.

It is also true that one man’s meat is another man’s poison. This considerable bunch of Nationalists which I have sent to Graaff-Reinet from Beaufort West for him will improve his case but definitely spoil my chances in future.

I should like to say something about divisional councils in general this morning. This is possibly the last time that we shall discuss divisional councils and I hope hon members will pardon me if I do not settle for a specific theme but emphasize a few facts about divisional councils. It is almost impossible to do justice within the time allowed for this speech to the origin, evolution and function of divisional councils, but permit me to touch upon a few of the most important facts here and there so that hon members may eventually have a sound understanding of what was involved in the Cape Province and the sphere of rural government over 133 years.

Like so many other matters of importance which had their origin in the Cape Province, rural government in South Africa began at the Cape with the establishment of a court of a “landdros” and “heemrade” at Stellenbosch in 1682. In 1685 its area of jurisdiction was extended to include the district as well. At the time it was thought that the area was situated too far from Cape Town to administer local affairs effectively from this centre. The court was similar to that of the Dutch “landdros” in Holland. He was the district agent of the Government in the rural areas.

This authority was established at Stellenbosch to hear petty civil cases and had the power to levy petty local taxes to provide roads and water. Local farmers could be called upon to supply wagons and slave labour. In 1745 the system was extended to Swellendam and in 1785 to Graaff-Reinet. By 1795 there were four districts, including the one in Cape Town. Each district was divided into field-cornetcies with a field-cornet who was responsible to the “landdros” and every cornetcy was represented by a “heemraad”.

Gradually the function was expanded and local, civil and criminal control, maintenance of roads and bridges, cleaning of streets, guard duty, fire fighting, the making and maintenance of water channels and control of abattoirs, bakeries and butcheries were included. An income was derived from poll tax and a tax on products. Poll tax was generally known at the time as “kopbelasting” in Afrikaans. Toll fees and an annual levy of a farthing per 100 sheep and 20 head of cattle had to be paid. How interesting.

Divisional councils were instituted by an Act of Parliament in 1855 and were therefore a development of the “heemrade” and road boards. This was the oldest form of rural government in South Africa. These divisional councils were vested with the powers of the old road boards and also entrusted with various other duties which had previously been carried out by justices of the peace, chiefly in respect of pounds and offences concerning animals. In the course of time the councils were invested with extensive powers which were consolidated in Act 40 of 1889. In accordance with this Act, they were held responsible for the building and maintenance of roads, control of pounds, the eradication of weeds and the extermination of vermin, the protection of national health and the curbing of nuisances.

The formative years had passed and divisional councils were firmly established. The first reason for the establishment of divisional councils in the Cape was therefore one based on tradition, carried over from older and well-developed countries where the system in its various forms had been tested through experience for centuries and applied in the Cape Province. It worked well. It became customary in the Republic of South Africa for important legislation to be preceded by governmental, provincial and other commissions of inquiry. The most important of these as far as local government was concerned was perhaps the Borckenhagen Commission, whose report on divisional councils was published in 1967.

This commission’s recommendation was strongly in favour of the retention of divisional councils and it recommended the extension of the system to the other three provinces. In 1977 the Executive Committee of the Cape Provincial Administration decided that an informal committee should be appointed to inquire into the functions of local authorities with particular reference to the rationalisation of divisional councils by combination or rearrangement of divisional council areas and the desirability of combining divisional councils and municipalities.

A commission was constituted by the Administrator of the Cape Province under the chairmanship of Mr Ockert Saayman, MEC, which was known as the Saayman Committee. The direct consequence of the recommendations of this committee was the redefinition of divisional council boundaries within the Cape Province so that the number of divisional councils was reduced from 84 to 38. In terms of a provincial notice of 18 July 1979, councils with distinctive names like Wynland, Matroosberg, Witzenberg, Upper Karoo, Central Karoo, Winterhoek, Midland, Koup, etc originated.

Matroosberg for instance was a combination of the divisional councils of Worcester and Laingsburg with a total service area of more than 13 000 square kilometres. Drakensberg, with Barclay East as its seat, was an amalgamation of no fewer than six divisions. I have already referred to the Borckenhagen Commission’s recommendation that the system of divisional councils be extended to the other three provinces. It subsequently appeared to be impracticable, although certain elements of the divisional council system are present.

An entirely new dispensation in rural local government was given substance by the Regional Services Council Act, Act 109 of 1985. This Act was recently amended again to provide for the introduction of rural councils through which rural areas would obtain representation on RSCs. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I also have to make a contribution with regard to the historical importance of this particular Chamber. I wish to place on record that, prior and up to 1948, there were 150 000 Coloureds on the voters’ roll. We held sway over 11 constituencies and it was in this very Chamber that we became the disenfranchised. We therefore attach much value to the historical importance of this particular Chamber.

It is not a question of being critical as we are sometimes perceived to be. I read through the history of the NP.

*They were real fire-brands—if I may use the word—and they fought hard when they were the opposition.

I now want to proceed and deal with Vote 4, Roads and Traffic Administration. As far as this Vote is concerned, I want to congratulate the hon the Administrator on the fact that another traffic centre will soon be built where traffic policemen can be trained and where employment opportunities will be created. I also want to thank the hon the Administrator for having increased the salaries of his traffic personnel considerably since 1985. We greatly appreciate the way in which he dealt with the matter. For the record I also want to say that the hon member for Wellington and I held a joint meeting when we tackled the matter together.

Previously the traffic police all wanted to leave the province. There was a stage when there were only 11 or 15 patrolmen because the provincial administration could not get people. Afterwards the hon the Administrator looked into the matter and today there are traffic policemen queueing at the provincial administration to be appointed. We greatly appreciate that—carry on in this way.

Could the example set by the hon the Administrator in that field not filter through to the other local authorities? I remember when the minimum salary, before 1970, when job reservation still triumphed, was specified in the ordinance—according to age etc. Hon members of the Executive Committee can correct me if I am wrong, but I think I am right.

Could that minimum salary specification not be re-introduced as was the case before 1970, in terms of the ordinance, namely to make salaries the same throughout? This is after all a very important task, because it involves people’s security and property and plays a very important role in daily life. When we started with it, the provision was removed from the ordinance. Could it not be re-introduced?

Would the hon the Administrator not find it very frustrating now to apply the laws after the Department of Transport has drafted them? Will it not be frustrating when amendments have to be made? Will it not become more cumbersome? Previously the hon the Administrator could issue a proclamation or make an amendment far more easily. In terms of the present legislation it has to be done by the SATS. That is why I ask whether it is not possible to do this.

While studying the Vote, certain questions came to mind which I should like to put here. I want to ask whether the hon the Administrator could not possibly supply us with the accident statistics of the Cape. Could he possibly tell us how many test centres there are? What is the amount which these centres brought in? Could he tell us how many persons have been charged with contraventions such as drunken driving? How many licences were withdrawn? Could he perhaps also tell us how many people, who were charged with drunken driving, reapplied to have their licences returned to them? That is just touching the surface.

†I notice in this beautiful blue book that has been given to us—from which one get a better insight into the workings of the province—that the hon the Administrator also administers the Shops and Offices Ordinance, and I would like to know how many people have been found guilty under this particular ordinance for shop offences or any other irregularities. I would also like to know the amount that has been collected with regard to dog licence taxes and how many of these animals have been removed or put to sleep, because I know this is becoming quite a headache.

I also notice there is a pound ordinance. Is it possible for the hon the Administrator to tell us how many animals have been impounded, because on Saturday evening I nearly had an accident when a stray horse ran across the road. I feel that this issue, especially as far as the Cape Flats area is concerned, should definitely receive the hon the Administrator’s attention.

Mr Chairman, I should like to devote my speech to an industry which is growing at a phenomenal rate and is rapidly starting to play a very important role in the economy of our country, namely the boat industry.

It is calculated that there are approximately 20 (MM) ski-boats in South Africa. At a minimum value of R50 000 each, this means an investment of approximately R1 billion. To this must be added fishing equipment, four-wheel drive vehicles, life-jackets, camping equipment, holiday homes and the benefit which the hotel industry derives from this. It is also calculated that there are approximately 3 000 ocean-going yachts in South Africa, while a further 2 000 are used inland on lakes, dams and rivers. At a minimum value of R100 000 each, this means an investment of approximately R500 million. It is also estimated that there are between 5 000 and 6 000 dinghies in South Africa. And then I am not even talking about ordinary motor-boats.

It is clear that the total investment in respect of boats is virtually R2 billion. South Africa with its coastline of more than 2 000 km has a tremendous need for marinas, harbours for small boats and harbours of refuge. The building of marinas and harbours for small boats is the responsibility of the private sector. Harbours of refuge are the responsibility of the State.

In the USA the minimum distance along the coastline for a harbour of refuge is 50 km. I understand the norm in South Africa is approximately 80 km. As regards our coast, Struisbaai between Cape Town and Mossel Bay has been identified as a harbour of refuge. Apart from that a site at Plettenberg Bay, between Mossel Bay and Port Elizabeth, has been identified, and Port Alfred, between Port Elizabeth and East London, has been identified. Between East London and Durban, Port St Johns was selected and a site must still be identified on the Natal/Transkei border.

If we can build these six harbours of refuge we will at least be able to meet 50% of the needs. The Port Alfred harbour was already planned and half completed more than 100 years ago. In 1880 the Settlers channelled the Kowie River, lined the banks with stones—which are still there today—and built the abutment into the sea. If this had to be done today it would cost at least R3 million. To lengthen the present western breakwater by 200 m would cost approximately R2 million. This would make this harbour approximately 75% safe.

If a breakwater approximately 300 m in length were to be built on the eastern side this would become a 100% harbour of refuge. The estimated cost of building this breakwater is between R4 million and R5 million. We can build a safe harbour here for between R6 million and R7 million.

Before Port Elizabeth harbour was built Port Alfred harbour was used to supply goods for Grahamstown. The harbour was planned before the Second World War, and if the Second World War had not intervened, this harbour would apparently have been built. I should therefore like to appeal to the Provincial Administration to take the lead so that we can finish this work which the Settlers started 120 years ago.

I should also like to thank the Provincial Administration for the allocation of funds to build a scale model at the University of Stellenbosch, as well as for the research into the viability of a harbour of refuge at Port Alfred. In this connection there are two people I should like to single out for their dedication and their interest. They are the MEC, Mr Samuels, and Mr Anton Falk of the Works Department of the Provincial Administration.

The economy of the rural areas is dependent on our road infrastructure. The coastal area between Port Elizabeth and East London is undergoing a metamorphosis owing to the development which is taking place there. A stretch of tarred road in Ciskei between Lilyvale and Loverstwist is breaking up. Furthermore this area is delineated by two passes which are very dangerous. I think the hon member for Border also referred to the condition of this road in his speech yesterday.

There are two components of agriculture which make use of this road. First there is the pineapple industry which is one of the biggest industries in the magisterial districts of Bathurst and Albany. Then there is also the milk industry which makes use of that road. Milk is supplied to East London from the districts of Alexandria, Bathurst and Albany. As regards tourism, with the development taking place in this regard it is extremely important for us to liaise closely with the government of Ciskei to see whether we cannot reconstruct this road immediately. As I have said, the entire economy in that area is dependent on that road. I take pleasure in supporting this Vote.

Mr Chairman, I express my gratitude for this final opportunity to address the committee. On behalf of myself and the hon members who are here today I want to thank the Administrator for the patience he had with us and with me in particular.

We who advocate change in this country should seize every opportunity to bring it about. Churchill said: “If we have an argument about the present or the past, we may lose the future.” I think that is particularly valid in the South African situation with all its challenges. I am sure that the opportunity for discussions which has been created here, will contribute to the reform process and furthermore to bringing us together as South Africans.

Today I should like to discuss something which is very important to me, namely the promotion of sport and sports facilities. Sport plays a very important role in South African society and I believe that it was sport which led us into this new dispensation.

†I have always believed that if one can change one’s attitude then one can change the world. I think sport has changed the South African society and it has played a major part in bringing about change in South Africa. However, we are also experiencing the darkest hour in South African sport in the sense that there is an onslaught against South Africa and sport in this country. It is nothing new to read about boycotts, threats, cancellations of rugby tours, Zola Budd, etc. As hon members we should really try our best to assist South Africa in building bridges in the field of sport.

One of the main problems of sport in South Africa is the lack of facilities in the Coloured and Black communities. Even if we were allowed back into international competition, we would still have to fulfill our obligations with regard to the needs in that area.

*People who did not have a political say, were also neglected. It was not necessary to make provision for people who were not on the voters’ roll. We can now say that that is not so, yet when people do not have a say they cannot have an equal share. It simply does not work that way. One can see it in one’s own household. If the woman does not have a stake she cannot receive an equal share. That is so in all aspects of life.

I want to quote from Rapport of 20 January 1985 and specifically from the column “Brandpunt Kommentaar” by Prof Gert Scholtz. Prof Scholtz was the chairman of the committee of enquiry into sport. I quote as follows:

I want to appeal to the hon the Administrator to support us in our endeavours to establish sports facilities. I am grateful for what the hon the Administrator has done in respect of endeavours of Dr Craven to improve rugby fields. I realise that funds are not that abundant but we shall have to try to utilise funds in a more co-ordinated manner. We shall have to consider the needs of the communities that need them the most. We shall have to be careful not to continue to duplicate sports facilities, and not to duplicate the large sports stadia and school fields. I want to ask that we now throw our facilities open so that the entire community can enjoy them.

I also want to ask for better control to be exercised over subsidies for sports facilities. The hon the Administrator is aware of the negative attitude on the part of certain sports control boards. I feel that sports control boards must be brought into line with the policy, namely that sports facilities must be there for the entire community. There is not only an onslaught on sports in the international sphere; it is also on our communities. Hon members know that many of our people who would like to promote sport among the various groups are not being afforded an opportunity to do that. Besides the CPs, who do not want to play with us, there are nevertheless some of our people who would like to play against the other groups.

The CPs cannot play.

That is why I want to appeal to the hon the Administrator to consider the control of sports fields. Let us rather place sports fields under the control of the management committee or the local control body, because as far as the sports control boards are concerned, politics is the main issue.

Another important aspect is that the hon the Administrator must assist us in promoting sport. The State has now decided that it is no longer going to exercise control over sport. The Department of National Education has decided that sport is autonomous, and that it should look after itself. I am of the opinion that the Administration must also be involved in this, so that this can ensure that sport is promoted on a regional level. I see nothing wrong with the appointment of sports organisers on a regional level. If we can appoint nature conservationists on a regional level we can also appoint sports administrators on a regional level as well to look after our people.

Today the youth is exposed to a variety of evils. It is no use building clinics, at which alcoholics and drug addicts are treated. We should first of all get our own situation in order. I am not only appealing to the hon the Administrator, but to every elected and nominated member on this committee for us to make a real attempt to support integration in sport in South Africa, also in respect of the promotion of sports and the establishment of sports facilities for all the people of South Africa.

Mr Chairman, I want to share the sentiments expressed by the other hon members, namely that it is a special privilege to be part of these historic moments. I should also like to thank hon members for the positive contributions in respect of nature and environmental conservation as well as library services. I should also like to react to certain questions and problems which were put here.

†The hon member for Bishop Lavis raised a question regarding the training of nature conservation officers which should receive more attention and that a special school should be established for this purpose. I can reply categorically that all nature conservation officers are presently trained in conservation to allow them to obtain a diploma in nature conservation. The duties of these officers will not only be to enforce legal requirements, but also to deal with conservation issues. The Forestry School near George, which is a satellite campus of the Port Elizabeth Tech-nikon, will also be used for training these officials. At present this training is being offered to all population groups at the Cape Town, Johannesburg and Pretoria Technikons.

The hon member for Bishop Lavis also asked how many of the 2 695 posts in nature conservation are filled by the different population groups. I can reply that, apart from approximately 400 White staff members, the rest are all from other population groups.

*The hon member for Bishop Lavis also made a very interesting point in respect of the way in which people violated the environment and nature. He attributed it to the rapid population growth, a point which I found very interesting. I want to thank him for that. I want to put it to him that our department has four centres, where people, especially children from Std 2 to 10, are given instruction in nature conservation. We also share the hon member’s sentiment namely that he deplores the occasional violation of nature. However, I want to put it to him that here we are dealing with a present-day tendency of influx control—which was abolished a year or so ago— as well as the rapid urbanisation process which is occurring in South Africa, especially to the cities, brings tremendous pressure to bear on the environment, and of course also on our Department of Nature Conservation.

The hon member for Newton Park expressed his concern about marine pollution caused by plastic and other waste materials. In reply to this I am able to say that our province is thoroughly aware of this serious problem and we feel that it can only be addressed by means of instruction, education and possibly even international co-operation. In this regard I am able to inform hon members that the Chief Directorate: Nature and Environmental Conservation is collaborating with a private conservation organisation with a view to publishing a pamphlet and a poster to address the abovementioned problem.

The hon member for Newton Park also discussed the promotion of a game farm by the Cape Provincial Administration. The good news—if it can be considered such—is that the Chief Directorate: Nature and Environmental Conservation is at present being subjected to a critical evaluation of all functions in order to determine whether the functions as such should be retained, scaled down, expanded or privatised. That is the good news. However, it should also be borne in mind that services which are rendered to the public must be market-orientated.

Taking the above into consideration, the establishment of a game farm by the Cape Provincial Administration is not being envisaged, and especially not in terms of making it available at a cheap tariff. [Interjections.] Possibly hunters should team-up to purchase and manage a farm for this purpose.

The hon member for Caledon referred to marine control and put a question about the insufficient allocation of funds, because only 1,4% of the yield from this resource is allocated for the introduction of control measures. In reply to this, I want to say that the allocated funds will enable the province to implement the necessary control measures. However, other methods are also being considered to determine whether another source of income could not be applied to find more funds for the control function.

The hon member for Caledon also put a question concerning the filling of vacant posts among the control personnel. In reply to this I want to say that the 30 vacant posts to which the hon member for Caledon referred, are at present being filled.

As far as the question on the privatisation of patrol boats is concerned, which was also put by the hon member for Caledon, the matter is at present still being investigated to determine inter alia its feasibility. The assurance can, however, be given that privatisation will not take place if effectiveness has in any way to be sacrificed thereby.

In his speech the hon member for North-Western Cape referred to the following library matters. Firstly, he said people should be encouraged to read. Secondly libraries were situated too far from residential areas and satellite libraries therefore ought to be introduced. In reply to this I should like to tell the hon member that I share his standpoint as far as the positive value of public libraries in the community are concerned, and in particular, his remark in respect of the value of reading. My department is very actively engaged in this regard, namely arranging campaigns in the community in respect of the advantages of the library service and to make people aware of it as well as to cultivate the habit of reading.

The most recent attempt in this regard last took place when people throughout the province participated on a large scale in the National Library Week. This endeavour by the Provincial Library Services covered wide media coverage and was welcomed in all quarters.

It is the policy of the administration that the location of libraries should be such that the greatest number of users can make use of the service with ease. The introduction of branch libraries—or to the use the hon member’s terminology, satellite libraries—is enjoying a very high priority throughout.

The hon member for Bonteheuwel referred to the library at Athlone, as well as to satellite libraries. The hon member referred to the problems in respect of the library facilities in the Athlone area. From information which has been acquired from the City Librarian of Cape Town, it would appear that the main library in Athlone has a floor area of 1 300 square metres, which is truly a large floor area. Furthermore, the Athlone area is served by six other smaller libraries and according to the City Librarian it is not desirable, from a management point of view, to enlarge the main library. However, we should like to request the hon member for Athlone to make representations to the Cape Town City Council so that this matter could receive further attention.

The hon member for Mamre as well as the hon member for North-Eastern Cape and the hon member Mr Lockey also spoke about discrimination in libraries. The situation is at present the following—I want to state categorically here that I am glad that this matter has been raised. The introduction of control and management of public libraries, as well as the rendering of a service to the community, is the responsibility of the relevant local authority. The Provincial Administration does not exercise control over the registration of borrowers.

This matter was taken up on request by the Executive Committee and I want to add that last year the Executive Committee spoke out against discrimination in libraries in this Cape Province of ours. It is also on record that the Executive Committee clearly stated that all libraries should be open to all groups.

On 17 May 1988 a reply was received from the Municipal Association to whom we had sent a letter in this regard. I should like to read an extract from the letter which reads as follows:

[Interjections.] I should like to state that this letter comes from the Municipal Association.

In connection with this, I should like to mention to the three hon members that the amount of R2,5 million is going to be spent in the so-called Coloured areas since it is a reality that in these areas an historically backward situation is being experienced. Eleven so-called Coloured areas have also been identified in respect of the establishment of libraries in the 1988-89 financial year. The libraries are going to be erected in the following places: Belhar East is receiving its second library; Porterville; Kleinvlei; Wesfleur (Atlantis) is receiving its second library; Napier; Alexandra in the Eastern Cape; Barkly West; Citrusdal; Kenhardt; Sedgefield and Steinkopf.

Mr Chairman, thank you very much for this opportunity. I take great pleasure in following the hon MEC who has just resumed his seat.

At this stage I want to say a few words about the course of this debate thus far. I want to say that I never thought I would be part of a debate as historic as the one which has taken place here during the past day and a half. The tone and the nature of this debate was positive and augured very well indeed for our country. We are discussing matters with one another like this in a dignified and mature manner and I think that if we can talk to one another our country will have a very fine future.

The refrain in the debate thus far has been characterised by reasonableness and goodwill towards one another. In contrast we are experiencing how irrelevant opposition parties in our country are becoming. Sir, if you look around you, you will notice that most of the time yesterday and today there was only one member of the PFP present here.

The time when those hon members spoke on behalf of Coloureds and Indians has passed. These hon members now speak for themselves. The PFP has therefore become irrelevant in the South African political set-up. All that remains for it to do is to echo extra-parliamentary organisations and movements. The PFP has been reduced to a mouthpiece of those persons who do not have much respect for democracy. [Interjections.]

On the other hand the CP exposed their irrelevance by walking out and boycotting. Physically they made themselves a part of the past. The CP has deprived itself of its share of the future. They have proved that they were a part of the past, that they were a part of South Africa’s political set-up until yesterday, but by walking out and boycotting they proved that they did not want to be a part of the reality of South African politics in future. The CP is underestimating the fact that they will have to hold debates with other population groups in this country and that they will also have to hold joint discussions and take joint decisions. The CP is denying the reality that they will also have to sit together in a chamber, that there will be a chairman and that there will be rules for that joint sitting. The CP is deliberately misleading the White voters of the country regarding the realities of our politics.

What we are now seeing here is that the future of our country will be determined by moderates. Those who have remained in this Chamber after other parties have shown contempt for this gathering or have walked out are the moderates who are involved in Parliamentary activities in this country.

Recently an elderly White voter said to me that we were moving too quickly and that we were on the edge of a precipice. My reply to him was: Yes, we are on the edge of a precipice, but a bridge must be built over that precipice because we must all cross it together; South Africans of all race groups and skin colours. In the past it was the Whites who designed and invented that bridge and the bridge was then built with the manual labour of people of colour. Now we have entered an era where other people are also helping to design that bridge. That is all I have to say about the political set-up.

I now want to address myself briefly to the hon the Administrator with regard to a problem in my constituency. The hon the Administrator is already aware of this, because I contacted him and I am merely mentioning this here for the record. It is concerned with the franchise for the aged in old-age homes. The hon the Administrator knows that there are many aged living in old-age homes in my constituency, particularly in the Strand. These people were effectively disenfranchised by Provincial Ordinance No 20 of 1974. In the past the problem was not so serious, but it has started to assume serious proportions with the advent of the so-called economic old age homes. In 1981 I approached the then MEC entrusted with local government regarding this matter. My successor in the provincial council, Mr Dreyer, made a speech in this regard on 21 May 1984.

I am referring to the Afrikaans text of the Hansard of the Provincial Council of that date, col 1377, where he said:

He then went on to say:

I have also addressed representations since that date, as recently as February of this year, and I know that the hon the Administrator has given attention to those representations. Therefore all I am asking today is that the hon the Administrator give an indication whether my voters will be able to vote on 26 October and what steps the province is considering to make it possible for them to do so.

Mr Chairman, before making a short contribution regarding the proceedings here, and specifically by way of explanation or elucidation of certain questions which were put, I want to associate myself with the sentiment that has been expressed, namely that the present proceedings in this Chamber should be considered historical. I am thoroughly aware of the fact that each and everyone is writing a small page in the history of a rapidly changing environment with his or her contribution, be it political, social, cultural, technological, economic or whatever field whatever in which not only the progress of some but in fact the progress of everyone is the goal not only of some but of all our fellow countrymen living in the Cape.

Mr Chairman, another fellow countryman recently returned from the USA to South Africa. In an excited manner he told a crowd of people, among whom I happened to be present, that he had had the privilege of introducing himself to an American, a certain Norman Vincent Peale. Hon members will realise that such an opportunity was an absolute honour because Norman Vincent Peale is a contemporary of ours. It is a further honour for us to be able to live in the days of such a philosopher.

†The South African briefly explained who he was and from where he came, and then asked Norman Vincent Peale the following question: “What message do you have for South Africans?” According to the narrator, Norman Vincent Peale, now an old man of 80 years, said something like this: “Yes, I have a message for South Africans. Ask them why they have stopped dreaming. Ask them where their dreams have gone. Tell them never to stop dreaming.”

*His message was that South Africans must never stop dreaming. Every possible interpretation could of course be given to this story, but I am of the opinion that what the philosopher was trying to say—in no more than two or three sentences— was that all South Africans must always strive for the ideals of justice, peace and goodwill.

I am now confining myself to certain questions which were put, questions which relate directly or marginally to functions with which I and my subcommittee are entrusted on provincial government level.

†The hon member for King William’s Town referred to the privatisation of under-utilised buildings to provide funds for essential services. In terms of Treasury instructions income derived from the sale of capital assets must be paid into the Revenue Fund. Application may, however, be made to the Treasury for such funds to be earmarked for specifically approved capital projects which enjoy a high priority and for which funds would not ordinarily have been available. The Administration is at present reviewing its accommodation needs but it is doubtful whether there are many under-utilised buildings which could be sold and the sale of which would provide significant sources of income to meet essential services.

*The hon member for Walvis Bay asked how much progress had been made with the appropriation of the R5 million which had been provided for harbour development. The reply to that is that a private firm has been appointed to determine the correct location of the beacons. Afterwards a contract will be entered into for the dredging of the entrance to and the fairway of the fishing harbour, the navigable channel and a limited area between the landing-stages up to a depth of minus 6,5 meters. It is intended to establish a sufficient number of cradles for the restoration of boat hulls. This work will be completed within the course of the present financial year.

The hon member for Bishop Lavis asked several questions about statistics in regard to traffic. It will unfortunately take a while to prepare the statistics on traffic control as requested by the hon member and they will be made available as soon as they are ready.

†I want to reply to the question raised by the hon member for Albany. The responsibility for the development of small boat and fishing harbours in the Cape Province rests with the Chief Director of Works of the Cape Provincial Administration. Previously the only harbours which were constructed and financed by the State, other than commercial harbours, were fishing harbours. The need for fishing harbours has to a large extent now dissipated and the provision of multipurpose harbours is the philosophy which is currently accepted.

The provision of small boat harbours of refuge at strategic points along the coast is considered to be most important from both the national and international point of view. Due to the demand for facilities for reclamation and related industries such as boat building, the State has embarked upon a policy of replanning existing commercial and fishing harbours where there is scope for commercial and recreational usage.

The fishing harbours currently under investigation are Hout Bay, Gordon’s Bay and Kalk Bay. It is envisaged that the private sector will play the dominant role in the proposed redevelopment.

*As a result of insufficient capital funds only a small number of schemes are at present being embarked upon. In the present financial year only R2,555 million has been allocated for inter alia a landing-stage for the benefit of the fishing industry at Port Elizabeth, limited development in the harbour of Struisbaai which has just been proclaimed, which consists of a short breakwater, and a quay, reclamation and deepening, as well as a harbour office for Mossel Bay.

The allocation of revenue funds is not simply determined arbitrarily at the head office of the Chief Directorate Works, but is based and calculated on the so-called points system. All priority determinations are, however, subsequently controlled by a panel of experts at head office.

This policy seems to be successful, but notwithstanding that a heavy backlog has inevitably built up in general maintenance. Ideally speaking buildings should be fully renovated every five to six years. A recent survey showed that over and above the schemes which have been identified during the present book year as being essential services for implementation, there is a lot of similar work which cannot be implemented.

As far as a question is concerned which was put by the hon member Mr Lockey, I have been requested by my hon colleague, Mr Van Wyk, MEC, to give a reply to it.

†At a recent traffic signs seminar Mr Cubey of Leeuw Cather and Partners, civil engineers, consultants to the Department of Transport, stated that a renewed system of warrants for traffic signalisation would possibly save the transport industry approximately R100 000 million per year in terms of fuel, production costs etc. The seminar also had a completely fresh look at up-dating traffic signs, route markings etc.

*I am also aware of the fact that a need exists for a mechanised system at the No 12 main artery of the so-called Stellenbosch main artery and at the entrance to Symphony Street in Belhar. I have been asked by my hon colleague Mr Van Wyk, MEC, to deal with this matter and I am aware of the fact that the committee discussed this matter during its recent budget meeting. The matter can be solved, provided the Western Cape Regional Services Council is approached.

Mr Chairman, I want to take this opportunity to thank the hon members of the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates, as well as other hon members, but particularly the hon members of the House of Representatives, for the way in which the debate has been conducted up to this stage. The standard of debate was very high and I feel we can be proud of ourselves. I think our electorate will also be proud of us in this regard.

*I read a report in this morning’s newspapers that the CP considers the allocation of debating time to be a “deursigtige poging om KP-kiesers hul regte in die debatte te ontneem ten gunste van Bruinmense en Indiërs”. [Interjections.]

†Mr Chairman, I should like to tell the hon members of the CP …

Then you will have to speak Afrikaans!

Order! I do not get the impression that the hon member for Haarlem needs any encouragement. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I want to tell the hon members of the CP that if they read the history of the old CRC and the situation up to the present time they will find out that the illegitimate children of White people were given to us because at that particular time the law forbade sexual intercourse between Whites and people of another colour in order to protect the White man. As a consequence—and they are at liberty to check these facts—there are a large number of White people around who should not be classified as such. When one looks at the statistics in the Department of Home Affairs one will find that plus/minus 1 000 people have been classified as White in South Africa who should not have been so classified. Why then do we talk about the question of the purity of race? We must forget all about it. I want immediately to refer to the dream mentioned by the MEC. The MEC said that it is good to dream, and that is what our leader always says. However, I think the dream of the hon members of the CP is far-fetched. The idea of partitioning is just a wild dream, and I want to tell them that if ever they come to power they will never be able to realise that dream.

*I leave the hon member of the CP at that. Let them continue to wander in the political desert.

†Mr Chairman, I should like to deal briefly with certain matters that have been raised. As far as what the MEC said about Kareedouw is concerned, I understand their problem as far as the question of finance is concerned. I have an understanding for their situation but I do want to say that when it comes to us, there always seem to be money problems. We have been living with this situation for hundreds of years and I want to ask him please to make a special effort to see to it that those houses are built for the people in Kareedouw, because they are also rendering a service to the public.

They are always broke.

They are always broke when it comes to our problems.

†The next point I wish to raise is in regard to the question of ambulance services once again. I was not given a reply in this regard yesterday. I said yesterday that the hon the Administrator or the MEC in charge should investigate the question of equal opportunities in Port Elizabeth as far as ambulance services are concerned, as well as the question of why there are no Black people in so-called executive positions. I also said that if they could not do the job properly, the province should take over the job themselves.

In passing, I want to mention to the MEC in charge of libraries that 43% of libraries are not open and 57% are open. We have strongly recommended the withdrawal of the subsidy.

*That is the only way to convince the people. The money should be taken away, and the people should not receive any subsidies.

†We have said over and over again in the committee that there is no way this type of exercise can be justified. If we refer to reference libraries, what are we talking about? A reference library is difficult to replace, and one cannot duplicate that type of thing. I am serious in asking the hon Administrator and the responsible MEC to consider my suggestion.

I want to refer briefly to local government, because there we are dealing with the lives of millions of people, irrespective of their colour. People buy in the central business districts, and those businessmen pay rates to their local authorities. That is not White money, because money is neither White nor Black; money is money. We have seen this, and it is important that those people be given a say. Now we have problems with the abolition of divisional councils or development bodies. I want to suggest an alternative to this today, in this, the 40th year of NP rule.

Are you with the Nationalists?

I will consider that. [Interjections.]

At present we have divisional councils operating on a racial basis. I want to say that we must give these divisional councils the status of regional services councils.

*Hon members should listen carefully to what I am saying this morning.

†We should convert them and then, in practice, they will be nonracial bodies. Then they will still have the power to levy rates. My own constituency is an example of the fact that where one has divisional councils, one cannot get a service because the divisional councils are very poor. They cannot buy machinery etc in order to do a proper job. It is done on an agency basis.

As the Government of the day has problems in abolishing these bodies, I am seriously appealing for them to be made nonracial. It would be as easy as that to solve the problem.

The hon member for Bonteheuwel talked about management committees. Over the years we have said we want direct representation. We have said this over and over again. We are all aware of this, but we cannot get going. If one looks at the regulations regarding management committees, one sees that they can only advise—advise about what?—and the local authority takes the final decision. This is an area of conflict. [Interjections.] Personnel are qualified and disqualified. I do not want to deal with this at length, because it is an everyday problem. Management committees are a point of conflict, and we want to remove the conflict. I do not feel that there is any need to motivate this further today.

*It has already been ridden to death. It is covered with dust.

†People have become tired of reading about this, but it is important. If we want to remove conflict, let us try subtly to do away with management committees. [Interjections.] Let us give people on the management committees indirect representation, if that is the way it has to be, and let them have voting powers.

In the final analysis, whether the NP believe it or not, they are going to be swamped by their opposition. If one looks at the election results, one can see this happening. They beat the NP every time. [Interjections.] I have to tell hon members of the NP that in defence of themselves, and so that they can be self-supportive, they had better bring Blacks into local authorities and forget about separateness. It is a fact that the CP wins every seat. What alternative do the NP have? [Interjections.]

Have you counted us yet? [Interjections.]

No, I have not counted them.

†I will count them in 1990, not now. [Interjections.] This is important. The NP do not look at the alternatives which are available. It is true that they have an investment.

Now is the time one can invest in people who are not White so that they can support one in the effort to bring about real reform. That is preferable to being saddled with the problem of what to do and how to do it. It is an awesome choice but also an easy one. [Interjections.] Really, it is an easy choice. You see, Sir, we are going to have a non-racial government in South Africa in the future, irrespective of how we go about governing now. We can plug the holes at this particular stage, but for how long can we go on plugging them? Are we serious about the future of grandchildren? Are we really serious about that? If we are, we have to change; and now is the time to do so. We shall have this opportunity only this once; it will not come again.

Hon members have been talking about violence. How much violence is administered at local government level, however? I want to come back to my old argument. The hon member for Parow will know what I am talking about. He is a former MEC and I gave him such a hard time that he came to Parliament. [Interjections.]

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

What a bad time for my time to have expired, Sir!

Mr Chairman, and hon members of the House, I must say that I was very impressed and also deeply touched by the remarks hon members made about me yesterday. I almost felt as if I was being pushed unwillingly onto a Grecian stage where I had to provide some kind of entertainment by way of proving certain theories or certain ideologies, or simply by way of satisfying the curiosity of men who know what will happen when the humble man is brought face to face with a historical moment. Nonetheless, I must say that I thank hon members for what they did, because I had begun to conjure up beautiful pictures of my childhood, my participation in my family, my upbringing, and the contribution which I think my humble parents have made to the history of this country.

Hear, hear!

There is something I should like to say to those Black people out there who perhaps do not know what is going on. I want to say something to those Black parents whose families have been assaulted and mistreated by forms of violence that we thought would never be possible in this country. It was a time when the families, especially the Black families, were robbed of their integrity, their authority, their purity and their sanctity by the furors of the moment. I want to say to those Black parents that their parenthood was not in vain and will never be in vain in the history of this country.

I am a great believer in the family and I believe that one of the thrusts we ought to take up with a will is the thrust of deciding in this country to respect the family, because the family is the thing that each of us will recall as the best beginning and the best influence in the smallness or greatness of our lives. This throws me straight into the middle of my subject, which is the rendering of welfare services to the Blacks in the Cape Province.

The rendering of welfare services to Black communities is one of the functions that has devolved upon the Provincial Administration. It is a function that is not only vital but is also very vulnerable. It is a function where a lot of criticism can be levelled at the powers that be. These services include the upliftment and the development of the Black people as a whole. This process begins at the toddler stage and continues into old age and it filters through to the larger communities of the province. Many of these services are the result of statutory obligations. They have to be performed according to statutory prescriptions and have to be performed by people who are qualified and trained and who are career-orientated. They also have to be carried out by an administrative infrastructure that is geared towards handling this complex process.

If these services were to be terminated or neglected a dissatisfied and a disturbed Black population and a disturbed and dissatisfied South African population in general would result. Naturally this would be because the Black population is the largest and the most backward.

Approximately 8,2% of the country’s Black population live in the Cape Province. As a result of the rapid population growth and increasing urbanisation of Black people the demand for the services rendered by the Cape Provincial Administration Community Services Branch is expected to increase by 10% during the next financial year. It is therefore apparent that much pressure will be brought to bear on the Government at present to provide for the backlog in welfare services and facilities for Blacks in particular. There are therefore deficiencies in the rendering of welfare services and this should urgently be addressed. On this occasion I wish specifically to highlight the problem of manpower.

The sections that are responsible for the rendering of welfare services to Blacks in the regional offices resulted from a merger of personnel of the previous development boards and personnel who were transferred from the social services component of the Department of Development Planning. At present there are 6 623 registered social workers in the RSA of whom 1 052 are Black. Already one can see that the ratio is not too good. This includes the number of registered social workers employed by the independent states.

I want to take this opportunity to thank the White social workers who have been the mainstay with regard to the welfare work done among the Black population. I also want to take the opportunity to make the appeal to our universities and our communities in general that social welfare work is not something to talk about to the Press nor is it something to laugh about in speeches. It is a problem that needs instant and careful scientific solutions. I am appealing to our institutions of knowledge to produce more social workers for us as there is a great need for them. At head-office, for instance, we have nine authorised posts, of which four have been filled by Whites, one by a Black, one by an Asian and three posts are vacant.

In the Western Cape there are 41 authorised posts, of which 17 have been filled by Whites, 14 by Blacks and none by Asians. Ten posts are vacant. In the Eastern Cape there are 36 authorised posts, of which nine have been filled by Whites, 24 by Blacks, none by Asians; three posts are vacant. In the Northern Cape, where the position is absolutely critical, we have 25 authorised posts, of which six have been filled by Whites. I am not even sure though whether they are still in our employ today. Three posts have been filled by Blacks, none by Asians, and 16 posts remain vacant.

It is paradoxical, in these times when there is so much talk about unemployment—and reform— that the Province is experiencing a severe shortage of qualified and dedicated social workers. The total Black population being served is as follows: Western Cape, 572 555; Eastern Cape, 897 884; and Northern Cape, 186 108. These are very conservative figures for the year 1987.

The Norms Committee recommended that the following norms should apply in respect of all the race groups as far as the provision of social workers are concerned: There should be three social workers for every 20 000 persons in the population, two of whom are appointed by the State and one by a private welfare organization. Judged by this norm, the following number of social workers are required in the Cape Province: In the case of the State, 166; and, in the case of private welfare organizations, 83. The total is 249. With regard to the shortage of posts, it was established scientifically that the position is as follows: The State, 55; and private welfare organizations, 29. This gives one a total of 84.

I would like to give hon members a few more statistics to indicate what the scope of our work is and what the responsibilities of our legislators are going to be. Firstly, as far as places of safety are concerned, we have two facilities for Whites, where there are 112 people; four facilities for the Coloured population, serving 405 people; and two facilities for Blacks, serving 100 people. There are, however, 238 Black people who are in need of this kind of service.

As regards industrial schools, which play a very important role in youth development, there are six facilities for Whites, five for Coloureds and none for Blacks. Then there are two reform schools for the White population, three for the Coloured population and none for the Blacks. [Interjections.] There are 25 children’s homes for Whites, 22 for Coloureds and none for Blacks. When one comes to old-age homes, there are 184 for the Whites, 31 for Coloureds and only one for the Blacks.

I come now to cripple-care work. There are no figures here for Whites. There are eight facilities for the Coloured communities, however, and only one for the Blacks.

Statistics concerning the care for epileptics show that there are seven facilities for Whites, two for Coloureds and two for Blacks; there are three facilities for the care of mental health of Coloureds and three for Blacks; and for the care for the blind there are two facilities for Coloureds and two for Blacks. As far as rehabilitation centres for alcoholics and drug dependants are concerned, there are two facilities for Whites, two for Coloureds and none for the Blacks. There are 822 or more White registered creches, 184 registered Coloured créches and none for the Blacks in the Cape Province.

I should like to point out here, however, that welfare work, as it name suggests, depends upon the goodwill and the will of the people to make it work. It depends upon the goodwill of the communities, and it is not the entire and sole responsibility of the Province or of the Government, and therefore, I must say here again that Blacks are not fully evolved in participation as far as the rendering of social services is concerned. This simply means that they will need a lot of training, assistance and encouragement.

These welfare services cannot be provided without subsidies. Another problem that we face in rendering these services lies in the inequalities of the relative subsidies. For old-age homes the amount paid per person per month for a White is R173,60; for Coloureds in the A-category it is R205,65, and for Blacks it is R60,00 per person per month. For children’s homes it is R363,94 per White child per month; for the Coloured group it is R340,96 per child per month; and for the Blacks it varies between R95,00 and R174,00 per child per month. For creches the subsidy is in the region of R1,10 per child per day for the White group; for the Coloured group it is 80 cents per child per day, and there are unfortunately no figures for the Black creches.

In the case of service centres for the aged, the subsidy for the Whites is R447 per person per annum; for the Coloureds it is exactly the same; and for the Blacks it is R200 per person per annum. It is therefore clear to hon members in this House, I am sure, how big the challenge is that lies before us. We should like to appeal at this stage to all three Houses of Parliament to support us in normalising the subsidy structures as well as the welfare services in this country.

It must be borne in mind, however, that much of this work is goodwill work. Unless the people of South Africa have the goodwill towards their own and others, no welfare scheme and no subsidy will provide sufficient assistance.

I should like to come to local Black government. In this field much progress has been made. We lay a great deal of stress on the concept of local government, because we believe that local government is the very dynamics and the very essence of any form of government.

We also believe that when one looks at Africa, one will find that, in spite of the fact that most African states—except ourselves—have received their independence and have the capacity and ability to perform in an economically acceptable fashion, they are limited in that they did not concentrate on local government. This country is economically, politically and socially based on the capabilities of local government forms of municipalities. It is the municipalities in this country which have built South Africa into what it is today.

We therefore believe that if Blacks and other people were to be drawn into the expertise of the building, administration and running of local government sectors, that alone would be a considerable amount of training in the right direction and where it is most needed. However, I am not pleading for separatism unto eternity. I believe that when people see that partners are ready, they will not fail to take up a partnership that is blooming.

The administration of Black local authorities was taken over by the Cape Provincial Administration on 1 October 1986. Eighty six local authorities were taken over, of which 30 were not functioning properly as a result of the assaults on Black local authorities by radicals, the UDF, ANC and sometimes even the South African Council of Churches.

To ensure proper control and administration, administrators were appointed at 23 local authorities. At some of these, the administrators were later replaced by appointed or elected board members. To establish communication with local residents, informal advisors, nominated by the residents, were in certain instances appointed to assist with the management of the local authorities. There are in toto 99 established local authorities of which 17 are situated in the Western Cape region, 24 in the Northern Cape region and 50 in the Eastern Cape region.

We are making tremendous progress in the development of local government. I think it is logical that we should invest money and expertise into this, because local government forms are important for development. I will end by saying that as far as Crossroads is concerned, it has not been developed because of the problems we have picked up there. The inhabitants refused to move out of the area. We could therefore not move in the bulldozers. They only agreed to move a few months ago, and that is why we were not able to save them from another winter in the shacks.

I sometimes wonder why there is so much ill feeling and dispute in South Africa when everybody in this country is talking and dreaming about reform. We South Africans will have to solve our problems ourselves. We must not regard our problems as insoluble problems of the past. If we, like the people of Hamelin, want to hire a Pied Piper from outside to solve our problems, we may find it rather difficult to pay him and we, too, may lose our children.

Mr Chairman, right at the outset I want to express my thanks for the way in which we have conducted on this debate thus far. It has really been an experience for me. As we are now nearing the end of this debate please allow me to say one thing. I want to ascribe the success of this debate to the very important foundation which the Standing Committee on Provincial Affairs laid in this regard. I thank all the members of that standing committee very much for their contributions.

Mr Chairman, unfortunately I cannot let the behaviour of the CP pass without comment. It was behaviour which I cannot describe in any other way but a melodramatic spectacle. They followed up yesterday’s spectacle with a continuation of this melodrama today. I gained the impression that the hon members of the CP were afraid to hold a debate. [Interjections.] I also gained the impression that these people were afraid that we would succeed in our objectives. [Interjections.] I also gained the impression that these people were afraid …

Order! When the hon member for Parow refers to hon members of the CP he must not refer to them as “people” but as hon members. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I shall refer to them as hon members. I have mixed feelings as regards their behaviour. On the one hand I was rather glad when they left the Chamber during their boycott action, because this afforded us the opportunity to establish a debating procedure in an atmosphere of goodwill. On the other hand I was sorry that they had walked out because I would have liked the hon members of the other Houses to have seen what we have to put up with in the House of Assembly.

Be that as it may, they returned here today for a short while to participate in what they described as a macabre death dance. [Interjections.] Apparently things got too hot for them because they left again. I want to place on record that this debate is not a macabre death dance for those of us on this side of the House, but a joyous festival because it is another step on the road to fair constitutional development.

The hon member for Soutpansberg made a big fuss about the cost of this sitting. He alleged that it would cost R100 000 or more. Earlier reports had it that the CP estimated the cost of this meeting at between R1 million and R2 million. They have now reduced the original estimate by between 90% and 95%. This is of course how we have got to know the CP. Every time they make a calculation it is a mere coincidence if they get the right answer. [Interjections.]

We must remember that the CP fought the abolition of the provincial councils tooth and nail. If I remember correctly they moved that the relevant Bill be read a second time six months hence. They are still of the opinion that the system of provincial councils should be reintroduced. If we take into consideration that there were approximately 180 MPCs, whose salaries totalled more than R3 million per annum—excluding motor car allowances, accommodation costs for approximately six weeks, pensions and so on—it is rather like the pot calling the kettle black when they say that we are wasting money. After all, those expenses are no longer being incurred.

The hon member for Soutpansberg told us the parliamentary programme was being brought to a halt while hon members met in the provincial capitals. I do not know where the hon member was. This sounds to me like a statement by a Rip van Winkel. After all, the provincial estimates form part of the parliamentary programme. Surely they are an inherent part of the parliamentary programme. We are, in fact, expanding this to make more time available so that these estimates of the provinces can be debated properly.

Both the CP and the PFP tried to score political points regarding the times which had been allocated to them in this debate. However, let us take a look at what happened in last year’s debate. Prior to the election there were two hon members of the PFP in the relevant standing committee. After the election there was only one. In the debate in the House of Assembly on this matter neither of those two hon members, or any other hon member of the PFP, gave any attention whatsoever to the provincial budget in a speech. Hon members can consult Hansard for themselves. The same applies to the CP. Not one of their speakers referred to the Cape provincial budget at all. There was no reference to it at all! With all due respect, if I must refer to the attendance of the PFP during these two days of debating their demand for more time is totally invalid. Except for the first half hour there has never been more than two of them present here simultaneously.

The PFP says we want to gag them. That is not true. In last year’s debate they gagged themselves. I can understand that the CP, which has adopted the same course, has absolutely no interest in this provincial budget because they do not have a single seat in the Cape. Why should they have any interest in activities in the Cape?

The hon member for Soutpansberg tried to argue that they should have been given more time, based on the number of votes they got in the previous election. How interesting! How short our memories can be! When the CP broke away from the NP after the 1981 general election they did not resign from their seats. They therefore did not represent anyone in this Parliament. Then they demanded time on the strength of the number of seats they had. However, now that it suits them the number of votes is being used. In any case we do not have a system of proportional representation.

The hon member for Soutpansberg complained about the time allocated to the House of Delegates. Three hon members of the House of Delegates represent Cape constituencies. The CP does not have a single seat in the Cape. In Natal 29 seats are represented in the House of Delegates. The CP does not have a single seat in Natal. In the Free State the total is 0:0. Neither the CP nor the House of Delegates represent a Free State seat. However, the difference lies in the fact that the CP participated in an election in the Free State and did not win a single seat, whereas the Indians did not participate in an election there for the House of Delegates.

Mr Chairman, at the beginning of this year parties had to indicate how much time they would need for this debate. The CP only asked for 15 minutes to discuss the Cape provincial estimates. They got 40 minutes. They only asked for 15 minutes to discuss of the Natal provincial estimates. They got 40 minutes. For the discussion of the Free State provincial estimates they only requested 15 minutes, and got 30 minutes. They only requested 20 minutes to discuss the Transvaal provincial estimates and got 40 minutes. For a total debate on provincial estimates totalling more than R8 billion, the CP only requested 65 minutes, while the PFP only requested 45 minutes.

That is a totally dishonest argument!

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central says “that is a totally dishonest argument”. I object to him saying such a thing.

Order! The hon member for Parow may proceed.

Mr Chairman, this political opportunism of both the PFP and the CP is a short-term story. It will not get them anywhere.

†They can fool some of the people some of the time, but they cannot fool all the people all the time.

Mr Chairman, during the debate quite a few speakers referred to beach development. I am not going to indicate each one separately.

If we were to strip this debate of political cliches, simplistic solutions, emotions claims and political opportunism, the basic need which remains to be tackled is the provision of sufficient facilities of an acceptable standard for all our people. We have consensus on that. A beach without the necessary ablutions, the necessary shelters, safe bathing facilities, sufficient eating places and protective measures against erosion and so on is nothing but a wilderness area.

Annually the number of our population whose income mobility and recreation time permit them to have a holiday at the sea or in another way make use of our beach facilities is increasing at a tremendous rate. We not only have to make provision for the increasing needs of the Cape population but also for the increasing needs of the inhabitants of other provinces. No one in this House is advocating the over-utilisation of beach facilities; nor the accompanying misbehaviour, anti-social conduct and possible friction which accompanies that. When we go to the beach, not one of us want to be confronted by the chaos which accompanies over-utilisation. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, this is not an illusion. These are things that do in fact happen. In order to give proof of this I can put it as follows. If the Executive Committee had not established Monwanbizi, the 500 000 Blacks who used Monwanbizi during the December holiday would then have made use of other beaches. Which beaches would they then have had to use?

The Cape Executive Committee observed this need long ago and reflected on it. The Cape’s first observation was that it was not in the national interests to try and accommodate the increasing demand by randomly throwing open beaches. [Interjections.]

Order! No, I cannot allow the hon member of the Executive Committee to be shouted down. For two days now hon members have had the opportunity to put their standpoint. The hon member of the Executive Committee is replying now, and I expect hon members to show him the necessary courtesy.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I noticed that you called the member of the Executive Committee an hon member. As you are aware, Sir, members of Parliament who are elected, and Cabinet Ministers who are appointed from the ranks of members of Parliament, receive and deserve in Parliament the appellation of hon member. With all due respect to personality and so on, we are dealing here with a different sort of person. It is actually like saying that if one refers in a debate to a director-general, one should call him “the hon director-general”. I seek a ruling from you, Sir. Do people who are not elected, but who are appointed members of an Executive Committee, deserve the appellation of hon member, which, in other words, tends to equate them with elected members of Parliament?

Order! The hon member will have noticed that, other than is the case with elected members of Parliament, I have mentioned the names of the members of the Executive Committee. By doing so I believe I have illustrated that their positions are different from those of elected members of one of the three Houses of Parliament. I have shown them the courtesy of referring to them as hon members of the Executive Committee. The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central may, if he wishes, take the matter up with the Rules Committee, who can then give us some guidance on the matter. For the present I prefer to continue referring to them as hon members. The hon member of the Executive Committee may continue.

Mr Chairman, forms of address or titles do not interest me anyway.

The Executive Committee cannot be expected to create chaos in its search for solutions to a problem. That is not responsible. The Executive Committee identified two possible solutions to the problem. [Interjections.] The one was the development of a sufficient number of equal facilities properly distributed along the entire coastline of the Cape. The second possibility was the orderly utilisation of existing facilities by means of fencing, where possible, the levying of an admission fee, the levying of admission fee per person to parking areas, the control over orderly conduct by supplying security personnel with proper uniforms and training. [Interjections]

Sir, I am not going to reply to any questions now. [Interjections.]

These existing beaches can also be upgraded to enable more effective optimal utilisation.

In order to implement the first part of the solution, the Executive Committee had in previous financial years acquired increasing amounts from the Treasury. Over the past few years it has increased from R11,5 million to R12,08 million to R27,8 million and to more than R30 million for the present financial year.

However, it is imperative that that development take place properly as the need arises. It must be borne in mind that the Provincial Administration is also responsible for maintaining a balance between development and conservation.

As long ago as 1973 a coastal plan was set up and guidelines laid down for an environmentally aware approach in respect of the coastline. In order to bring this plan up to date and refine it further, the coastline was divided into eight research areas. These investigations which are taking place in terms of the Land Utilisation Planning Ordinance, Ordinance No 15 of 1985, made provision for the structural planning which amounts to a report, accompanied by a cartographic representation, being prepared, which report indicates the pattern of future development in respect of conservation areas. It will be completed during September this year. It will therefore enable us to know where development can take place.

As far as projects are concerned, there is a specific process which has to be followed. The regional development advisory committee, in collaboration with the regional development associations and their local authorities, identify needs and projects. [Interjections.]

Sir, I have already indicated that I am not prepared to reply to questions now.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May I ask the hon member of the Executive Committee please to answer my question on the beaches …

Order! That is no point of order, and the hon member of the Executive Committee has already indicated that he does not wish to reply to questions at this stage. The hon member of the Executive Committee may proceed.

Afterwards these projects are evaluated by the Provincial Coordination Committee on which the Houses of Parliament and certain Government departments are represented, as well as the province and the regional development advisory committees. After this sifting process it is presented to the Executive Committee of the province for approval. Until quite recently it was also presented to the Interdepartmental Committee for Open-air Recreation Resorts, which is situated in Pretoria. On that committee all the provinces, the Tourism Board, the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning and other bodies are represented.

I say all of this in order to point out that development and planning cannot take place in a vacuum. The province has a set of criteria which it applies, but I do not have time to discuss that.

When such a project is approved, the private sector is involved in the detailed planning, local government is involved in the developmental phase and the Provincial Administration continually supervises and controls the implementation of the project.

I say without fear of contradiction that the quality of development has nothing to do with population groups. In fact, the development at Strandfontein and Monwanbizi is without equal along the entire coastline of the Cape.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon the Administrator invited to us to lunch today. We accepted, but unfortunately we could not accompany him because of the insults levelled by Mr J P Schoeman, MEC. We can eat together, but not swim together. This is totally unacceptable …

Order! I do not know what the hon member for Haarlem has in mind to add to what he has said up till now, but judging from what he has said, it does not seem to me that the hon member is raising a point of order. It could perhaps be a point of personal explanation, but definitely not a point of order.

It is a point of personal explanation, Sir.

Apparently we can eat together, but not swim together. This is totally unacceptable and an insult to our community. If the MEC persists in this style, we will have no option but to withdraw while he is talking.

Order! As I have already indicated, this may be taken as a point of personal explanation, but certainly not as a point of order.

Mr Chairman, I want to make it very clear that the Executive Committee exercises its delegated powers in terms of specific laws and regulations, in other words within certain limits and parameters which have been laid down for it, within which it may act.

I understand perfectly that there are certain hon members who are opposed to the act, but the province does not have the power to amend the act. Act 49 of 1953 was in fact the subject of an investigation by the President’s Council, and its report has already been tabled in Parliament. It is the prerogative of Parliament to express an opinion in this regard.

As far as the second part of the province’s solution is concerned, the attention of our local authorities—who are in charge of control and supervision of the beaches—was drawn in a circular to the fact that pressure for sufficient amenities and recreation facilities as a result of the considerable increase in the number of tourists and visitors to our beach areas had led to undesirable activities and behaviour on certain beaches within the metropolitan areas. This renders effective control over admission, numbers and orderly behaviour essential. In this circular they were requested to give consideration to and comment on the possible introduction of control measures.

In this same process the privatisation of certain sections is also enjoying consideration. We are going even further by making in loco investigations of possible areas. Yesterday the hon member for Mamre referred to that. We paid a visit to Tabakbaai in his constituency and examined the circumstances in terms of the recreation of facilities there with his co-operation as well as the co-operation of the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture. It is our intention, and it is also our policy, to consult the local representatives in the search for solutions to the problems.

By way of summary I therefore want to say that unless the Executive Committee’s representations in this specific regard were to succeed and the development which we envisage were to take place, there would in a few years be no one who would need to complain about beach utilisation and that therefore the enforcement of laws would lose their relevance.

There are quite few speeches which I should like to react to, but because there is too little time, I am prepared to reply to questions in writing. I should also like to extend an invitation to hon members, if they have any further questions, to put them in writing or come and visit us in the office to discuss their problems with us.

Mr Chairman, allow me in the first place to make use of the opportunity to thank the Administrator and his Executive Committee sincerely on behalf of the House of Assembly and the House of Delegates for the invitation and the privilege of having been able to enjoy a pleasant midday-meal with them. Unfortunately, the House of Delegates does not have a speaker in the House nor the time to do it themselves and they asked me to convey their gratitude to the Administrator. It is a pity that we could not all be present. As I said yesterday about the brochure which we received, the Cape’s reception is always excellent. On behalf of all of us I convey my sincere thanks to the Administrator.

Inasmuch as I am speaking after the MEC, I shall not follow on his speech because he referred to specific matters and discussed them. However, I want to thank him for the invitation extended to all MPs to pay him a visit at his office and to submit written questions to him. I agree with the way in which he dealt with the matter.

I should also like to take this opportunity to refer to a specific matter. During the time in which I served on the Cape Provincial Council the prevailing spirit among all the parties and at all times—the governing as well as the opposition party—was one of the most pleasant and most cordial which I have ever experienced in any public body. Therefore I want to make a suggestion with specific reference to the CP’s conduct today. At this stage I am in no situation to move a substantive motion in the House as I should have like to do. However, I want to suggest that the members of the Standing Committee on Constitutional Development consider whether they should move a substantive motion, namely that when extended public committees on provincial affairs go into session, only members of that province have the right to participate. I say that deliberately. I think the PFP ought to support me in this standpoint, especially if one bears in mind the principle of a federal system upon which they pride themselves. As far as the Cape is concerned, I think it will bring people together who understand each other and are able to cooperate.

†The House of Delegates may experience a problem, but I do not think it will be an insurmountable problem. They can accommodate that and they will in any case be able to do so with one or two members. Should they fall short of a quorum, that might be accommodated too. However, some research could be done on this to see if this idea, as I have expressed it, could not be implemented. That would be to the advantage of everybody concerned.

*I should like to return to another matter. Yesterday I referred to the fact that in contrast to the Government’s policy of devolution of power, we are now, as far as certain aspects are concerned, acquiring more centralised power bases when we come to the provincial system. I said that I was of the opinion that the logistical lines to Pretoria are becoming too extended and the matter should perhaps be reconsidered.

I specifically want to refer to the Department of Education. I think that when education fell under the Cape Provincial Administration it could be dealt with with more backing, more authoritatively and more purposefully than is presently the case. I should like to congratulate the Administrator and his Executive Committee upon the way in which they dealt with it during all the years. Perhaps at this stage it is the result of a lack of experience or as a result of the fact that things have not quite crystallised yet, but I do not think the present way of dealing with it is an improvement. I am of the opinion that perhaps we should consider shortening the logistical lines in that regard.

I also want to refer to another matter, which perhaps also deserves our attention. Yesterday I wanted to put a question to the hon member for Caledon when he spoke about maritime control. The Fisheries Development Corporation, or the FDC, which we had earlier, has now been abolished and some of their powers and duties have been transferred to the SBDC, while a section of marine control has been transferred to the Administrator. I think that is a retrogressive step in light of the Government’s policy of privatisation. In contrast to the movement towards privatisation, we have moved back here to the public administration of this enterprise. I want to ask whether it is correct, and whether it should not be reconsidered.

Furthermore I should like to refer to the Estimates of Income and Expenditures. Here and there the provincial governments have the power to levy a minor tax. Of course it does give them a certain measure of freedom of movement as far as their expenditures are concerned. If one considers the Exchequer and Audit Act of 1975, one sees that the Administrator can supplement his provincial services statutorily. However, we now have the problem in which the realised income is less than the budgeted income, and the unrealised amount has to be supplemented from the Exchequer. On the other hand we have the problem that when the realised income is more than the budgeted income, the overrealisation or surplus goes to the Exchequer.

I have a problem with this. I am of the opinion that there is therefore no incentive for a province to increase its taxes or tariffs in order to supplement the Government’s subsidy. Furthermore, the inequalities between the various provinces must be equalised and placed on an equal basis. One could use this aspect to bring those inequalities, where they exist, on an equal basis. In the case of the surplus going back to the Exchequer, the problem exists that there is no incentive to supplement the amount, or to use it or to eliminate inequalities. I therefore ask that the situation be formalised as soon as possible so that the provinces could utilise this source of income in a positive way. In this way the inequalities could be eliminated and the amount used with a definite purpose in mind.

In conclusion, I should merely like to refer to technological development and especially to Vote 3. Annually, we shall have to make provision for approximately R80 million in order to be able to effect a replacement over the next ten years. However, I see that we have made no provision for this in the budget and I should like to know whether it has been done. If I have not seen it, I apologise; if not, I should like to know what is being done about it.

Finally, I want to express my consternation about the drastic decline of R29,88 million in respect of bridging financing, as appears from Vote 10 on page 16. In light of the loss of income, unemployment and the infrastructure which has to be created for and by Black authorities, I can hardly understand why this amount has been cut so drastically. I should like to know what the alternatives are in this respect.

Mr Chairman, on this occasion I should like to express my sincere appreciation for the positive way in which we have been able to participate in this debate over the past two days. I was really encouraged by the way and the spirit in which we were able to meet here. I am pleased that we were able to spell out our problems to one another in a meaningful way. We are not always aware of one another’s problems, but I think in the long run we were aware of the one major problem, and this can most certainly only encourage us to co-operate and put our heads together so that we can try to eliminate such obstacles.

It was a very fruitful debate. Perhaps we did have too little time, but that probably applies to all debates that are held or would have been held. I just want to say that a debate of 600 minutes is a vast improvement on the approximately 75 or 80 minutes that were spent last year in at least one of the Houses, and frequently mention was merely made in passing of important subjects such as provincial powers, which involve a total expenditure of almost R3 billion per annum. So this is a great improvement and I am very grateful for the opportunity we have been afforded. In reality it is also a very great improvement on the system we adopted last year. It does not mean that this system is perfect, but it is definitely a sound foundation on which we can build in future.

I should like to mention that Messrs Theron, Van Wyk and Schoeman specially requested me to say that they would like to furnish written replies to those aspects they were unable to reply to in the debate, since we, as hon members will realise, were confronted with a time problem. I should like to add that if any hon member at any stage has problems concerning any aspect of provincial matters, they must without hesitation write to me or to the MEC involved, so that we can furnish the necessary information. Problems frequently arise because the person does not have the necessary information at his disposal. If hon members do have the information at their disposal, and we do perhaps differ with one another, we can get together and see whether we can solve those problems in a sensible way.

I want to begin with the question of the court case in regard to the beaches of Port Elizabeth, precisely because beaches are so fresh in the minds of all the hon members in this Committee. I want to tell hon members that we as a province became involved in this problem owing to certain legal principles that were inherent in the matter. The dispute was initially concerned with who had control over a specific harbour area, which included a beach area. Was it the SATS, in terms of the then Railways Act, that had control over it, or did the local authority in this particular case have control over it, in spite of an agreement between the two in terms of which the SATS was at the time to have transferred its control over that area to the municipalities on the instructions of the Minister of Planning? When I say at the time, then I am referring to something which happened approximately 22 years ago.

There was uncertainty as to where control was vested. I can just mention, for the information of hon members, that the province has only since 1972 been empowered to exercise control over the beaches in terms of section 2(a) of the Designation of Separate Amenities Act. The province subsequently delegated the power to the local authorities. That is the first problem, namely who was in control of the beach concerned.

The second problem was one which arose from the judgement, namely the way in which the decision by the municipality 22 years ago was made known. On that occasion the judge said that the customary decision-making of the board in terms of statutory powers was in fact not sufficient, nor was the consequential publication of the notification. He felt that such an important decision should at the time have been made known by the municipality by means of an ordinance or, as he put it, a regulation, in other words, by means of a law or a regulation.

If that is the case, a large question mark arises over the validity of a large number of decisions taken in the past by local authorities on a variety of matters, which need not necessarily have anything to do with a beach. Hon members will realise that we are dealing here with a legal problem which, if it were to have become law, would have plunged the province into a major dilemma. Such a judgement could possibly have a detrimental effect on various other situations. The Cape Provincial Administration had to intervene, on the strong recommendation of two senior advocates and its own law advisers and attorneys. Just to demonstrate how far this legal principle was removed from politics I could just mention that one or more of these members of the legal fraternity were most certainly not supporters of the Government. Hon members need have no objection therefore to the approach of these legal experts in respect of the correctness of the legal interpretation in this connection, except in so far as one can find fault with the law adviser’s own opinion in this connection.

After the judgement our legal experts unanimously recommended that an appeal should be lodged against these two problematical principles. The judgement was made against my official position, and on the unanimous advice of the legal experts—not at my instigation—instructions were given to appeal. In other words what may not be allowed is that an Administrator who had ex officio acted erroneously, if the court was correct, may on the unilateral advice of legal experts allow the case to become public and that I would in fact have acted erroneously in an official capacity—in other words it is the entire province that is acting—if that had in reality not been the case.

†I want to be very careful about this matter. These matters have brought criticism on the provincial government for practising apartheid.

Perhaps I should first point out very clearly that neither my Executive Committee nor I have the right to ignore, whatever we wish to do, and no matter how we would like to execute a decision or a resolution or what our aims and goals would be, the content of legislation passed by the highest legislative institution in the country. I am quite sure that every person would agree with me, and, naturally, every person would not be happy with the content of the legislation of this country. As long as there are Acts like the Group Areas Act and the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act on the Statute Book, we have to comply with the requirements thereof. I want to reiterate this: We have to comply with the requirements thereof. The Cape Provincial Administration cannot ignore an Act of Parliament and formulate its own policy.

*We must remember that we are dealing here with verligtes and verkramptes. We are being pressured from the one side and from the other, and we are the sardines in the middle.

†Even if such an Act does give my Executive Committee a discretionary power, our legal advisers assure us that I, as Administrator in my official capacity, cannot use such power completely to circumvent the purposes of an Act of Parliament. Unfortunately, I am not that mighty. I cannot, for example, whether I am happy or unhappy with the Government’s policy, for argument’s sake, decide that I will declare all the beaches closed or reserved for special racial groups.

On the other hand. I cannot do the opposite. I cannot decide that I am going to declare all the beaches open because I am unhappy with Government policy. Then I would certainly be taken to court for not having applied my mind to the matter. These are usually the grounds on which an administrator is taken to court, namely for not having applied his mind in the interpretation and the application of an Act of Parliament. I am certainly not prepared to act illegally.

The correct way and, to my mind, the only way to change the position is to scrap or amend the Act, and that is certainly the task of Parliament.

Similarly, my provincial government cannot bluntly ignore Government policy. Any provincial authority must carry out the policy of the Government of the day. This is another principle. I am fully sympathetic towards those hon members of this Committee who are unhappy with certain political policies on account of their being hurtful and I fully understand that such hon members must use every platform to voice their strongest possible opposition to discriminatory laws. However, this platform is not the right one on which to solve the problem as this Committee cannot change or amend an Act of Parliament. [Interjections.] It is legally incompetent to do so but this body can certainly express its reservations and air its views in this connection, which may contribute towards achieving the ultimate goal. I think therein lies the importance of our being together here today, not only insofar as this aspect is concerned but also insofar as other aspects are concerned.

Against this background I want to assure hon members that my Executive Committee and I go out of our way to implement policy within the freedom allowed by a statutory provision in such a way as not to be hurtful. I want to emphasise this because I mean it. This attitude weighs very heavily with me personally and I want to emphasise it once again, but hon members must please not ask me to transgress the law. They cannot expect me to transgress the law. [Interjections.]

*While we are quite active now …

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Administrator who took the decision to go to appeal in respect of the Port Elizabeth judgment? Was it the Executive Committee?

This matter came before the Executive Committee two or three years ago. I do not know the exact date. I was responsible and I had to take the decision to go to appeal because the court case was against me in my official capacity. That was the advice I received from the legal advisers. If the hon member has some better advice, he must give it to us.

[Inaudible.]

A second aspect I should like to mention here is the discriminatory measures mentioned by various hon members and which may perhaps still apply. In this connection I just want to reiterate—and this includes the question asked by the hon member for Constantia—that if I have to take the responsibility, then I must at all times act in such a way that I do not through my actions perhaps find a temporary solution for a person in order to solve a problematical situation and in that way ultimately cause more and greater problems for myself and my province, and consequently for this Committee. In other words I must, with great responsibility, take a decision in respect of every particular aspect.

Various references were made to discriminatory measures, and I just want to tell hon members that we went out of our way to remove discriminatory measures from the provincial government and its system. We did this in regard to the appointment of personnel, we did this in regard to their qualifications for appointment, which are precisely the same for all race groups. Housing benefits for persons in the same categories of appointment are equal. Personnel amenities, cloakroom amenities, nature reserves, museums, the appointment of private consultants, and the appointment of contractors—we have no racial basis in respect of any of these aspects. These were all things which were not previously the case, things which have been changed for the better during the past few years.

I want to dwell for a moment on an aspect which I think was also mentioned by the hon member for Haarlem in regard to libraries. I want to mention that of all the libraries probably 70% to 80% of them were still practising strict apartheid a few years ago—let us be direct with one another. The position today—after years of patient negotiation—is that there are 12% of these libraries that are still doing so—and I want to come back to this.

When it comes to the payment of subsidies, there was also a reference to this in the report of the House of Representatives, arising out of the meetings of the standing committee, to the effect that in respect of those libraries in which there was still an element of apartheid subsidies that had been paid for 15 years should be withdrawn.

Obviously this is money that has already been spent, but it deals with another issue. The only subsidies we pay in respect of libraries are subsidies in respect of the construction of buildings and facilities. This is not a system which was introduced many years ago; I estimate that it was introduced more or less 15 years ago. During the first 10 years subsidies were only paid in order to eliminate the need for libraries erected within the reach of or within Coloured and Black areas. During the past few years any library can receive assistance from this particular subsidy item, but approximately 80% to 90% of the assistance is still being granted to those areas in which there are few facilities.

I just want to mention that as far as the libraries themselves are concerned, the personnel of a library are paid by the local authority concerned. The local authority has full control over that library. The only involvement of the province is its involvement as a supplier of books, and a supplier of contents. If there are still a small number—thank heaven it is only a small number—of such libraries, I can give the assurance that we, as in the past, will continue to try to show an improvement in this connection as well. That is why I want to say that we fully share the hon member’s feeling that we want all libraries to be accessible to everyone.

I also want to mention, though, that we also have our problems. There is one case I could mention. We have a very fine library in Stutterheim. This library only has nine chairs, and on a certain occasion up to 300 Black children came in simultaneously in the afternoon to study. Hon members will realise what chaos could arise if one only has nine chairs in a library, and 300 children come in and occupy the entire library in order to study. In such a case one must—this is not done on a racial basis at all—try to introduce a system in terms of which order can be restored, and in terms of which all the people of all the communities can make orderly use of that library.

† hon member for Newholme, Mr Rampersadh, referred to the matter of schools and why they were not open. Of course, they do not fall under our jurisdiction.

I thank the hon member for Vasco for his sentiments with regard to our administration and management of the education department in the past. I would in fact be very glad if this could be redelegated or devolved upon the provincial administration once again.

The hon member also asked why all beaches could not be opened. Of course, I replied in that regard when I dealt with the Port Elizabeth case on account of the existence of the Separate Amenities Act.

What we did is to place an amount of R30 million on our budget this year, as we did last year, for the erection of recreational facilities. Of this amount roughly R28 million will once again be provided for the construction of open facilities.

The hon member also asked why all the central business areas are not open. In his words, the cream of these areas is in the hands of Whites. I am not quite sure whether this statement is 100% correct. If we have a look at the suburbs of Cape Town I would like to mention the following which have been opened up completely: Cape Town, Claremont, Wynberg, Ottery, Fish Hoek, Goodwood, Parow, Bellville, Kuils River, Durbanville and Milnerton. In addition, Mitchell’s Plain, Retreat and Simonstown are in the process of applying.

*A passing reference—I think it was by the hon member for Bishop Lavis—was made inter alia to Middleton.

For the sake of interest I would like to add this. I think the hon member was referring to the high rate of taxation there. The point I am trying to make is that it is frequently the unique circumstances in an urban area that give rise to a high rate of taxation. This little town, Middleton, was under the control of a church—it happened to be Bishop Tutu’s church, but that makes no difference to the situation. The church developed no services whatsoever and when the divisional council assumed control, it had to start from scratch and make provision for everything. To start providing services from scratch costs a great deal of money. The hon member for Caledon is well aware of such circumstances. He provided me with the information and he also informed me that the church also owned other land which it was leasing, but made no contribution in this connection. Hon members will therefore realise that a heavy burden is placed on the shoulders of a local authority in this way, and that it is not a question of discrimination here.

I want to thank the hon member for Beaufort West very sincerely for his idea of erecting a statue to me. I just want to ask him not to suggest that the statue be erected between the statues of the camel and the donkey in Upington. [Interjections.]

As regards the matter of equal treatment of all population groups, I just want to say that it is the policy of this province to render equal services to all population groups. I cannot emphasise that enough.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The time that the hon the Administrator has been speaking is now considerably longer than the normal allocated time. If you refer, Sir, to page 31 of the Rules—and one assumes that the Rules for extended public committees are the same as those for joint sittings— you will see that it is only the State President, the Chairman of a Ministers’ Council, the Leader of an Official Opposition and the member in charge of the business who shall not be restricted in regard to the length of time they may speak. Therefore, I submit that the Administrator does not fall into any of those categories because he is not a member in charge of the Bill and he is not a member of a joint committee. I submit, therefore, that the allocation of unlimited time to the hon the Administrator—which I assume you were doing—is contrary to the Rules.

Order! The position is indeed that the hon the Administrator does not fall into any of the categories referred to in the Rules. However, the hon the Administrator, although his time is unlimited, does fall under the general limitation of time allocated by the Whips to the Administrator and members of the Executive Committee, and he will be restricted to the time allocated. However, within that time limit he may speak as long as he wishes.

Mr Chairman, on a further point of order: Rule 90(b) on page 32 reads:

I submit, Sir, that this is a Vote on a schedule to an appropriation Bill and that Rule 90(b) is quite clear which reads that members other than those mentioned in paragraph (a), viz the State President, the Chairman of a Ministers’ Council, the Leader of an Official Opposition and the member in charge of the business before the meeting—the Administrator is not any of those—are limited in terms of the Rules to 10 minutes at a time regardless of the arrangements the Whips have made.

If, Sir, you handle it on the basis that a Whip has to stand up to give the Administrator time to complete his speech then I would say we would be acting in terms of the Rules. However, in terms of Rule 90(b) I submit that the Administrator is limited to 10 minutes at a time.

Order! I also refer the hon member to Rule 89, which reads:

I am adhering to this Rule, and in terms thereof my ruling is that the time of the hon the Administrator is unlimited within the scope of the time allocated …

Mr Chairman, on a further point of order: We have already found in the House of Assembly that when, for instance, the hon member for Houghton was given 18 minutes in the debate on the Law and Order vote she spoke for 10 minutes and was then called to order by the presiding officer. If what you are saying is correct, Sir, she should not then have been called to order by the presiding officer. She should have been allowed to continue for the full 18 minutes. She was, however, called to order after 10 minutes, and one of the Whips of the NP kindly rose and offered her the opportunity of completing her speech, which she did in the following eight minutes.

I therefore suggest, Sir, that the precedent has already been established that nobody other than the people explicitly mentioned in Rule 90(a) can make a speech for longer than a fixed period of time without the courtesy of the opposition Whips.

Order! The crux of the matter, which the hon member is apparently overlooking, is that the hon the Administrator and the hon members of the Executive Committee are not members of Parliament. That is, in fact, the basis on which the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central founded his argument on an earlier point of order. They are allowed to address this committee by special arrangement, and in terms of that arrangement their time is only restricted in terms of the overall time allocated for that purpose, which, I believe, is 170 minutes. Within that limit the hon the Administrator’s time is not restricted. I cannot allow a lengthy debate on this issue. If the hon member wishes to debate this matter any further he must raise it with the Rules Committee.

Mr Chairman, do I understand you correctly? Are you ruling out any further argument on this point of order?

Order! Unless the hon member raises some new argument I cannot allow him to continue. I cannot allow a repetition of the same argument.

Mr Chairman, you made mention of special arrangements. May I ask what special arrangements were made and when Parliament was notified of such special arrangements? What is the special arrangement? Is it a ruling by Mr Speaker?

Order! I may refer the hon member to Rule 66(4)(d), which reads:

If the hon member reads that together with Rule 89, which I have already read out, I believe it is quite clear that the arrangement was made in terms of those two Rules.

Mr Chairman, thank you. That is quite clear, provided naturally that they stick to the Rules of Parliament. Does this mean then that they do not have to stick to the Rules while members of Parliament have to stick to the Rules? Quite clearly, Sir, it is mentioned that they are entitled to be in this committee. I am not arguing that. What I am arguing is that they should not be given additional privileges over and above those given to elected members of Parliament.

Order! That is not a point of order for the Chair to rule upon. That is also a point to be considered by the Rules Committee. In terms of the Rules and Orders which apply only to members of Parliament a special arrangement has been made with respect to the hon the Administrator and the hon members of the Executive Committee, by which I am bound as Chairman of Committees.

Mr Chairman, are you ruling then that the hon the Administrator and hon members of the Executive Committee are not bound by the same Rules as hon members of Parliament in extended public committees? That is the effect of your ruling, Sir.

Order! What I am saying to the hon member is that in terms of the provision contained in the Rules I have quoted, an arrangement has been made by the Whips—to the best of my knowledge, that is—allocating times to speakers in this debate, and I have been presented with a list of names of hon members taking part in the debate and the times allocated to each of them individually. I must see to it that that is complied with, and that is exactly what I am doing.

Mr Chairman, I would request that you look at it and come back to me in due course. [Interjections.]

Order! As far as the Chair is concerned, I cannot see that there is any necessity whatsoever to reconsider the matter. The position is quite clear. I have been handed a list of speakers and times allocated to them and I am confining myself to that list. That is my ruling in this regard. If the matter has to be addressed further, it will have to be addressed by the Rules Committees.

Mr Chairman, all we want to know is in terms of which Rule you have given your ruling.

Order! I have already explained the motivation for my ruling to the hon member, and I see no need to take the matter any further. The hon the Administrator may continue.

Mr Chairman, in addition to your ruling, I shall endeavour to complete my remarks within the total time allocated to the Executive Committee, unless many more points of order are raised. I find it strange that the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central has not endeavoured to participate in this debate, and I also find it strange that the hon member has not offered any assistance in order to try to solve some of the problems we are dealing with …

Give me the time and I shall do so with pleasure!

Order!

… but has just kept on raising questions.

The available time is … [Interjections.]

Order! I am not going to allow any further interjections while the hon the Administrator is speaking.

Mr Chairman, …

Order! That applies to the hon member for Cape Town Gardens as well, and he can resume his seat.

May I not raise a point of order, Sir?

Order! I have already given my ruling on this point.

Mr Chairman, I have not yet raised my point of order so how could you have given a ruling?

Order! I have indicated that I am not going to allow any further interjections while the hon the Administrator is speaking. The hon the Administrator may continue.

Mr Chairman, I should like to reiterate the fact that there is no discrimination based on colour when it comes to appointments in the provincial service. The only criteria for the appointment of South African citizens are the prescribed educational qualifications and the relative merits of the candidates. By way of comparison, the position regarding the employment of members of the various population groups in 1983 and 1988, excluding education, is as follows—this makes interesting reading: Whites, 1983, 21 849; 1988, 22 869, but the percentage of White staff was reduced from 39% to 37% this year. In 1983 the Coloured staff numbered 21 254 and 24 554 in 1988. The percentage of Coloured employees increased from 38% to 39% between 1983 and 1988. As far as Asians are concerned, in 1983 the figure stood at 336 and in 1988, at 375, an increase of 1%. As far as Blacks are concerned, in 1983 the number was 12 381 and 14 431 in 1988, an increase from 22% to 23%.

Secondly, promotions to more senior posts are made on merit only. There are many examples of persons of colour who have been promoted to senior posts such as assistant-director, senior medical specialist, senior medical superintendent, chief radiographer, principal medical technical officer, senior social worker, senior provincial administration officer, senior provincial inspector and many others. It also pleases me to inform this committee that complete parity in salaries and other service benefits was attained with effect from 1 March 1988. All personnel in the service of the province therefore qualify for pension, medical aid and other benefits such as housing subsidies on an equal basis as applicable to their respective occupational groupings.

*As regards the hon member for Walvis Bay, I shall ask the hon member of the Executive Committee entrusted with Local Government, Mr Schoeman, MEC, to reply more fully to his speech. Nevertheless I can tell the hon member that the difference in the budget is inter alia attributable to the fact that R4 million previously included in the budget, has now been allocated for the same purpose by the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning, but to an own affairs department and that the department in question has limited its appropriation in connection with activities in Walvis Bay by approximately R1 million. The hon member Mr Schoeman, MEC, will reply more fully to the hon member in this regard.

I am grateful for the wonderful co-operation which we as a province receive from Walvis Bay. I am pleased that the harbour is being operated on a profitable basis. I am grateful that the salt industry there is showing a profit. I share the hon member’s pleasure at the fact that Walvis Bay provided one member of the important rugby fifteen last Saturday.

A request was made by the hon member Mr Lockey in regard to a change-over from leasehold to freehold. I want to tell him that we are just as eager as he is to accelerate this whole process. There are delays in regard to mass surveys. There are delays in the office of the Registrar of Deeds and there are delays in the office of the State Attorney that has to register the transfers.

The hon member of the Executive Committee has already expressed the hope that, in respect of development by means of the private sector, use could perhaps be made in this connection of attorneys in private practice.

In regard to the request made by the hon member for Mamre—he apologised for not being able to be present here now because he is involved in an interview at the moment—I could just mention that we did try, within our limited means, to be of assistance with the layout of recreation and particular sports facilities. In the 1985-86 financial year we were able to make R1,35 million available for this purpose, and it was possible to help just over 50 towns in this way. All this money was spent for open facilities for joint use by Coloured and White communities. In the 1986-87 financial year we were able to do the same, except that the budget was a little bit more, namely R1,632 million. We do not have the same amount available every year, because this matter is something which weighs very heavily with us, and we should like to help communities to develop recreational and sports facilities.

I should like to say something about the hon member for Soutpansberg. He criticised the Executive Committee primarily because it was constituted along multinational lines. It is a great pity that such a deterioration had to take place because of the hon member.

I should like to take up the cudgels for the two Coloured and Black members of my Executive Committee, and sáy that they are honourable people who are doing their work to the best of their ability under very trying circumstances, in which there can always be the threat of intimidation and victimisation. We work together as a team. The hon members make use of White personnel. After all they represent the population of our fine province, the Cape, and they represent the Cape Province with great dignity. They can perhaps say that their children do not go to the same schools, and there are a few other things they can also say, and I have full understanding for that. What they can in fact say is that they are participating fully in a fully integrated business sector.

Mr Nyati, MEC, can also say that no Black person before him served on the Executive Committee. He can also say that no Black person before him participated in this Chamber. He can also say that no Black person before him was occupied in such a full work situation. He can also say that Blacks and Coloured persons represented South Africa in missions abroad. He and the hon member for Mamre can, if they are fit enough, play together for South Africa.

In South Africa it is still possible, after a series of operations, to separate Siamese twins at a cost of R1,3 million, in respect of which the mother made a contribution of R3. That we are still able to do in South Africa. After all we are making progress in this country. I am not saying that there is not a great deal of other progress we can still make, but surely this is a demonstration of what can be done if we can get together as we are now doing to try to solve our problems.

The hon member for Soutpansberg also criticised the institution of these extended public committees owing to the fact that Parliament is now standing still, and these committees alone cost approximately R100 000. He would like what is being discussed here to be dealt with by democratically elected institutions. He therefore wants provincial councils, and if the four provincial councils had to sit as in the past, is it going to cost R100 000, or a few million rands? That argument does not hold water.

A person can perhaps criticise the system and perhaps improve it, but certainly it is far fetched to advance the costs of R100 000 as an argument when the four provinces together must deliberate on a total expenditure of R9 000 million to R10 000 million.

This is a tremendous expenditure which can affect the pattern of living of every citizen in this country. If elected members are able to look into these matters, surely it is a vast improvement. Surely it is a stronger argument that that hon member has in fact to participate in this debate as an elected member, sent here by his particular constituency, and that he should not throw in the towel and leave the defence that he ostensibly wants to put up here in the hands of other opposition groups. I am now speaking from his point of view, and this will be the last time that I shall do so.

The hon member for Vasco put a few questions which I can summarise more or less as follow. Should the province not have a more unlimited decision-making power if it is dealing with a budget of R2 746 million? The answer is yes. Should it not be involved in the determination of priorities? The answer is yes. Should it not have more say over the allocation of functions? The answer is yes. The hon member maintains that the provinces should not be seen as branch offices of the central government, and I am in full agreement with him. He says provinces should be able to transfer money freely between posts, and once again I am in full agreement with him.

In his second turn to speak—I could just refer to this very quickly—the hon member also referred to the transfer of surpluses from one financial year to another. I am in full agreement with that, and I want to let that suffice. The hon member is quite correct. If we want to build up an item for replacements in regard to hospitals, we must make at least R80 million per annum available. This year we were only able to make R58,9 million available, which is R20 million too little. Perhaps the hon members of this Committee, when they have an opportunity to do so elsewhere, can help us to try to rectify these situations.

We have many problems. I want to say that I want to bend over backwards to render a service to all our people in this beautiful country, that my Executive Committee and I would like to make everyone in this country happy, and that, taking into consideration the circumstances, we want to apply and implement the laws as humanely as possible within their provisions. However, hon members will have to help me bargain for more funds. I want nothing more than what I need to do my work, and to give hon members those things they asked for in this debate. That is all I am asking hon members for, nothing more.

They must help me to try to save our road infrastructure—this requires an amount of thousands of millions of rands. At the present rate of provision of funds the amount I can make available for maintaining and preserving roads is 1%. This means that I have to do it more or less once every 100 years, while one has to replace a road at least once every 20 to 30 years.

Hon members must help us to restore our minor roads to a better condition, and also help us to expand and improve our hospitals department. At present we have an effective growth of 1,2%, compared with an inflation rate of 14%.

Hon members must help us with personnel for nature conservation. They must help with funds for Black housing, in regard to which there is a backlog of 110 000 dwelling units. They must also help us with our overall budget, which in this financial year rose effectively by only 0,19%— that is less than 0,2%—while the inflation rate is 14%. I am asking hon members to help me and also to help us as an Executive Committee to do the work which hon members and I together would like to see done in this province.

Today we held our first joint debate. We have come to know one another and one another’s problems better. I thank all parties for their positive contribution to the debate. I thank you, Sir, for your participation, and the same applies to the other chairmen who officiated here. I want to convey my very sincere thanks to the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament and other Whips of all parties who were involved in the proceedings of this meeting. All of us have one common aim. Let us try to eliminate the hurt from our community.

Let us try to evince understanding if everything cannot happen at once. Let us try to find the money to solve at least some of our problems. Let us try to lay down a foundation so that we are perhaps able to set an example here which can be used beneficially by other councils and by other arms of this Parliamentary institution, so that they can build and improve on what we have done. Let us try to make our beautiful country, South Africa, an even more beautiful country than it was in the past.

Mr Chairman, if I understood the hon the Administrator correctly he said that he had taken it upon himself to appeal against the decision because of something that they had decided upon three years ago. In other words, he took that decision alone, in his personal capacity; he did not consult the present Executive Committee. I want to know, first of all, why he did not consult his present Executive Committee. Secondly, if the Appeal Court upholds the decision of the Eastern Cape Provincial Division, what is his next step going to be?

Furthermore, the hon the Administrator is using our money—taxpayers’ money!—and we are …

Order!

Sir, just let me finish.

Order! Yes, but the hon member may not make a speech now, he must put his question.

Yes, Sir, I am merely motivating my question. The hon the Administrator is using taxpayers’ money—which is, after all, our money too—to fight us, to prevent us from using a facility. He is doing this even though he has said he is prepared to work with everybody. How, then, does he reconcile the two standpoints he has taken?

Mr Chairman, there are many decisions that I have to make in my official capacity. In this particular instance my attention has been drawn to the fact that certain legal principles are diametrically opposed to the opinion of the law advisers and if this is not put right, the opinion of the law advisers will cause far greater complications, which will bring about far greater expenditure for the taxpayers—not relating to the throwing open of beaches. If I were not to take this decision and there was a far greater expenditure and more complications, the hon member would ask me next year why I did not take this decision and why I used the taxpayers’ money to negotiate greater expenditure with greater consequences. I had not choice. In this case I acted purely on the advice of the law advisers. I just want to add that this entire matter is concerned with whether or not beaches are going to be thrown open.

That particular aspect with regard to the throwing open of beaches is not only applicable in Port Elizabeth. All the beaches in the entire Cape Province are an affair that hon members must deal with in its entirety on a platform of their own. One cannot apply a law in one part of a country and not in another. Hon members are aware that there was a referendum. That is the other side of the matter that must also be dealt with in court.

I want to tell hon members that we make decisions with the best intentions in our striving to be fair in everything. In this case it is a pity that the question concerns the throwing open of beaches and that it is therefore not seen—this is the point that I am trying to explain—that it could cause other complications concerning decisions made by other local authorities in similar or comparable situations with regard to matters that have nothing to do with beaches, apartheid or the throwing open of facilities.

Debate concluded.

Mr Chairman, with your permission I would like to take a point of order that has involved a great deal of research and is of a very serious nature. If hon members will excuse me, I will address them in Afrikaans. My reference sources are in Afrikaans but if hon members should require the English translation they can refer to the Rules which are also available in English.

*Mr Chairman, my argument centres round my allegation that this sitting is illegal and not permissible in terms of the Standing Rules of Parliament. Firstly I want to refer to Rule 43(l)(b) of the old Rules. In terms of that Rule, the Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure for the provinces, read in conjunction with the Appropriation Bill, were referred to the Standing Committee on Provincial Affairs. This old Rule was replaced, and the Rules which applies to these aspects at present are Rule 163 and Rule 66(4)(a). Rule 66(4)(a) reads as follows:

This applies to joint committees. The next relevant Subrule is Rule 66(4)(c)(l) which reads as follows:

Rule 66(4)(c)(l) therefore provides that the task normally performed during the period in which an Appropriation Bill is being considered, can also be referred to an extended standing committee such as the one now convening in Pietermaritzburg.

Rule 66(4)(c) further provides:

1. (ii) The meetings of the extended public committee may take place at a venue beyond the seat of Parliament.
2. (iii) The days and times at which the extended public committee shall meet, shall be determined by Mr Speaker after consultation with the Chief Whip of Parliament.
3. (iv) The discussion of a vote in terms of this paragraph shall for all purposes be deemed to be the discussion thereof after the First Reading of the Bill has been agreed to, as contemplated in Rule 164.

Rule 66(4)(d) reads as follows:

We now come to Rule 163, which I should like to quote here in full, because it is a particularly relevant Rule, especially as far as the last five Subrules of this Rule are concerned. Rule 163 reads as follows:

1. (1)
   1. (a) On the day on which a main appropriation bill has been introduced, Mr Speaker shall refer the Bill, the introductory speech and the papers laid upon the Table by the Minister to the appropriate joint committee referred to in Rule 66(1).
   2. (b) In so far as an Appropriation Bill (State Revenue Account), the introductory speech thereon and the papers laid upon the Table relate to the Account for Provincial Services of a province, they shall be so referred to the joint committee on provincial affairs of the province concerned.

On the day on which a Main Appropriation Bill is introduced, Mr Speaker therefore refers this Bill on provincial services of the province to the joint committee, which in turn can refer it to the extended public committee. The particularly relevant section of Rule 163 reads as follows:

1. (2) The period for the deliberations on a bill and papers so referred, shall be limited, in the case of—
   1. (a) the joint committee under which transport matters fall, and a joint committee on provincial affairs, to a maximum of seven consecutive Parliamentary working days.

As far as transport affairs are concerned, the maximum is three consecutive Parliamentary working days, and as far as Post Office and Telecommunications Affairs are concerned, the maximum is two consecutive Parliamentary working days. The important aspect here is the following, and I am quoting from Rule 163(2)(c):

In the present case, the Budget was delivered on Wednesday, 16 March. The proceedings of the joint committee should have been completed within seven consecutive parliamentary working days.

Rule 163(2)(a) reads that because it is a joint committee on provincial affairs, Mr Speaker may, in terms of the proviso to Rule 163(2), further limit the deliberations to a time to be decided by him in consultation with the Chief Whip. Please note, he may not extend it; he can only limit it to less than seven days. The Natal provincial joint committee sat on 23 and 24 March. They have already sat. That is functus officio. Its work has been completed. No matter how one considers this, the maximum of seven consecutive parliamentary sitting days expired on 25 March 1988. You will notice, with reference to Rule 35, that as far as extended public committees are concerned, in respect of a Bill or a provision of a Bill, a public committee is comprised of members of the joint committee laid down in Rule 66(1), under which the Bill or provision falls, and all other members of Parliament attending the proceedings of the extended public committee. The crux of our objection is to be found in Rule 66(4)(c)(i) and (iii), which I quoted above. During the period in which an Appropriation Bill for provincial services is, in terms of Rule 163, before the joint committee established in terms of this Subrule, the Vote can be discussed in an extended public committee comprising members of the joint committee and other members, as envisaged in Rule 35. It is therefore quite clear that this extended public committee can only function within the period in which the Appropriation Bill is before the joint committee, thus within the prescribed seven days referred to above, ie in the present case from 17 March to 25 March 1988. In other words, if …

You are wasting our time, man.

Mr Chairman, I am raising a point of order. I do not know if you know the Rules, viz that hon members may not make interjections while a point of order is being raised. I think the hon member should go and read the Rules.

Order! The hon member may proceed.

In other words, Mr Chairman, if this Vote for provincial services in Natal is to be discussed in this extended public committee, the committee should have sat prior to 25 March 1988 and finalised its business by no later than 25 March 1988. Any sitting thereafter does not fall within the period in which, in terms of Rule 163, an appropriation Bill may be considered by the appropriate joint committee. It can only be within seven days. Under those circumstances our argument is that this extended standing committee is meeting here illegally. It should have sat in the period between 17 March and 25 March. That is an express provision of the Standing Rules. This period cannot be extended unless the three Houses individually change the Rules in terms of Rule 3 of the Standing Rules. I therefore ask that this sitting be declared illegal and irregular and be adjourned.

Mr Chairman …

Order! I should like to ask the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North if he would be prepared to wait a while until I have responded to the point of order raised by the hon member for Brakpan.

Mr Chairman, I wish to address you on the point of order.

Order! I should first like to give my ruling, before I hear the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North. It may solve his problem.

Mr Chairman, with all due respect, if you do not hear what the hon member has to say, you could possibly give an incorrect ruling, because he is going to assist you, with his argument, in deciding the argument in favour of this side, and I ask you to listen to the points of argument on this point of order before you give a ruling.

Order! The hon member for Klip River has a point there. I thought that the ruling would solve all these problems, but I shall gladly listen to what the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North has to say.

Mr Chairman, I just want to emphasise that no proper, courteous notice was given to this side of the House, as was frequently the practice in the past in regard to rather technical points.

I do want to say though that there is obviously no merit in this objection. The hon member for Brakpan has referred to Rules 163 and 66. Rule 163 refers to joint committees, not to extended public committees. This is an extended public committee. Joint committees are the standing committees. In other words, he referred to two completely different things.

Regarding the seven days, if the hon member is arguing correctly that this sitting should have taken place within seven days, they have been wrong in Parliament in every instance in the past, because this sitting has never in the past taken place within seven days after the meeting of the standing committee.

I also refer to Rule 66(4)(c)(iii), which specifically provides that Mr Speaker may decide when these extended public committees shall sit.

Mr Chairman, may I address you on this point of order? First of all, the point of order was taken out of time. It should have been taken at the first opportunity, which was yesterday. There is no sense in taking a point of order of this nature towards the end of a meeting. Thus the point of order was not taken timeously, and therefore the Chair should not give consideration to it at all.

The second point I want to make is this. If one looks at the wording of rule 163 that was quoted by the hon member, it refers in rule 163 (2) (a) to the seven days that the hon member referred to, and I am quoting that rule:

Which we are—

It says we cannot sit more than seven days, but it does not stipulate when those dates must be. It therefore provides for a period, and says that we should not sit for more than seven days, and we are within the ambit of that Rule, for the reason that we are only sitting for two days. Therefore the point has no merit or substance.

Mr Chairman, …

Order! I wish to ask the hon member for Roodepoort whether he would not prefer to hear the ruling first and then proceed after that if he has any problems. However, should the hon member for Roodepoort wish to proceed now, he may do so.

Mr Chairman, I request the opportunity to proceed now.

Order! The hon member may do so.

Mr Chairman, in regard to the allegation that the point was not raised in the specific time allocated, I should respectfully like to point out that there is no provision specifying that a point of order in respect of the procedure of the Houses of Parliament or its committees must be taken at a specific time. When it comes to light that there is a procedural problem or error in the proceedings of the committees or the Houses of Parliament, that point of order may be taken.

As far as the provisions of Rule 163 are concerned, I submit that this Rule must be read as a whole. When one examines the provisions of Rule 163(1)(a), it is quite clear that there is a specific prescribed time within which a Main Appropriation Bill as well as a provincial services Bill must be referred to a joint committee. The latter provision is contained in Rule 163(1)(b). It is therefore a definite provision that this matter must be referred to the relevant joint committee on provincial affairs. It is specifically provided that this must be done on the day on which the Approporiation Bill is introduced.

It is quite clear that the seven day period mentioned in Rule 163(2)(a) is calculated from the day on which the Bill and papers are referred to the committee. This provision can be found at the tail-end of Rule 163(2). It is printed in the Rules after paragraph (c). So a limit is laid down and the period is defined. The limit of that period can be less than seven days, but nowhere is provision made for an extension of this period. Our argument is therefore that while it is in order for the Provincial Joint Committee for Natal to have sat less than two days, there is a mandatory provision contained in Rule 163(2)(a). It can be read in conjunction with the tail-end of Rule 162(2). The proceedings of an extended public committee must be finalised within the period in which the joint committee for the relevant province is in session. So there is no going beyond that period. I should like to support the argument of the hon member for Brakpan in this regard.

Order! We have listened attentively to the hon member for Brakpan, and to the supporting argument of the hon member for Roodepoort. We are now in a transitional phase between the old and the new Rules. One could perhaps concede that under normal circumstances the hon member for Brakpan would have a valid argument. However, I merely want to draw the attention of hon members to Rule 2 of the new Rules. Provision is made there for unforeseen contingencies not provided for in the Rules. A rule framed by Mr Speaker remains in force until a joint meeting of the Rules Committee takes a decision on it. In this regard I should like to draw hon members’ attention to the following ruling framed by Mr Speaker. I want to quote this to hon members, as follows:

I shall abide by this ruling given by Mr Speaker.

Mr Chairman, at what stage was that ruling given, and when was it announced?

Order! I should like to give that information to hon members. It was signed by Mr Speaker on 18 May 1988.

Mr Chairman, is it now part of the Minutes? Were hon members advised of it at any stage?

Order! I am not sure, but I am prepared to go into the matter. I shall notify hon members at a later stage.

I would appreciate it.

Order! We shall do so. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member for Potgietersrus described your decision as a travesty of justice.

Order! Did the hon member for Potgietersrus mention those words?

Mr Chairman, I indeed mentioned those words, but I did not in the least refer to your decision. In fact, I find it despicable that the hon member for South Coast suggested that.

Order! I am satisfied that the words uttered by the hon member for Potgietersrus did not cast any reflection on the Chair.

Mr Chairman, during his closing speech yesterday afternoon, the Administrator repeatedly referred to the structures within which we have to operate. These structures are, of course, under threat. We have just experienced this morning an example of what I have just said, namely there are those who want to undermine the structures. Today I want to deal with some of these structures referred to by the Administrator.

May I start off by reminding hon members that on 26 October, voters from all population groups in Natal will go to the municipal polls to elect their representatives to the various town and city councils. Voters from the three groups represented here today will thus be afforded the opportunity to elect representatives from amongst themselves. This election is going to be of the utmost importance, because the central Government has embarked upon a programme of devolution of power within the framework of the 1983 Constitution.

As a result of this philosophy, local authorities will be of the utmost relevance and importance in the years to come. We will indeed require men and women of the highest calibre on our councils.

It is my sincere wish that local communities will see to it that their most competent woman and manpower is elected to these councils—men and women into whose hands they are prepared to entrust their way of life, their culture and their traditions. I repeat that this exercise will be of crucial importance, because local authorities are to become important building blocks of the 1983 Constitution—and of any constitutions that may follow, if we are adamant in addressing the political challenges and realities we face in this country.

This Constitution is based on two pillars; on the one hand co-responsibility for general affairs, ie power-sharing between population groups, and on the other hand the administration of own affairs, ie self-determination of our population groups.

It is a fact of life that self-respecting groups, which we all are, will shun co-responsibility if their group security is endangered by it. It is of no use to pretend it to be otherwise. The world abounds with examples to bear me out on this score. There will, therefore, ultimately be no power-sharing in South Africa if group rights, as embodied in the self-determination of population groups over their own affairs, are not put on a solid foundation. This must take place down to the lowest level of government. Once this has been done we can look each other squarely in the face, politically speaking, and share power as equals.

We all sit here today thanks to the Constitution. I quote this Constitution on own affairs as stipulated in section 14:

What, according to Schedule 1, are own affairs? I quote only Schedule 1 item 6 to you:

Section 14, therefore, says that local government is an own affair subject to the provisions of section 16. I now quote from section 16 of the Constitution of the RSA:

In other words, affairs which cannot be attributed to a population group without adversely affecting the interests of another group, shall be general affairs. In order to arrive at the full implementation of the Constitution, resting on the pillars of co-responsibility and self-determination, the hon the State President wants to declare local government as an own affair. He needs the assistance of the provinces to identify such local governments to him. The Transvaal, Orange Free State and Cape Province have done so—in terms of easy-to-read one-page ordinances. Natal still procrastinates.

In trying to explain this delay one may argue that in terms of section 16 local government cannot be an own affair because of an overlap of interests. Such reasoning, if also applied to other spheres, would make everything general affairs, as per section 16 (1) (b). This is, of course, a misrepresentation of the Constitution. The very existence of own affairs like education, social welfare etc proves my point. Let us look at the realities of the situation. [Interjections.] I am arguing within the ambit of the Constitution. I request the hon members over there to have an appreciation for that.

Neither should one be too concerned about the hon the State President’s authority to declare local governments as own affairs. He is quite capable of looking after himself and after the Constitution. I quote from section 18 of the Constitution:

Who passed that silly Constitution?

I will return to the hon member for Reservoir Hills, if time allows. Furthermore it might be argued that making something an own affair would lead to centralisation and even empire building at central level. We on this side would also fight against this. However, the maintenance of the status quo would sabotage the concept of full self-determination at third-tier level and at best result in a general affairs executive committee having jurisdiction over own affairs—a little empire, perhaps for Exco, but in the long run totally unacceptable to us.

It may indeed be so that the majority parties from the other two Houses represented here today are not keen on having own affairs at local government level. It is their decision—and it can be handled in terms of section 98 of the Constitution.

What is the alternative?

We have made our decision. Let me quote the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council (Assembly) in this regard from last week’s Hansard:

Therefore, affairs pertaining to the Ministers’ Council of the House of Assembly will be handed down to local authorities. Power will indeed be devolved to the competent and responsible men and women to be elected on 26 October. However, this can only happen if these local authorities are within the ambit of own affairs. Our Ministers’ Council cannot …

Order! I regret having to interrupt the hon member, but his time has expired.

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

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon member, my good neighbour from Pinetown.

Our Ministers’ Councils cannot, and should not, hand down own affairs to general affairs local authorities. Hence the absence of own affairs local authorities will be a disservice to the men and women who are to be elected on 26 October.

Rubbish!

May I point out to my Indian and Coloured colleagues that the day will come when we will have another group represented here in this Committee. Our mechanisms of self-determination will have been established by then. What about theirs? May I remind them that two weeks ago in the House of Representatives the hon the State President expressed the belief that Ministers’ Councils that do not properly establish and extend the authority of their local governments, do their communities a disservice. I trust that the time will not come when those hon members may regret not having heeded this sound advice.

I now return to my own population group; I speak for them. We shall provide for our self-determination in terms of own affairs, from the first tier of Government right down to local government. Our self-respect demands this. Our Constitution provides for this. We are adamant in this regard.

Amongst my people it was Natal that produced the biggest “yes” vote for this Constitution. It would therefore have been most appropriate for this province to have taken the lead in providing for own affairs local government. The least it can now do is not to procrastinate any longer, but to follow suit. I implore the Administration to give serious and urgent attention to this matter, in the true spirit of the Constitution.

There are those to the left, as well as to the right of us, who would like to see this Constitution collapse.

Quite right.

The hon member for Durban Central agrees with me. He says I am quite right; he also wants to see this collapse. That would result in tragedy, because this Constitution is an important stepping-stone towards greater political participation for all. If either of its two pillars—co-responsibility and self-determination—is allowed to weaken it will destroy its precarious balance and it will collapse. Conflict will be the result. Natal must play its part in order to prevent this.

I have promised the hon member for Reservoir Hills that I would come back to him and I want to conclude by pointing out to him that most of us in this Committee are not in love with our own verbosity. What I am trying to say is that most of us in this Committee do not suffer from verbal diarrhoea. Thank you very much.

Mr Chairman, yesterday a lot was said about the unequal allocation of time. Is that surprising when just about everything in this beautiful land is unequal, separate and inferior? The sooner we start working towards normalising these inequalities the better. I believe that the unequal allocation of time was highlighted because it affected White members, some of whom saw fit to walk out. To those hon members I must say that they can only achieve change by being inside. Walking out is not the answer.

Did they have lunch?

This morning I only want to deal with two aspects ie Health Services and the application of the Group Areas Act.

I can see no justification whatsoever for the fragmentation of health services on racial grounds, be it medical or economic. There is no reason to compartmentalise this vital service in our country. The concept of regionalisation should be considered as it would take delivery of health services to the people. Health services must be decentralised as this will make it easily accessible to the people.

Germs do not recognise the colour, race or ethnicity of a patient, for example, TB germs attack everyone in the same way. The pathology and the treatment is the same. With regard to obstetrics the physiology of pregnancy is the same in all females. Is it surprising that all babies come out the same way? Therefore fragmentation is unnatural and scientifically unsound. We must avoid duplication and the sooner we forget about ideologies the better. We must not live in a dream-world and we must face up to realities, especially at the present time, when our finances are stretched and strained. Do I have to outline the enormous costs of duplication to the taxpayer? This also concerns the duplication of posts such as those for director-generals, administrative, medical and nursing staff, let alone the cost of separate hospitals, equipment and intensive care units. It is unnecessary for me to emphasise that not all patients will enjoy the benefit of the best medical treatment. In our country there are not enough top quality specialists to go around. This leads to a deterioration in the quality of care.

At the provincial hospital in Scottburgh the Nonwhite section is overcrowded and floor beds are a common sight whereas the White section has ample unoccupied beds. This is an unsatisfactory situation. There also seems to be insufficient nursing staff.

The hon MEC, Mr Miller, when I met him last Tuesday said that when I came up to this province I could fire questions at him and he would give me all the answers. I therefore have a few simple questions that I want to put to him. Why are no Indian nurses employed at Scottburgh Hospital; when will this hospital have an intensive care unit; and when will a hospital be built at Phoenix? It appears to me that our health services is keeping apartheid healthy and alive at all costs. I want to remind hon members here that health is wealth.

I want to place on record my sincere thanks and appreciation to the hon the Administrator and his Executive for opening the community health centre at Umzinto. This will definitely take the pressure off the out-patient section at Scottburgh Hospital and it will cut travel costs and time for the patients. This facility is very welcome.

I now want to highlight the gross injustices of the Group Areas Act in demarcating Umzinto, my constituency. Umzinto is a still-born ethnic local authority and is also disabled in more ways than one. It is amalgamated with Park Rynie which is some seven kilometres away and this adds insult to injury. In this respect Umzinto is unique. There is no other local authority in this predicament in that it has to provide services for two separate areas. With the high costs prevalent today this has become impossible. I therefore appeal to the hon the Administrator and his Executive to remedy this injustice that has been done to the people of Umzinto.

To add fuel to the fire, the small village of Umzinto is split into two parts. One small section has been retained for Whites, where only four White families live, and it is called Umzinto. The balance of Umzinto has been renamed Umzinto North. We have tried everything to alter this change of name, but have been unsuccessful. I believe that the Umzinto North Town Board has submitted a memorandum to the Provincial Administration for assistance to provide beach facilities, recreational facilities, a caravan park and has appealed to extend its boundaries. I appeal to the hon the Administrator and his Executive to please assist Umzinto to provide these basic facilities for its people.

I see that there is a proposal to proclaim a free trading area in Umkomaas. I believe that free trading areas should not be considered on an ad hoc basis. All CBD areas should rather be declared free of the Group Areas Act. Recently an application by an Indian group to legalise the purchase of an hotel in Park Rynie which is run by a White front was refused. Does the province want to encourage White fronts? This has become an industry today which favours the Whites. There are some White attorneys acting in this capacity as well. I deem this to be highly irregular for officers of justice and I believe the matter should be investigated. Although the hon the Administrator explained yesterday how his department adjudicates a group areas application and appeals I have problems in Park Rynie.

This hotel I mentioned earlier on had recommendations from the hotel across the road which is owned and run by Whites. Sometime last year I made an appeal on behalf of my family doctor who is a White doctor who wanted to dispose of a property more or less alongside this hotel and a permit was granted.

This is a CBD area. There are no dwellings there, and this will not affect the life of anyone, since no-one actually lives in that particular area.

I also wish to say that hotel establishments throughout the country are integrated, and there is no significance in respect of usage and occupation of all hotel premises. I cannot see any justification for the permit refusal.

Finally, I want to warn that for peaceful coexistence in this country, the haves will have to share with the have-nots. I appeal to the hon the Administrator and his Executive to spend their funds where the need is greatest.

I want to place on record my sincere thanks and appreciation to the hon the Administrator and his Executive for all that was done for all the various race groups during the floods. Disaster must not bring us together; we should always be seen working together.

Mr Chairman, it is always a pleasure to follow up on a sound speech …

Mr Chairman, I rise on a point of order. It is evident to me—I have been observing this—that some hon members of this House are failing to observe Standing Rule No 75. I should appreciate it if you would appraise hon members of this Standing Rule, which also appeared in the old Standing Rules and Orders.

Order! I shall consider that. The hon member for Wentworth may proceed.

As I was saying, Mr Chairman, or trying to say, the hon member for Umzinto ended his speech by referring to the need for the haves in Natal to accept the fact that in the final analysis they will have to share with the have-nots.

I wish to deal with the whole matter of the dynamics of participation, and I should like to say that the LP is all too conscious of the dynamics of participation. We have learnt from others, particularly Inkatha, that a system is devised by people in order for it not to fail. We believe that the engineers of a political system devise such a system in order for it to succeed, and succeed it will. The participants in such a system, by their very participation, are able either to change the system or to allow it to function as intended by its engineers. We as the LP long ago decided to participate and to try and change the system by our very participation.

This is not a unique decision; it is one which is an emulation of similar decisions which were made long before 1983. As the hon the Administrator said yesterday, one either participates in a system or one goes somewhere else, wherever that somewhere else may be. The LP has no qualms about being participants in this Chamber today. It has no reservations about it. We are here as participants because we want to change even this system. We do not wish to become irrelevant, and for that reason we are here.

In doing this we actually followed the example which was set by Inkatha many years ago, when we made our Eshowe decision in 1983. Did not Inkatha move into the legislative process many years ago? Are they not participants, as we are participants now? It is worth remembering that Inkatha decided ages ago to participate in the legislative process in whatever form it may be, long before this decision of ours.

I have mentioned that the LP’s participation in provincial debates is consistent with our Eshowe decision, which governs our participation in the central Parliament. For this reason the LP is anxious about the non-participation of Inkatha in this forum. We believe that every one of us must make every effort to convince Inkatha that participation at this level is a logical extension to participation anywhere else in the legislative process.

I hope next year to see an extended provincial committee and to see all the actors who should be on the stage, performing at their very best. Natal is onto a very good thing here. I am pleased that Natal affairs can now be debated away from Table Mountain. For too many years I sat and listened to a guided tour of all the problems of the Western Cape. I am tired of hearing about the need for water in Namaqualand. I am tired of hearing that “daar waar die teerpaaie ophou, begin Worcester”. I am tired of hearing that. [Interjections.] Those debates must take place in the respective regions. I want to hear national issues discussed at the central Parliamentary level. I am not saying that I am not interested in roads being tarred in Worcester; obviously they must be tarred. However, in my book that is a regional matter—I do not want to hear about it in the central Parliament; otherwise we make a mockery of the democratic process. I want to hear debates on foreign affairs in Parliament. We should concern ourselves with critical issues like disinvestment, sanctions and matters of that nature. I am pleased, therefore, that we can now discuss Natal affairs in Natal, instead of discussing them in the Cape.

I have said that Natal is onto a good thing here, and I also said yesterday that we were in favour of an extension of regional government and a lessening of centralised government. In blunt terms, I mean simply that I am more than likely talking myself out of a job! We simply have too many members of Parliament in this country—far too many. When I refer to members of Parliament, I do not refer only to members of the House of Representatives; I include the members of the Parliament of Qwa Qwa, of Gazankulu, of KwaZulu, of every single self-governing territory and every one of the TBVC states. We have too many members of Parliament. Let us cut down the number; nobody will complain if we cut down the number of members of Parliament. There will also be fewer debates on home issues in central Parliament if we do that.

There is a subject I must not fail to touch on—it is something that the hon member for Umhlatuzana mentioned. He said that the tricameral system was based on the two pillars of co-responsibility and self-determination. It is amazing how wide the gulf is between the perspectives of our politicians today. We do not accept those two as our twin pillars of the tricameral system. From our perspective, we see the Group Areas Act and the Population Registration Act as the two pillars of the tricameral system. Now, that is simply a statement of fact; I am not saying this with any bitterness in my heart, or anything like that. It is a statement of fact. I would like that statement of mine to be disproved.

The hon member also mentioned that the future of this country and the survival of every community in this country must rest on the protection of group rights. There again we differ; our perspective is different. We believe that it is far safer for the hon member for Umhlatuzana to opt for the protection of individual rights than group rights. He has a better chance of survival if his individual rights are guaranteed. I am certain that he is democratic enough to guarantee my individual rights in a similar manner, and I am sure there is enough goodwill in this country for us to learn to trust each other as far as that is concerned. Let us not take all our examples only from the rest of Africa; let us look at other, comparable countries—why shouldn’t we? [Interjections]

Why not? We live in Africa.

My time is somewhat limited, so I shall discuss that at a different level.

I want to refer to something that is very dear to our hearts and I should like the hon member to be tolerant if he cannot be patient. We believe that people are naturally gregarious. They tend to want to be together by natural choice or natural selection. One does not have to herd them like cattle into compartments.

We believe that Natal has a golden opportunity now and hopefully, if the regional government becomes stronger at a later stage, it will have a golden opportunity to call upon the central Government to declare the Group Areas Act null and void in this province. Let us take the lead. Let us show the rest of the country. [Interjections.]

We do not believe in the protection of group rights; we believe in the protection of the rights of the individual. [Interjections.] I also want to say that there is enough goodwill among people in this country for us to take the plunge here in this province and to show the rest of the country the way. Natal has never been loath to take the lead in this country anyway, even when it has blundered.

I call upon the Natal Executive to request the central Government that this Act be proclaimed null and void in this province. What has the Act done for this province up to now? What has it done? [Interjections.] It has certainly not protected anyone’s group rights, except for those of a privileged group. The Group Areas Act has ensured that more than 66% of prime residential land in this province has been proclaimed for White occupation, while less than 4%—I think the percentage is 3,7%—of all the residential land in this province, and never the prime spots in this province, has been proclaimed Coloured.

Order! I regret having to interrupt the hon member but his time has expired.

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

Order! The hon member may proceed.

Thank you. I shall take just one more minute, Mr Chairman, because I have had a previous opportunity to speak and it would be unfair of me to take up too much time.

I must refer to the fact that life in Natal has been made so difficult over the years for the so-called Coloured people, and slightly easier in the Western Cape or North Western Cape. We cannot but come to the conclusion that the intention was always to create a Colouredstan for the so-called Coloured people. Why has the so-called Coloured population in this province been so heavily discriminated against? Why is it still so difficult to obtain land in this province? Why do our areas look the way they do? Why is it made slightly easier in other parts of the country such as the North Western Cape? We believe that if we are to remain part of this province, then our voice must be heard in this respect.

Mr Chairman, I appreciate the time given to me and I thank you for the opportunity to address this Committee.

Mr Chairman, my remarks will be confined mainly to the activities of the Physical Planning Directorate. I shall also comment on the Natal Sharks Board, and the Natal Parks Board and I shall possibly also react to one or two of the concerns expressed by hon members yesterday, and possibly to those expressed this morning as well.

The remarks I am about to make concerning land availability are pertinent to the concerns that were expressed by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Delegates and the hon member for Esselen Park in their speeches yesterday.

There is an interdepartmental committee charged with identifying land in the Durban region for Coloureds and Indians. This committee has been set up by the Department of Development Planning and is chaired by Mr Pieter Rossouw of that department. The Houses of Delegates and Representatives have employed private planning consultants to prepare reports on this matter which will be of assistance to the committee.

In addition to the above, the Directorate has just completed a study of land availability for all races in the Greater Durban region and a report on this study is currently been readied for submission to the Executive Committee.

Before I make any further remarks I should like hon members to take cognisance of the fact that I am opposed to the Group Areas Act and that when I speak of the Group Areas Act and group areas I am not necessarily advocating group areas but am merely acting within the constraints of the structures within which we have decided to participate, as was enunciated by the hon member for Wentworth earlier on.

In the greater Mariannhill area an ad hoc committee has been looking into how land should be apportioned between the various groups living there. Agreement has now been reached on land allocations in the area and it is now up to the Group Areas Board to examine the question of demarcation of group areas in that particular region.

This Directorate has also carried out a survey of informal housing in the Stanger subregion and a report has just been completed with recommendations on the provision of land and serviced sites to accommodate future residential expansion of the town.

Insofar as the NPA goals and objectives are concerned, on 8 and 9 December 1987 the Town and Regional Planning Commission conducted a “think tank” for the purpose of identifying problems facing the Administration and for setting goals and objectives for the region. Apart from the members of the Town and Regional Planning Commission, also present were the hon the Administrator and members of the Executive Committee. Members of the Community Services Branch were also present. After two days of exhausting and exhaustive discussion the following main broad goals, in their order of priority, were identified and crystallised. These goals were to develop and implement the following strategies: Firstly, a strategy for rapid urbanisation; secondly, a rural development strategy; thirdly, an environmental conservation strategy; and fourthly, an economic development strategy.

Other needs that were also identified were the need to contribute to political stability in the region; the need to support an educational programme; and the need to support a population development programme.

As far as planning and the so-called “package” of plans are concerned, pursuant to the recent amendment to the Town Planning Ordinance to empower local authorities to prepare structure plans—which are all-embracing, comprehensive plans for an area—and development plans to supplement their town planning schemes, the province has been active in encouraging local authorities to embark on structure plans as the first step towards implementing the full “package”. To date 14 local authorities have commenced the preparation of structure plans. However, none of these structure plans have yet been finalised, although it is appropriate to recall that the province has decided as a matter of policy that an approved structure plan should be the prelude to devolution of town planning powers to local authorities.

Insofar as privatisation is concerned, up until five years ago the staff of the Town and Regional Planning Commission acted as town planning consultants to some 75 local authorities. In the interim, as a matter of policy, the Commission has divested itself of some 25 of these local authorities to enable private consultants to move into this field. The Commission regularly reviews its commitment to local authorities on an ongoing basis with the object of shedding as many local authorities as it reasonably can and allowing them to do their own town planning.

I also want to mention that the preparation of the majority of the structure plans mentioned are in the hands of private consultants.

In the field of deregulation the following initiatives have been taken: The committee chaired by commission member Mr Haslam is presently considering amendments to the Ordinance aimed at streamlining procedures for amending town planning schemes and for applications for planning permission. A first set of amendments are to be submitted to the standing committee later this year.

Zero based regulation areas (Zebras) facilitate the communities in the less sophisticated areas in conducting business. These have been actively pursued in Durban, Pietermaritzburg and certain other local authorities such as Bergville, Port Shepstone, and the like. It must be said, however, that by and large Natal local authorities have not shown any great enthusiasm for establishing Zebras in their areas despite active encouragement by the province. Our local authorities should perhaps pull up their socks in this regard.

With regard to private townships board procedures, several steps have been taken to simplify and streamline the processing of applications for the subdivision of land and development.

I now wish to thank hon members for the praise and accolades which they have showered on the Parks Board and the Sharks Board, ably led by their respective directors. These are Mr John Geddes-Page of the Parks Board and Mrs Beulah Davids of the Sharks Board. I am sure that we all agree that they are rendering sterling service— not only to the province but also in world research.

I now wish to touch upon a point raised by the hon member for North Coast in his concern for development applications and for applications for change of land usage. I wish to assure the hon member that when the Executive Committee considers these applications, we agonise over them for hours and a decision either way is not taken lightly. When these development applications are considered we have to take into account numerous factors, eg local authority control, orderly development and also in many instances the availability of serviced and zoned industrial land in the nearby local authority. For these reasons the applications for a change of land usage sometimes have to be refused.

Mr Chairman, at the outset I want to make a few observations on my first impressions concerning these proceedings of the Extended Public Committee on Provincial Affairs: Natal, in this capital city of Natal, the city in which I first saw the light of day, the capital city of the province, the garden province, in which I was born.

Firstly, I want to say that the public meeting of the CP yesterday evening with the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition was quite an experience. It was a demonstration that the CP conservatives throughout South Africa, and also in Natal, are, in spite of language ties, rallying behind the ideal of an own, free White republic in which White self-determination, independence and their own identity will come into their own. [Interjections.] Accordingly it entails the recognition of the right of each of the other population groups to come into their own in their own territories in the manner they choose. [Interjections.]

My second impression is that of the absurdity of this joint committee as a so-called “broadening of the democracy”. Instead of a full-fledged own government for the Indians and the Coloureds, we have a hopeless situation in which the Coloured and Indian representatives are trying to play various roles here, derived from a subordinate position in the tricameral Parliament. On the one hand they want to govern jointly over the Whites of Natal and South Africa. On the other hand they want to protect the interests of their own people, but then they must also play to the Black gallery, and in Natal of course to the Zulu gallery, who through the chief leader of the Zulus demands that the so-called “White minority Government” should hand over the real power of government to the so-called “Black majority”. He postulates an undertaking to that effect as a condition for participating in constitutional negotiations with the Government.

In the midst of all this the representatives of the Indian population are sitting here as an epitome of disorganisation. They are so divided and so confused that the hon member of the Cabinet of the hon the State President, who is also the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, or at least still was when we began these proceedings this morning, is no longer in control, and was unable yesterday to take the first speaking turn for the House of Delegates.

It is so unnecessary for the domestic affairs of the Indians to be displayed here in front of everyone. What ought to be a perfectly normal, domestic matter of the Indian community in its own Indian Parliament, becomes an object of scorn in the integrated company of the other groups. Dirty linen is being washed in public. In terms of the CP’s policy of self-determination this would never have happened. [Interjections.]

In the midst of all these things the representatives of the Coloured population are trying to present themselves as the Official Opposition in Parliament, and are doing so while the polling percentage in the elections in which they were elected was so low that doubt exists as to whether they really represent the majority of the Coloured population. It is almost as though they are trying to overcome their own inability and impotence to represent their own people with confidence by striving to be the so-called Official Opposition in Parliament.

They are driving this obsession of theirs so far that yesterday, when the hon the Chief Whip of the CP was speaking, they shouted that the CP and the hon the Chief Whip had too much time in which to state our standpoint. They said that, although they know as well as we do that the NP cheated us disgracefully by giving us far too little time in proportion to the large number of voters we represent. Those cries of “too much time” were a laugh of derision, a laugh of scorn and a cynical disregard for democracy as a representative form of government. This is typical of the intolerance of the classic liberal, and an eternal complaint against people who dare utter the word national representation or democracy.

In terms of CP policy it could have been vastly different. Coloureds would not have had to compete in the game of conflict which is the tricameral Parliament. They would have been able to deliberate freely in their own way in their own Parliament over the needs and expectations of their own people and their relations with neighbouring peoples. [Interjections.]

The further, bitter irony of the situation is that Indian, Coloured and NP members are in fact playing to the Black gallery. The one is trying to outbid the other for the favour of the so-called moderate Blacks, whom they want to appeal to in order to have their so-called Indian, Coloured and White minority rights protected. How cynical and senseless it is, how absolutely emasculated by mirages and illusions of peace, order and peaceful co-existence without separation of political power.

Thirdly, I turn to the hon the Administrator and MEC’s of this appointed Administration. Before I go any further I want to say: How ironic it is that the Coloureds and Indians, who pride themselves on seeking democracy, sat here yesterday and today as champions of the tricameral system’s unrepresentative, nominated Administrator and Executive Committee that was appointed by the hon the State President.

†Mr Chairman, could there be method in the madness of coming all the way here to witness these pathetic apologists of an unworkable and flawed system? Perhaps the person who disappointed me most was the hon the Administrator himself. He is someone I came to know years ago as a political adversary. Nevertheless, he is a gentleman socially, with a sharp tongue, yes, and a politician in the best tradition of opposition politics in this province.

He forsook that honourable role to become an administrator of Nationalist policy; an apologist for the Nats; an agent for the tricameral Parliament in Natal.

I could have kept my disappointment to myself, but the hon the Administrator caused me not to do so by his uncalled-for remarks at the luncheon hosted by the Mayor of Pietermaritzburg yesterday afternoon. I record the facts briefly.

The hon the Chief Whip of the CP spelt out the grave injustice done to the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly in his opening speech yesterday. He concluded by leading a walk-out of the CP in protest, stating clearly that we were to return today. The untoward jeers of certain hon members were bad enough. Then, half an hour later, we attended the luncheon hosted by the mayor. Why? Because clearly we intended no personal insult to either the hon the Administrator or the mayor representing the city and its people. Yet the hon the Administrator took advantage at the luncheon to reflect negatively— and in bad taste, may I add—on the CP’s action earlier in the day. I regret his conduct, and in the circumstances I am obliged to remind him of his own words in Parliament not so long ago, directed at the hon the State President, the Minister of Defence at the time, of whom the hon the Administrator has now become an appointed nominee.

He said the following, and unfortunately I could not find Hansard in English in this building, and I rely on a translation I made myself from the Afrikaans:

I am quoting the hon the Administrator at the time—

I trust that an unhappy first episode has now been concluded, and that the CP will in future be allowed to participate in debate in a manner befitting the rules of democracy.

Mr Chairman, ladies and gentlemen—I mean hon members—I can forgive many things in this life, but one thing that is unforgiveable is humourlessness. If a person has no sense of humour, what does life mean to him? A sour life with no future, where what appears in writing has the appearance of that hon member; contorted and “naar” and “Pienaar”!

We have heard from the hon members of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly about the meeting they held yesterday evening, of the great enthusiasm and the demonstration of power—those were the words used—which took place, and I heard there were 93 people present. [Interjections.] It was therefore a tremendous demonstration of might and power, and that, according to my information, included speakers and their families!

Yesterday there was another demonstration of power.

†When I arrived here I saw banners proclaiming that there was going to be a meeting relating to the so called “40 years of misrule” The hon members of the PFP held that meeting last night. I believe 50 people attended the meeting. [Interjections.]

*That was what the White opposition amounted to. I am speaking after an hon member of the CP. He and his party augur no good for Natal. I cannot think of a single positive gesture, aspect, policy or thought which they augur for anyone in Natal.

Let us consider the White position if there were to be a CP government. We know that the CP advocates a White homeland, but we also know that the total population structure is such that that White homeland could not be in Natal, because there are too few Whites here in Natal. There is not a single magisterial district in Natal in which more than 4,5% of the children attending primary school are White children. If one then considers the partition policy of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly, there is no place for a White person in Natal, because one is unable to achieve majority White settlement in any area, as the CP proposes here. To the Whites, therefore the CP are poison, if one is living in Natal.

What is the position with the Blacks? What Black person would be prepared to live in South Africa and to strive for political rights in South Africa under a CP regime, whose policy it is to return to the Statute Book all discriminatory legislation that has been abolished and is in the process of being abolished? What would the position be in Natal in terms of peace and stability if those hon members came into power?

Where do you see peace and stability in South Africa?

There will consequently be no advantage for the Whites, there will be no advantage for the Blacks either, and I cannot think of a single advantage for the Coloured population, because they talk about a Coloured homeland, but Dr Ferdie Hartzenberg, the hon member for wherever, says the Coloureds have enough land, and their homeland will in other words have to be where they are now, wherever that may be.

†However, we are in Natal today, and I thought those hon members would give more clarity on the Indian homeland that they intend to establish in Natal once they take over the Government. They must tell us the details, because we know what the broad parameters are: The Indian homeland, in terms of official statements by the CP, will be situated between Stanger, Durban and Pietermaritzburg.

The Valley of a Thousand Hills.

I want to know what will happen to the Indian communities that do not at present live in this triangle. There are about ten to twelve thousand Indians in Ladysmith; there are many thousands in other parts of the country. Will they be moved?

Forced to move.

Will they be forcibly moved? Will they be compensated? The problem that we are facing is this: What will happen to the other groups living in the triangle I have referred to, since a large part of KwaZulu is in that area? There are also White farmers and Black and Coloured people living in this triangle; are they going to be moved from that area?

Out of Natal.

Out of Natal? Who is going to pay for those expenses?

I understand that when this was discussed in the CP caucus, the caucus kindly agreed that if the Indian community so wished, they would be entitled or given the opportunity to use Afrikaans to name their homeland. [Interjections.] This would be subject, however, to three conditions. They must use not more than two Afrikaans words. One Afrikaans word must be “piesangland”. If they ever refer to “piesangland", the emphasis must be on the “sang” portion, and not on the “pie” portion. [Interjections.]

*It is pity that we should have to discuss such ridiculous and ill-considered aspects on this important occasion. Here is a policy, a distorted train of thought, which is seriously being submitted to us in Natal. What is more, it is being done with bravado. It is no wonder that one of the hon members opposite referred to those hon members yesterday as a few lost Afrikaners. I wonder whether it is not time we gave this matter some very serious thought in this province. It is time this province rejected with contempt at the very first opportunity the candidacy of any CP member at the municipal or any other level. We must place on record how repugnant we find their dangerous policy. We in Natal can do without that party’s arguments and approach.

Mr Chairman, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the Chairman of this Committee on his appointment as presiding officer in this multiracial assembly. I want to quote one or two remarks.

Since we met in this Chamber yesterday, I have noticed that certain hon members do not respect the Chair. If that is their way of seeking peace in South Africa, I foresee problems on the road ahead for them. I want to come back to the CP’s walk-out yesterday.

After the CP had walked out, I left the Chamber briefly to make one or two telephone calls. I discovered that what had occurred here in Pietermaritzburg had also taken place in other centres. So it came as no surprise to hear the CP declare yesterday that they would not participate further in this meeting. It was a political ploy which took place in all the centres.

Well orchestrated, too.

It was well orchestrated. It was apparently meant to look like a political dispute. I want to tell the CP, however, that they did not break our morale or that of any other party. That will not prevent us from making South Africa a place where everyone under the sun gets a fair deal.

I also want to refer to the hon member for Potgietersrus. He said that hon members of the House of Representatives did not really represent the Coloured community of South Africa. That is a blatant attack on the party to which I belong. I am a member of the LP, just as the hon member for Potgietersrus is a member of the CP. The LP won 77 of the 80 seats in the House of Representatives in the 1984 election. The LP therefore represents the majority of Coloured people in our country.

I want to tell the hon member for Potgietersrus that the policy of the CP is not acceptable to the Coloured, Black or Indian people of this country. Their policy is one of confrontation. It will lead to violence, and the day violence breaks out in South Africa, it will not only be the Coloured, Indian and Black people who will suffer, but also those White people the CP supposedly represents. Those people will travel the same road because of the policy advocated for South Africa by the CP. It is a policy which was advocated by many people in Africa, and everybody knows what misery there is in Africa. CP supporters will eventually have to leave this country, just like so many other colonialists and imperialists have had to leave Africa.

I also want to refer to the hon member for Brakpan. He said something yesterday which worried me. He said the CP stood for the rights of the Afrikaner. Not for one moment do I want to deny the CP that right, but let me tell them that it was not only the Afrikaner who fought for this country. It was not only Afrikaner blood that was spilled for South Africa. It was not only the Afrikaner who took part in the Great Trek. In the Great Trek of 1838 there were wagon-leaders and team-leaders. Those wagon-leaders and teamleaders were Coloured people. The Coloured people also suffered. The Coloureds shared in the same misery as the Whites. Together with the Whites the Coloureds had to grapple with nature and the elements. The Coloureds in South Africa therefore demand the same rights which the Afrikaners claim for themselves.

If the policy of the CP is the policy of the Afrikaner, they are on the wrong track. I want to put a pertinent question to the CP. I hope they can answer it—I think they would like to respond to what I have to say. This is the question: If they were to govern South Africa one day, would they simply wish away all those who did not support the CP? If they were to come to power tomorrow, the realities facing us today would still be there. They would have to negotiate with us. They would not be able to kick us out of Parliament. They would not be able to kick us out of South Africa. No, they would have to live with us! If they ever came to power, they would have to throw their policy overboard the very next day. Theirs is an unrealistic policy.

I should like to talk about Vote No 3, and specifically about roads and bridges. An amount of R251 794 has been budgeted for in this Vote. It is hopelessly inadequate. Incidentally, I am fortunate enough to come from the Cape, but I am happy to be able to speak in Natal today. I shall try to be a good Natalian whilst participating in this debate. That amount is insufficient to maintain Natal’s roads properly and to build new roads and bridges. I do not want to dwell on that, however. The Road Fund is now going to the Treasury, but I also want to refer to the amount which the province grants to local authorities for the construction of roads. This amount is R446 147.

I now come to a point about which I am most unhappy. Those funds are allocated to local authorities to maintain and construct roads other than main roads. If we examine the distribution of those funds, however, we find that those funds which are used for road construction projects and are granted to local authorities by the province, are allocated most unfairly.

When I look at the area in which the hon member for Wentworth lives, in Ifafa, I think it is absolutely unfair.

It is disgraceful!

It is disgraceful, as the hon member for Esselen Park has said, that in that area one has to drive on a road which is actually no road at all. I am convinced that the City Council of Durban also receives funds to improve reads in that area. I want to appeal to the hon the Administrator to ensure that there is a just allocation of funds and that attention is specifically given to roads in Coloured areas.

I am not very well-acquainted with the area, but last night I drove around with the hon member for a while. We went to look at other areas. It seems to me that the pattern adopted is the same as that which prevails in all White areas in respect of road construction and all these facilities. It is always better on the other side. People are starting to say: “Yes, but we pay taxes.” We could spend hours debating the ways in which the tax is collected and how it should be distributed, but I do want to say that it is unfair that roads in White areas are consistently better than those in nonWhite areas. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I do not intend to demean myself by saying any more about the racist tirade of the hon member for Potgietersrus than that he may have been born in Natal, but I have been involved in Natal politics for 32 years and if the hon member spoke on behalf of his party, and if this blatant stirring up of racial hatred is the CP’s message, then I know Natal Whites well enough to know that they will never give that party a seat. [Interjections.]

In my opinion, however, he made an unwarranted attack on the hon the Administrator here which we cannot simply allow to go unanswered. [Interjections.]

We on this side of the Committee, who are members of the governing party in the House of Assembly, have the highest regard, not only for the hon the Administrator’s acceptance of this extremely difficult office at a difficult time in the history of Natal, but also for the competence with which he executes his office and for the manner in which he, as an English-speaking person, like most of his fellow-Natalians, succeeds in building bridges between Afrikaans and English-speaking people in this province. [Interjections.]

No doubt we must now ask ourselves what the great crime is that the hon the Administrator committed yesterday. In a light-hearted way, the hon the Administrator also thanked the Mayor on behalf of those whom he thought had left us. That was the reason for this dreadful tirade against him.

Despite the fact that, as I said, it was said in a light-hearted manner, the hon the Administrator made that remark after the leading hon member of the CP had made a statement here earlier that morning in which he dissociated himself on behalf of his party from inter alia, and I quote: “A weird and macabre death dance around the embers of the dying fires of democracy”. Furthermore, he described this meeting as “an objectionable political confidence trick”. That sort of language would probably make any right-minded person think that those four hon members— those four unelected, unrepresentative hon members—of this committee … [Interjections] … would have wanted to leave this place and not be seen in such an afflicted community again. If the hon the Administrator’s conclusion was incorrect, they are the last people who can blame him for it. [Interjections.]

However, I want to tell the hon the Administrator that I have the misfortune to share my Afrikaner nationality with the hon member for Potgietersrus, and I am ashamed of it. [Interjections.] I am telling the hon the Administrator that I am sorry and I am speaking on behalf of the Afrikaners of Natal. I am sorry, but we are not all like that. There are those of us who are decent Afrikaners, who are perfectly normal and decent people. [Interjections.]

A few matters were mentioned for consideration in the debate to which I, as chairman of the standing committee, should probably refer briefly in the few minutes remaining at my disposal.

Yesterday in the course of the debate, hon members referred to certain aspects of this meeting and asked inter alia why the Committee was not sitting in public and why the Committee had to sit in Natal. I think that because this was also a topic of discussion in the standing committee, I should perhaps say one or two things about it.

The hon member for Isipingo asked inter alia why we did not sit in public. I must say at once that one of the very first requests that was made on the standing committee after its inception last year, was that the proceedings of the standing committee should take place in public. However, only one of the three areas covered by the standing committee falls within the powers of the Committee and hon members who are members of the standing committee will agree with me that the Committee has the power to decide on only one of those areas, namely draft ordinances of the province. Hon members of the standing committee know that it was decided at the first meeting of the Standing Committee on Provincial Affairs: Natal, that all sittings dealing with draft ordinances would in future take place in public.

According to the Rules of Parliament, the sittings regarding the other two areas, namely the consideration of the report of the Auditor-General on the finances of the province, and the question and reply session for which seven days are set aside in Cape Town after the budget speech, must take place in camera.

I therefore have no objection if hon members feel that all those sittings—including the last two that I mentioned—should take place in public. However, as each member of this Committee and each party that is represented in this Committee, is also represented on the Committee on the Standing Rules of Parliament, that is the forum in which this matter should be resolved. As this Committee has no authority in that regard, it serves no purpose and is to no one’s advantage for this argument to be raised here.

Will the NP support it then?

I should like to listen to what the arguments in favour of this are, because I think the hon member for Pinetown will agree with me that there is a tradition that dates back to Union, that, to mention one example, the sittings of the committee on the report of the Auditor-General are not held in public.

I am of the opinion that there are certain situations and questions which crop up in the standing committee during its question and reply session, in the period of seven days after the Budget speech, which may make it easier for the hon the Administrator and his Executive Committee to give members background information which they would not give so readily in public sittings. That is background information that enables hon members to motivate their contributions here in public debate more effectively. Therefore, I do not want to categorically say yes or no, but I do want to say that if Parliament, in its wisdom, were to think that it should change that Rule, there could then be an opportunity to extend this sitting of two days to three or four days and—as the hon MEC Mr Volker mentioned here—there would then be the possibility, and I am mentioning it as a possibility, that we could devote a day or so to general, provincial matters only and devote later days to discussions on the Vote. I am mentioning these as possibilities, but this is not the forum in which to discuss that matter.

Secondly, the question was also asked why we had to sit in Natal. It has been said, inter alia, that tremendous costs are involved. However, I think that hon members of the standing committee will agree with me that at every sitting of the standing committee, members asked that the sittings be held in Natal. The hon member for Isipingo, who spoke about this specifically yesterday, and the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis, who is one of the four committee members of the CP, are members of that committee. I whole-heartedly support that wish of members of the standing committee. I think it is good and correct and fair and it has already been said in this debate that the closer provincial matters are brought to Natal—the closer they are brought to home—the more visually active Natal becomes in the legislative process.

In its statement, the CP spoke about costs of R100 000. Other hon members mentioned the possibility of defective democratic aspects. I would have liked to have elaborated on that but time is of the essence. However, allow me to say the following in conclusion: The CP is the very last party that should talk about democratic systems and costs. What is the alternative to the R100 000 that they say this sitting is costing? The alternative is 55 elected provincial council members. [Time expired]

Mr Chairman, I should like to begin with the assertion that the people of colour in this country are totally opposed to any form of discrimination. This is going to be our life policy in relation to what is happening around us in this country and nothing is going to change that.

I also want to say that the members who have had the privilege over the years of ruling this country have done this country harm instead of good simply because of their inhumanity. If we look at legislation of this country, not only from the days of NP rule but even before, one sees that we, the people of colour, have been subjected to a great deal of discrimination. Therefore what we need to do is to use the opportunity created for us to look ahead and to see how together we can reach an ideal South Africa on the road ahead.

Our participation in the tricameral system is a participation for negotiation for better things to come and not for the status quo to remain as it is. Therefore, when opportunities are provided for us—such as this forum—at the highest levels of the country we need to exploit the situation for the benefit of South Africa and all its people.

Much has been said since yesterday about the South African situation, but has anyone given any attention to what the world thinks of South Africa, how we are regarded and what the overseas perception is of South Africa? It is all the result of our own doing. There is going to be an escalation in the calls for sanctions against us overseas and there is going to be an increase in the calls for boycotts against us. How do we counteract such activities against South Africa? It is for us as South Africans to find the answers because I believe that no constitutional model can be imported to meet the South African situation. We in South Africa must find those answers. Let us then go forward with this idea that we are in this together.

Having said this, I briefly want to refer to the information given yesterday by Mr Peter Miller, MEC, on the zoning of beaches. The Indian population was largely concentrated on the North Coast of Natal as a result of which Umdloti Beach, Tongaat Beach, Ballito Beach and Sheffield Beach—all these beaches—were visited by people of colour, particularly the Indian community of Verulam, Inanda and Ottawa because those were the nearest beaches available to the community. However, what happened? In the 1950s the Umdloti Health Committee introduced bye-laws reserving the whole of the Umdloti beachfront, the shore and swimming facilities exclusively for the White group. Therefore, when I hear in this House that beaches are not zoned I want to say to Mr Peter Miller, MEC, that as a Minister of State I know what I am talking about because I was one of the victims of the harassment at that beach. Up to today no person of colour can sit on the beach let alone swim. This is what is happening at Umdloti Beach and those bye-laws, for the information of this House, were approved by the Provincial Council. Therefore, it is part and parcel of what happened and that will be the case in perpetuity. When I say part and parcel I do not necessarily mean the members of today, but there is a legacy and an inheritance and therefore members should look at the deregulation legislation. The State from the hon the State President down is very conscious and anxious that deregulation should take place where regulations impede advancement and economic progress and impair human relations.

Therefore, when I hear that this is not the case in our beloved country, South Africa, then I counteract by quoting examples. There are many other bye-laws that were made selfishly by residents in the area. That too needs to be looked at by the province.

Mention was made of the devolution of powers to local authorities. I distinctly recall that when we as members of the Indian community found it absolutely difficult to reach our city fathers at the time because we were participating in civic associations and ratepayers’ associations and our voices were not heard, we used local affairs committees to bring our grievances to the attention of the city fathers. It was never the intention at the time of local affairs committees to come in autonomously as local authorities.

I want to give hon members an example. Verulam was one of the cases where 95% of rates were being paid by the Indian community; but they were being governed by the White community. Therefore, we took full advantage of the provisions of the Group Areas Act to ask for Verulam to be an Indian area so that in the absence of participation—and where it matters most—we would then have the opportunity to participate in Verulam in the interests of all and not just the Indian community.

In 1965 the late Mr Percy Fowle came to Verulam and said: “You are going to have a local affairs committee in Verulam.” Within two years we took over Verulam. Why? Because of the opportunity given to us.

A peaceful take-over.

A peaceful take-over without a drop of blood being spilt, as it were.

We did well. The hon the Administrator will bear testimony to the fact that as an advocate in those days he appeared before the Licensing Appeal Board, and after the decision was given the hon the Administrator paid tribute to that committee for work well done.

Was it in his favour?

What I am trying to say is that in this country we fear the unknown. We fear things which are not in fact there. We should be walking the road together.

In the short space of time available to me I also want to take up the issue raised by Mr Peter Miller when he said that there was going to be a big sacrifice on the part of Whites if beaches were opened. What sacrifice, Mr Chairman? What sacrifices are they going to make? The people of colour have contributed towards the wealth and ownership of all those beachfront homes, etc. Who are the domestic workers working for those people today? These are considerations that are being side-stepped simply in order to uphold an ideal of privileged positions.

I now turn to Prospecton. I was a member of the Administrator’s non-White local affairs committee, under the chairmanship of the late Mr Percy Fowle. When the committee was set up to look at the excision of Isipingo as a local authority, it was I in the committee who said that Prospecton … [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, on this occasion I should like to discuss various matters which I believe are important and which affect our hospital administration. I trust, therefore that the hon the Minister of the Budget in the House of Delegates will forgive me if I do not follow up his comments directly.

The matters I should like to deal with consist of the rationalisation of the pharmaceutical code; the provision of medicines to district surgeons; the district surgeons as such; and the question of medical aid. I shall also refer to the own affairs situation in hospitals in Natal as well as the Phoenix Hospital and community health clinics.

In our approach which is aimed at responsible administration, we have considered it essential in our Hospitals Department to rationalise the availability of pharmaceutical products in Natal. The escalation in the price of pharmaceutical products and surgical sundries made it necessary for our Hospitals Department to rationalise the available medicines. A panel of specialists representing all disciplines made a careful study to ensure the availability of pharmaceuticals to cater for every need.

As a result the list of available items was reduced from 2 124 to 1 147, a reduction of 46%. We did, however, provide that the Head Office Pharmacy Advisory Committee should review the list of available items every month so as to ensure that full medical care was available to all patients and to cater for all needs.

The list of available items is also divided into two categories, namely a general code on which all general practitioners can prescribe, and a specialist code on which specialists can prescribe. So as to provide for certain practical circumstances, it has been arranged that district surgeons and medical superintendents at provincial hospitals are also permitted to prescribe on the specialist code. As a result of subsequent revisions, the list of available items has now been increased again to 1 393.

At the same time we have introduced computer-controlled stock rationalisation. We have improved our central buying depot at Clairwood and introduced a well co-ordinated delivery service network. Through the efforts of the JEA we now also purchase and deliver pharmaceuticals and surgical sundries to cater for the KwaZulu needs.

Through this rationalisation and stock control of pharmaceutical products we expect to have a saving in Natal—not KwaZulu—of R10 000 000 for the current financial year. Savings on stock rationalisation—because we can reduce the stock we hold—is expected to contribute R2 000 000 as part thereof.

As part of this scheme we also had to consider the provision of medicines to district surgeons. The cost of medicines has recently escalated beyond all reasonable expectations. We were, therefore, compelled to review our position vis-á-vis the provision of virtually free medicines to hospital and indigent patients.

We acknowledge that all people who are in need of medical care are entitled to a high standard and quality of medical attention and curative medicines. If, however, the patients are not in a position to pay the normal cost of the medicines, and it is expected of the Provincial Administration to bear the cost of the medicines, then we believe that it is not our responsibility to subsidise private enterprise to the extent of providing indigent patients with the most expensive drugs on the market.

Examples of increases in the cost to our Provincial Hospitals Department of pharmaceutical products over a period of two years from 1985-86 to 1987-88 are as follows—and please bear in mind that this is an increase over two years: Wellconal—50 tablets, from R9,48 to R19,63, an increase of 107%; Amitriptyline—10 mg, 100 tablets, from 89 cents to R3,80, an increase of 327%; Neomycin—500 mg, 20 tablets, from R2,00 to R7,00, an increase of 250%; Indomethacin—10 suppositories, from R1,25 to R4,20, an increase of 236%.

Because of this we have considered it essential that we arrange that medicines that are prescribed by district surgeons should now be obtained at our provincial hospitals and should not be prescribed to be obtained from private pharmacists. It is not our duty, in regard to the assistance of indigent patients, to assist private enterprise for that particular purpose.

The average cost per prescription that district surgeons used to prescribe was approximately R55. In terms of the new system that we now employ we have reduced the cost of medicines for indigent and subsidised patients by more than 50%.

I believe this is part of responsible administration. I believe that we cannot be criticised by the pharmaceutical industry for adopting this stand in respect of the supply of medicines to those patients who are dependent on the province and the State for subsidised services. Yesterday there was a lengthy discussion in Network on this very issue. Some representatives of the pharmaceutical industry had criticism—they did not refer to Natal by name—of this aspect of providing medicines through provincial hospitals rather than through private pharmacies.

I would in this respect, in relation to the cost of providing hospital services to injured and patients, like to mention some figures to illustrate the situation in which we find ourselves. Provincial hospitals are facing an increasing financial dilemma. As a result of the Positive Health Programme it has been decided to give priority attention to preventative health care.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon MEC Mr Volker a question? He mentioned yesterday that, because of the shortage of doctors, the province is in the process of recruiting overseas incumbents. The question I would like to ask is the following: Is the province recruiting from both European and Black countries? If so, in what ratio? If not, why not? Is the hon MEC Mr Volker prepared to make a statement on the province’s policy in this regard?

Mr Chairman, whereas this question does not have a direct bearing on what I was saying, I do intend replying to it. The situation is that we have not yet started a direct campaign to try to obtain doctors from overseas. The problem that arises concerns a code that is determined by the Medical Council. Doctors from overseas must first be approved by the Medical Council and we must also negotiate with the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development and with the Medical Council that they should be prepared to review their standards or their norms according to which doctors who qualify overseas can be accepted to practise here. We have no problem whether doctors are qualified in Europe or in the East for that matter.

What about Poland?

Is Poland not part of Europe? I would suggest that the hon member for Isipingo takes a look at his map. [Interjections.]

We have no problem regarding where doctors qualify. It is the Medical Council that has to review its attitude and the Medical Council is not under the control of the State.

Mr Chairman, let me continue on the item that I was dealing with. I said that priority attention was being given to preventative health care. As a result, we have been advised by the Treasury of the Central Government that the escalation of expenditure on curative health care is to be contained to an annual increase of not more than one and a half per cent. We find, however, that our cost increases are substantially higher. Some examples of the escalation in costs per patient day are the following: In the Addington Hospital the increase is from R171 per patient day in 1986 to R205 in 1987—an increase of 20%. At the King Edward VIII it is from R113 in 1986 to R136 in 1987—an increase of 21%. Stanger is an example of a more rural situation. Here the cost per patient day has increased from R56 in 1986 to almost R77 in 1987 which is an increase of 38%. In Clairwood which is more a recuperative hospital than an academic hospital the cost has increased from R44 in 1986 to R59 in 1987—an increase of 34% in one year.

The cost recovery per patient day for the above-mentioned hospitals for the period April 1987 to January 1988 are the following: At Addington, where the cost is R205, we only recover R10,40 per patient day. At the King Edward VIII the cost is R136, but we only recover R3,74 per patient day. At Clairwood the cost is R59 but we recover R2,35 per patient day. At Stanger the cost is R77 but we recover R4,04 per patient day. The average cost per patient day for all provincial hospitals for the nine months mentioned is R106,70 whereas the cost recovery for all provincial hospitals is R9,83. It must be obvious that we cannot continue indefinitely with this trend. We must give consideration to the responsibility that employers should accept as part of their social responsibility towards their employees—I am now speaking to private enterprises.

A substantial percentage of the patients who receive medical care in our provincial hospitals are either in regular employment or are dependants of people who are in regular employment. When they come to our provincial hospitals for treatment, they are booked in as “hospital patients” at highly subsidised tariffs. It is so that we cannot control the facts of the situation in every case. It would appear as though many employers in commerce, industry and, for that matter, also in the services conveniently overlook their social responsibility towards the full spectrum of their employees.

They invariably provide pension and medical aid facilities for their higher paid employees but the vast majority of the lower paid employees—these are people in permanent employment—are not required to become compulsory members of medical aid schemes. The attitude of the private enterprise appears to be that “the State must provide”. This is nothing less than a tax-free, hidden subsidy, running into hundreds of millions of rands every year, which is provided by the State to the employers of labour.

This could also be called the “hidden socialist agenda" by private enterprise. Private enterprise rightly has the duty to criticise the State for any unwarranted socialist practices. Our Constitution in its preamble commits South Africa to a free enterprise programme. If we are to achieve this goal, it is the common responsibility of both the State and of private enterprise actively and energetically to pursue this goal.

I am well aware that many workers would object to becoming members of a contributory medical aid scheme because they would then have to contribute towards a scheme of which the benefits are not immediately visible or tangible to them. If, however, progress is to be made towards a free enterprise society, then it requires a pro-active and practical educational programme in which the State and private enterprise have a joint responsibility. I therefore appeal to Assocom, to the FCI, to the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut and to all employer organisations actively to promote a more widespread membership for all permanent employees of compulsory medical aid or medical assistance schemes. It is part of the social responsibility of a free enterprise society.

I would now like to refer to the own affairs involvement in hospitals in Natal. Various members referred to the disadvantages of the concept of own affairs in hospital matters. I believe that in the handling of hospitals a rather sensible arrangement has been reached. Thereby the opportunity is given for own affairs initiative so as to ensure the full and fair provision of health services to own community interests.

At the same time, however, the handling of hospital administration is not fragmented to such an extent that the effective provision of health services is disrupted. The arrangement provides for own affairs involvement in the appointment of hospital boards for those hospitals which have been identified as own affairs hospitals.

The own affairs administration is also involved in the selection of the medical superintendent—in other words the head of the hospital—and the chief matron. Budgetary provision for the expenditure of that hospital is also made by the own affairs administration. However, the day-to-day administration is dealt with by the Provincial Administration together with all its other provincial hospitals, on an agency basis. There is therefore full opportunity for proper co-ordination and continued co-operation.

As a norm, it has been accepted that those hospitals at which more than 90%—I am not sure whether it is 90% or 95%—of the patients are of one population group, shall be considered own affairs hospitals for that administration.

In Natal the R K Khan Hospital qualifies in terms of that norm and has been identified as an own affairs hospital. Strictly speaking, Northdale does not qualify but by special agreement it has been arranged that Northdale shall also be considered an own affairs hospital.

In regard to White hospitals, Grey’s Hospital and the Hillcrest geriatric hospital have been identified as own affairs hospitals falling under the Administration: House of Assembly.

However, community health clinics, which are normally located in the very residential heart of a particular community, are the full responsibility of that group’s administration. The Phoenix community health clinic, which was a provincial project, has been transferred and is now the full responsibility of the House of Delegates.

The hon member for Umzinto raised the point that health matters should be decentralised. We support the idea that far greater attention should be given to community health clinics. The cost of hospitalising people has become very high. That also includes attention given to out-patients, usually by doctors at hospitals. We believe, however, that a properly qualified nurse is capable of giving satisfactory attention to a high percentage of out-patients, at least as a first step in the examination. Wherever necessary, the patient can be referred to a doctor or a hospital. A clinic can therefore serve as a sort of filter to cater for a substantial number of people in need of attention.

Apart from the reduced costs and the relief on our hospital accommodation, this would also enable doctors to give more comprehensive attention to those patients who need the attention of a qualified doctor. As it is, we have a shortage of doctors and frequently out-patient attention virtually becomes a supermarket conveyor-belt process. It is therefore our aim to encourage the establishment of more community health clinics, especially in the KwaZulu area, because there is a great need for them.

I should like to deal briefly with Phoenix Hospital, which has been mentioned in this debate. A few years ago the Cabinet introduced the so-called hospital norms control, in terms of which any provincial administration would first have to obtain approval from the Norms Committee before they could proceed to build a new hospital or effect major additions to existing hospitals. Among other things, a regional population ratio was applied to determine whether permission could be granted for the construction of a new hospital. The official census statistics were used as a basis for such calculations. Based on those figures, Natal could not obtain approval to proceed with the final planning and construction of a major new hospital in the Phoenix area, in spite of the apparent logical need to do so. The availability of the total number of hospital beds in the greater Durban metropolitan complex was compared with the official census figures in respect of the population for the same time period.

Unfortunately we have the situation that the King Edward VIII Hospital, Addington Hospital, the R K Khan Hospital, Clairwood Hospital, Wentworth Hospital and the Prince Mshyeni Hospital are all situated to the south of Durban or in central Durban.

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

Mr Chairman, may I just complete this, and then I shall take a question.

[Inaudible.]

I beg your pardon?

As soon as you are ready for the question, I shall ask it.

Thank you. As I say, all these existing hospitals are concentrated either in central Durban or to the south of Durban. However, the residential concentration is taking place to the north of Durban in Phoenix, Inanda etc.

We believe that the census statistics are seriously out of date and that a good case can be made out for the provision of additional new hospitals both in Phoenix and in the Inanda-KwaZulu area in spite of the new 1 025-bed academic teaching hospital which has already been approved and is to be erected in Cato Manor, to the south. However, we cannot do this of our own accord. We must obtain the approval of the Hospital Norms Committee.

I notice that it has recently been announced that a major new hospital is to be provided in Phoenix by the House of Delegates and that construction is to commence next year. It is to be a House of Delegates own affairs hospital. I must congratulate the Ministers’ Council of that House on having gained approval in such a short space of time. I wish them well in their venture.

Now I am prepared to take a question from the hon member for Stanger if he still wishes to ask one.

Mr Chairman, I should like to enquire of the hon MEC whether there were any discussions in respect of Phoenix Hospital between his department and the House of Delegates, whether it was the Minister’s Council or the hon Minister of that department, or the department itself. I see an apparent contradiction in this regard in that it appears that this hospital is not included under the provincial five-year plan and yet we are told that this hospital is to be erected by the House of Delegates. Can that be explained?

There has been consultation at the level of officials and the priority for this has also been identified by us over a long period of time. However, we were bound by the hospital norms and standards that had been set and we had to abide by them. Consequently, if the Ministers’ Council of the House of Delegates has obtained approval, then good luck to them. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I am indebted to my colleague the hon member Mr Thaver for making his time available to me.

I want to dwell on the subject of the hospital at Phoenix, to which the hon MEC referred. We are very appreciative towards the hon the Administrator and his Executive Committee for alienating a piece of land that was first identified for a hospital in Phoenix. We appreciate their goodwill and their gesture towards the House of Delegates.

The House of Delegates has already released a Cabinet memorandum for the approval of funds for the hospital. However, I want to say that when the National Health Plan was launched two years ago my colleague the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare in the House of Representatives and I joined hands and stated that wherever these hospitals fell under the respective Houses, they would not be considered by us as own affairs. We are going to press for hospitals in the area but the province will be the agent which administers those hospitals, of course with a few qualifications in relation to personnel, etc. [Interjections.]

We believe that if in an area—for example, Phoenix—one is on the border of Phoenix and Inanda, where does one go? Does one go to King Edward VIII Hospital and travel those long distances? We therefore say that our hospitals will be open to all population groups even if they are own affairs hospitals.

What I want to say with regard to Prospecton is that at the time when the investigation was held for the excision of Isipingo for a local authority those of us who served on the Administrator’s Committee—it was the late Mr Rooks and I— made the point that Prospecton must not be excluded from the boundaries of Isipingo. The chairman and the executive chairman of the SAIC at the time in their evidence to this committee emphasised repeatedly that that portion which is Prospecton must not be excised from Isipingo. It had to be part of Isipingo.

I want to draw an analogy. When Cato Manor was declared a White group area it was against all evidence. When we participated in the interCabinet Committee—that is why I say I take all the opportunities that come along to put forward our case—under the chairmanship of the Prime Minister, the late Mr Vorster, we pointed out to him the injustice done to the Indian community and people of colour by declaring Cato Manor a White area. The immediate reaction of the Prime Minister was that if an injustice had been done through his laws he had to look at it. Therefore Cato Manor was looked at again and part of it has been returned to the Indian community and to people of colour as well.

In the same vein we all believe that it was an injustice to Isipingo to excise Prospecton from it. That is a rates-generating area. The road that runs to Isipingo Beach is under the care of Amanzimtoti and I am told by the hon member for Isipingo that the traffic police are there all the time harassing the people going across to Isipingo Beach. What I am saying is that I want to go back to the days of Mr Wilks, Mr Percy Fowle and above all to the days of Mr Bill Howes.

The late Mr Bill Howes was given the task of framing policies under which local affairs committees would become a local authority. There were four prerequisites. They are important prerequisites which are sidestepped today. Firstly, the area has to be large enough. Secondly, it has to be viable. Thirdly, it must have the people who can administer the area. Fourthly, it must be the desire of the people in the area to have local authorities. All these policies or written principles of the late Mr Bill Howes are sidestepped simply to take away the responsibility of a city council to these areas. Therefore, I want to say that whether one speaks to NALAC or to individual local affairs committees, we in the Ministers’ Council are very concerned that they must not be trapped into accepting local authority status.

I want to turn briefly to the hon members of the CP on the other side. I want to tell the hon members of the CP that when I was first appointed—I am sorry that I have to speak about myself, but I am the trail-blazer as it were in non-White politics—to the North Coast Regional Water Services Corporation I had opposition from the provincial executive at the time. This opposition came from the NP members such as Gert Hanekom, Con Botha and Thuys van Lingen. However, I was appointed. When I went and sat there at my first meeting they gave me a chair away from the White personnel of that committee. However, I accepted the situation because I had a point to prove. I was told that the previous member for Verulam had sat on that chair and so I accepted it in the spirit in which it was given to me. As a result of that the community are enjoying membership on water board corporations today.

Coloureds and Indians participated in the interCabinet committee of Mr B J Vorster. The rule there was that whatever we decided, the Cabinet would accept in the interests of the country. When the President’s Council came along we participated in it. The CP had a member from Potgietersrus there and he stood up alone amongst the 40 members with his ideology. Now we sit together in Parliament. We brush shoulders but their whiteness has not tarnished me, neither has my blackness tarnished them. These are examples that I am giving in the interests of South Africa. The hon member for Potgietersrus concluded by saying that he wants participation in this forum within the rules and terms of democracy. Does he understand the word democracy? He spoke of democracy here but he is denying democracy by his policies towards the people of colour in this country. We should not go on policies that would destroy South Africa. What we should be doing is working together for a better South Africa and the opportunity is here. Let posterity not be told that South Africa is going to be an isolated country in the world and that it is going to be a polecat in the world because of the doings of those of us here.

I repeat my appeal—as did the hon the Administrator—that these are structures to be used beneficially and to be used properly in the interests of the well-being of all South Africans. Let us not forget that in spite of what we hear about the radicals there is a tremendous amount of goodwill amongst all the people of South Africa and we must exploit that goodwill for the benefit of South Africa.

In conclusion I want to thank the hon the Administrator and the Executive Committee for their appreciation of the difficulties of the people of colour in Natal. In the last two years they have adequately demonstrated their interest in all the people of Natal. This is how things should go on. I want to say that we do not want any NP policy to infiltrate here. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, this morning the hon member for Umhlatuzana referred to local authorities and he placed emphasis on the wide-ranging institutions of local authorities. In the time at my disposal I should like to refer to the second component—because the hon member referred to the need to have a very good balance—and this is concerned with the powersharing component of general affairs at local government level.

†The general constitutional goal of the Government is, while maintaining security, stability and self-determination for each group, to give all people of the country a say in decision-making affecting their interests at all levels of government. This goal is also applicable at the local government level for all population groups, both in metropolitan and rural areas, and finds application in item 6 of Schedule 1 to the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act of 1983 which envisages, and I quote:

At local government level provision is therefore made for self-determination over own affairs, and co-responsibility in matters of mutual concern in a manner which safeguards the rights of each group to participate in decision-making without one group dominating another.

Earlier this year a report of a special provincial committee, established to formulate boundary proposals for the first RSCs in Natal, was tabled. This document contains the committee’s proposed boundaries for the creation of the first four regional services councils for Natal. The committee has been authorised to release this report on the metropolitan areas of Pietermaritzburg and Durban and the upper and lower South Coast regions.

The establishment of regional services councils and the resulting rationalisation of services will inevitably lead to drastic structural changes to many existing bodies in Natal, such as the seven regional water corporations and the Development and Services Board. The often-heard criticism that RSCs will be newly created bodies, should be evaluated against the background that the abovementioned bodies, as well as existing local authorities, will be rationalised to eliminate unnecessary duplication in their rendering of services.

In terms of item 3 of the Schedule to the Regional Services Councils Act, 1985, one of the matters which must be taken into account when a regional services council is established is, and I quote:

Regional services councils are therefore new institutions in the hands of, and controlled by, local authorities. They are, in fact, Government bodies rendering services on a broader basis than single local authorities.

*One of the biggest objections levelled against the system of regional services councils is the duel levies that have been imposed as a source of revenue. From the practical experience of the 16 RSCs that have already been established in the other three provinces these objections are shown to be unfounded. In fact, not only does the system work easily, but RSCs have a very important financial implication. RSCs comparable with the Durban Metropolis have already collected the following revenue from levies:

As is apparent from these levies the institution of RSCs has a very important financial implication. I want to appeal to the hon the Administrator and the Executive Committee to ensure that the implementation of RSCs takes place as soon as possible, not only in the four areas that have already been indicated, but also in the rest of Natal.

I want to mention a further reason why the establishment of RSCs should be speeded up. Legislation has been passed in Parliament making cross-border participation and co-operation between the RSA and self-governing states possible. Although this participation can only take place by way of agreement, it would now be possible to render services to local authorities across these borders. In reply to the question why RSCs are necessary, I want to say that regional services councils make it possible to look after matters of general importance according to the diversity of needs of all South Africans in a fair and equitable way.

I cannot express it any better than Dr Anton Rupert did in a very good book of his, Priorities for Coexistence.

†Dr Rupert, in his excellent book, Priorities for Coexistence, referred to the fact that, and I quote:

Then he continued, and I quote:

*This brings me finally to certain observations I want to make about the CP. This party has claimed vociferously that they do not stand for power-sharing in constitutional structures. If it is true that they advocate absolute partition, I just want to ask a few question which must be answered by the one or two speakers who are still going to participate. If they stand for absolute partition, how do they explain a statement made in the House of Assembly on 17 June 1987, Hansard, col 1647? The following statement was made by the hon member for Overvaal in a reference to the hon the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, who had ostensibly alleged that the CP advocated total partition:

I shall not quote further. If the hon members do not stand for total partition, the next question is: What do they stand for? They will have an opportunity to explain this to us.

A second aspect I want to touch on briefly is the following. The CP has a great deal to say about self-determination. In article 1 of their Programme of Principles, self-determination is defined as the right of a nation to decide on every facet of its existence without outside interference. I think hon members will agree with this. In article 1(2) the self-determination of the Whites is defined as follows:

However, let us see what is stated in article 2.2.9 of the Programme of Principles in respect of the Indians. There they say in respect of this self-determination, and I quote:

Now they must tell us, in the time available to them, how they compare the self-determination of the Indians, as described here, with the self-determination they claim for themselves.

Mr Chairman, today is to me an historic day—a day when there is a joint sitting of all three Houses to debate common problems of this province.

Ironically, Natal is the province that, through Theophilus Shepstone, first fathered segregation in the last century. It was in this august Chamber that the Indian communities were deprived of their Parliamentary and municipal franchise. Natal has had a history of oppression and the suppression of all Black communities. Natal was responsible for the Pegging Act and the Land Tenure Act, which were the forerunners of the present-day vicious Group Areas Act. Natal caused the Anglo-Zulu War in 1897, whereby it attempted to destroy the power of the Zulus. It is indeed ironic that the first joint debate of Parliament should take place in a Chamber that propagated racial discrimination and disharmony.

Be that as it may, my main concern today insofar as the Provincial Administration is concerned is that I disagree completely with the envisaged disbanding of the Development and Services Board, a board which has an outstanding record in 92 areas of Natal. The proposed regional services council will not be able to improve on the record of the Development and Services Board, and neither have the present councils and town boards equalled the achievements of the Development and Services Board. This was possible because the policies and functions of the Development and Services Board are totally devoid of racial connotations and racial discrimination.

The disbandment of the Development and Services Board will result in the disintegration of the expertise that has been built up over the past 47 years. I am aware of the fact that the powers of the Development and Services Board are inadequate but the solution does not lie in disbanding this body and replacing it with something new like the regional services councils, but rather in granting the Development and Services Board additional powers that will fulfil the requirements for which the RSCs are being planned. [Interjections.]

I should also like to place on record that the Natal Roads Department also does excellent work and is equipped to deal with all structural problems, but that the same cannot be said of the town boards serving under the directorship of local government. These latter areas are divided into Indian, White, Coloured and Black areas. The White areas are well catered for and looked after. In contrast, however, the Indian and other nonWhite areas are badly neglected.

Although there were floods last year, some town boards still refused to repair and upgrade the roads. For example, the Gillitts Town Board receives approximately R18 000 per annum in rates from the Indian residents alone but its constant argument is that it has no money to upgrade the roads in the Indian areas. [Interjections.] It has been confirmed that most of these roads in the Indian areas have not been repaired for the past 30 years, and this is due to blatant discrimination. It is outrageous, Sir. [Interjections.]

A member of the Executive Committee inspected the roads at Gillitts at the beginning of 1987 and his comment was that the state of the roads was deplorable. Subsequent to this inspection came the storms and floods, which caused a further deterioration of the roads, making them dangerous for all users. I can vouch for this fact as I inspected these roads only yesterday. Furthermore, my appeals and efforts to rectify this problem through the Executive Committee have failed to obtain any satisfaction.

In this respect I consider the nomination system with regard to the Executive Committee to be a departure from democracy and from efficiency. I say this advisedly. One particular representative of the House of Delegates is hardly ever in his office … [Interjections.] … except on those days when the Executive Committee meets. His work appears to be that of attending Executive Committee meetings and nothing else. Because of the nomination system he is not answerable to Parliament and neither is he accountable to a constituency, but only to the political party which appointed him to that position. If he were an elected representative he would be subject to these institutions in order to safeguard his seat and would have to be more efficient.

Yesterday the hon the Administrator stood up in this Chamber and defended the nominations of his executive team. I say that is utterly wrong. The nomination system erodes democracy and it blunts efficiency in the functioning of the Executive Committee. I can say this with authority and without any fear of contradiction because I have a great deal of work being done through the Executive Committees and I know which members are constantly in their offices and performing their duties with dedication and sincerity.

Whilst I have stressed the historic character of this meeting, I must point out that history will only be completed once all the communities in South Africa are able to participate in Parliament. Whilst Natal may have had a bad record in the past, as a Natalian I was proud to hear today that in the Natal-KwaZulu Indaba we have a blueprint for the future South African Parliament and institutions, in terms of which no community will be able to dominate any others and there will be full democracy, whilst the rights of minorities will be protected. That will be the beginning of an attempt to resolve the complex situation facing us today.

That brings me to the attitude and the behaviour of the hon CP member for Potgietersrus. I have to treat his statements with the disgust and the contempt that they deserve. [Interjections.] I want to tell hon members of this Committee that the South Africa economy was not built by any individual group of people. Particularly in Natal it is indisputably documented in the record of the Natal Legislative Assembly’s meeting in 1865 that it was through the toil and the blood and the sweat of the Indian indentured labourers that the economy of Natal was saved. [Interjections.] We have made our contribution. Just as certain hon members’ forefathers came from Europe, my forefathers came from the East to build this country.

South Africa’s resources are God-given. They are a gift from God. Furthermore, the population of South Africa—we are all South Africans—are God’s children and we all have a right to share that gift of God equally among ourselves. What is more, if the CP’s policies and plans are put forward, it is that very community—those Afrikaners whom the CP represents—that will be destroyed because we, the non-Whites are used to hard work. We polish our own shoes; we wash our own pots; we clean our own backyards. However, I challenge those hon members to do that. I defy any hon member of the CP to tell me that he can till the soil by himself, that he can sow his seeds by himself, and that he can … [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to speak today on the subject of health services and, as the hon the Administrator pointed out yesterday, 48% of the Natal budget is, in fact, devoted to health services.

I listened with great interest to what the hon MEC Mr Volker, who I presume is in charge of health services in Natal, had to say about a wide range of topics related to health matters. I listened to what he had to say about cheaper medicines to indigent people and I was certainly pleased to hear what the province is doing in this regard.

I also listened to what he had to say about preventative medicine and I want to raise some points in this regard later during the course of my speech.

I also heard what he had to say about the fragmentation of health services and his interpretation of own affairs health services. I too want to talk about the fragmentation of health services.

Anyone who has tried to analyse health services in this country today will know that it is an extremely difficult task. It is extremely difficult to determine what authority is responsible for which health service. Functions are constantly being transferred from one authority to another.

Even in the Natal budget of this year we find a large part of the increase in monies spent on this Health Vote is in fact the result of the devolution of 11 hospitals and institutions from the Department of National Health and Population Development upon the province. Further investigation, on the other hand, reveals that recently the provinces lost control of what I would regard as an important part of preventative medicine and that is of course the important school health services that were transferred from the provinces to the Departments of Health and Welfare of the various Houses. The point is that there has been the most amazing fragmentation of health services in spite of what the hon the MEC Mr Volker had to say. This most amazing fragmentation of health services has taken place over the past few years following the introduction of the new Constitution and the tricameral Parliament.

I must add at the outset that the PFP is totally opposed to the fragmentation of health services because at the basis of this fragmentation is the whole question of colour and apartheid principles. The Medical Association of South Africa (Masa) which is also opposed to this fragmentation has gone on record time and time again in pointing out that medical practitioners treat patients regardless of their population group and that epidemic diseases recognise no barriers. This certainly includes race. The PFP, and Masa for that matter, are also opposed to the fragmentation of health services because it is grossly expensive in terms of time, money, manpower and facilities. It is inconvenient to consumers (as Masa points out), it leads to the demotivation of the staff involved and it is demoralising to by far the greater part of the South African community.

Mr Volker said today that there is no complete fragmentation of health services in Natal as some people have claimed. However, I think even he must admit that fragmentation does exist to a very large extent even here in Natal. I would be interested to know today what the real attitude of the province is to this fragmentation of health services as it does exist, and it is very prevalent in this province, whether we try to disguise it or not. Do the MECs condone it, do they justify it and do they too recognise the huge unwieldy expensive machine for what it is and will they encourage, in the long run, a single nonracial health service for all the people in Natal? In spite of what Mr Volker said members of the Executive Committee must indeed be conscious of the enormous waste of time and funds that results from the duplication of services as the present system demands even here in Natal, as well as the loss of human dignity that results from insisting on separateness based on colour in the provision of such an essential service as health. I sincerely hope that the members of Exco will address themselves to this particular point that I have raised.

However, I also want to raise another point that Masa has addressed itself to recently. They have come up with what might be termed an interim solution to the South African situation—certainly until South Africa reaches a state of normality. Masa suggests that the various services presently rendered by the administrations, in other words the House of Assembly, the House of Delegates and the House of Representatives, be devolved upon the respective provinces on an agency basis. What this means is that continued policy-making by the respective administrations will be allowed. I quote from the Masa document which deals with this particular point:

It continues—

Now obviously the control of Black health would be part of this plan as well.

I do not suggest—and I want to emphasise the point to hon members of this House—that this system would be the final answer or the final solution. It cannot be because policy will still be made by more than one body and therefore divisions will still exist on the basis of colour. However, from a purely practical point of view the concept of the provinces actually rendering the services on a nonfragmented basis to all members of the population has I believe enormous merits and deserves the attention and support of the Executive Committee of this province. I look forward to comment on this from the Executive Committee.

On a different tack, but obviously still involving health services, I was certainly pleased to see the emphasis Exco, in a recent Press statement, placed on preventative medicine. Mr Volker has touched on preventative medicine as opposed to purely curative medicine. Obviously this is also part of the National Health Plan, but there is no doubt that preventative health is far more important to this country—and to any country for that matter—than curative health. The most important part of preventative health is in fact health education.

Much of the preventative health services can in the case of Coloured, Indian and White people be conducted through schools and clinics. What is of concern is preventative health amongst Black people, particularly in the rural areas where preventative health is often most needed, particularly with regard to such matters as malnutrition. Most doctors involved in the Black community will tell one that preventative health is virtually non-existent amongst the Black people because doctors and nurses involved with them are so busy as a result of the lack of facilities, overcrowding of existing facilities and understaffing in Black hospitals that they have no time— and this is the point—to spend on preventing disease, malnutrition, etc. They only have time to try to cure these illnesses.

I note with interest that approximately 7 000 additional posts are being transferred to the province from the Department of National Health. Certainly a substantial number of these posts are to be responsible for providing preventative health care. I would be interested to know from the province today what proportion of the 7 000 people are to be employed in this particular area and where in fact they will be situated. It certainly is a fact that one of the reasons for the shocking overcrowding of hospitals such as the King Edward VIII is the inadequate medical facilities that exist in the rural areas, the shortage of trained and professional staff in these areas, as well as the lack of equipment.

I also listened with interest to what the hon MEC Mr Volker had to say about hospitals. I would like to address myself briefly to the issue of the King Edward VIII Hospital, which has been described by doctors who work there as a tragedy. It is a tragedy because as a Third World hospital it is superb. It has a most dedicated staff who work under severe pressure and cope with an extraordinarily high bed-occupancy rate running often at more than 150%. As a Third World hospital it renders a superb service. However, not far away—a matter of a few kilometres in fact—is a superb First World hospital. This hospital of course has superior equipment and it has empty wards. I am referring to Addington Hospital. A comparison of these two provincial hospitals reflects totally the inequities resulting from the fragmentation of health services and the whole apartheid system. That, I want to tell hon members of this House, is the tragedy of the King Edward VIII Hospital.

I did notice that some money—unfortunately not a great deal—R4 million in fact, is to be spent on the King Edward VIII Hospital this year, although the province has acknowledged that at least R13 million is needed to carry out the alterations to important facilities such as the redevelopment of the casualty and trauma units as well as the surgery clinics. However, no matter how much money is spent on this particular hospital it will not be sufficient because what is really required is a new hospital. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure to follow the hon member for Durban North. I agree with many of the aspects he has raised. I am sorry that his party is so soft on group security.

As the Regional Services Council Act is now law, we shall soon see the introduction of a number of these bodies covering the metropolitan areas of Natal. No doubt a new ball game awaits many people who are concerned with this. The issue I would like us to debate, is the wisdom of also incorporating the rural farming areas of Natal in the RSCs. Having my occupational roots in the agricultural sector I am fully aware of the antagonism that pertains to anything that might smack of administration boards or development boards as they were later known. It is unfortunate that the agricultural sector was drawn into their activities. It is well-known that the farmers hated them as contributions were levied for which no service was rendered in return.

To be fair to these boards, they played an important role in the urban Black community where they fulfilled all the functions of a local authority. In its wisdom Government withdrew those development boards in favour of local Black community leaders taking responsibility.

This temporary vacuum was exploited by the UDF-ANC alliance. It is a great pity—in fact it is a national tragedy—that so many of these moderate Black leaders who had gained the expertise to administer local government under the aegis of the development boards, were in many instances seen as collaborators and condemned to death by so-called people’s courts. Those of us who accept the diversity of our society will always remember them.

It is the unswerving aim of my party to create upward mobility for our moderate Black communities and their leaders; mobility in politics, in the economy, in all fields of human endeavour, by rationalisation of expertise and equipment. RSCs are an important constitutional step on the road to a new South Africa in which all South Africans will have an equal opportunity in the legislature and will also share power in the executive structure of local authorities, by consensus.

The NP believes that good local government is pivotal to our survival and is fundamental in stabilising and promoting a secure and peaceful community life.

Some members of the White community who do not understand the forces at play in our country are led by thoughts that stem from and actions based on fear. The CP with their escapist policy— and I think we saw a perfect example of that again this morning—play directly into the hands of the ANC “people’s power” seekers. By their selfishness and uncaring attitude towards other communities, the CP must be exposed for what they are—a danger to our security.

Leftists within and extra-parliamentary groups such as the National Democratic Movement and Idasa are happy to see the radicals—I see Van Zyl Slabbert thinks the tactics of the CP are marvellous—making political gains, for in that way polarisation is promoted, thus serving the cause of “people’s power”. The Executive Committee will have to take cognisance of the sensitive political situation when deciding on whether or not agriculture in Natal should be drawn into the orbit of RSCs. Organised agriculture may not be politicised—I think we all agree on that.

Notwithstanding these pitfalls, there is a real need for the rural community of Natal also to get to know one another better, to dispel distrust and to recognise one another’s needs. A way must be found to improve communication.

A decision not to involve agriculture in RSCs on financial grounds—that is to say, that they must be cost-beneficial and cost-effective—may not be seen in isolation. Not to consider the security benefits derived from sound human relations would be folly.

I believe a wonderful opportunity now exists for our Executive Committee to bring home to their KwaZulu colleagues on the JEA, and to impress upon them, the importance of promoting organised agriculture as we know it in KwaZulu.

The Natal farmer has largely his organisation to thank for the progress he has made not only in food and fibre production but in regard to the way he has done it with maximum preservation of his natural resources. The constitution of the NAU is non-racial and could well serve as a model to help the KwaZulu farmer to get organised, for when organised, he becomes articulate and also mobile as far as communication is concerned. The conservation committees that serve our Natal farmers so well are drawn from the ranks of our farmers’ associations, as are our roads committees. People complain that the Whites have better roads than the other communities. This has come about by proper organisation. The same could follow in KwaZulu, and we are pro-active in this regard. There are endless advantages to be gained.

The hon the Administrator made a crucial point after the floods—he predicted more such floods. The floods reached astronomical proportions due to the abnormal run-off caused by the lack of vegetated ground cover in many parts of Natal. He is absolutely correct in this, and I believe we have to have soil conservation committees also operating in KwaZulu. If they are based within their organised agricultural structure, they will succeed.

Natal farmers cannot wait to share their experiences. Present border problems could be resolved amicably, given a suitable structure. I implore the JEA to make work of this.

Mr Chairman, the vicious attack on the hon the Administrator by the hon member for Potgietersrus was totally uncalled for. This member, being a junior in the political arena, should be ashamed to show this amount of disrespect to a person of the calibre of the hon the Administrator. It is common knowledge that the course adopted by the Administrator in his political career up to this point is something that the hon member for Potgietersrus should still endeavour to adopt. The hon member for Umlazi replied suitably and therefore I shall not repeat what he said—I refer to the despicable remarks uttered by him in this Chamber. I do not wish to waste much more time on this matter, other than to say to the hon members of the CP that they must now apply to the state for the excision of a piece of land to bring about the … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member may proceed.

I merely want to say to the hon members of the CP that they must apply for the excision of a piece of land where they can establish their own homeland. It is general knowledge that it is going to be Morgenzon. [Interjections.]

†Once that has been established they have their own small indaba and work for and among themselves to see what it is like. They could live happily on their own thereafter. I want to say to the CP today that the LP of South Africa is recognised nationally and internationally as the official opposition party in the South African Parliament. That they must accept.

To get back to the reality, I want to speak on Vote 5, subhead H—“Creation of employment opportunities”. This is a matter that has not been touched on by previous speakers and I feel I want to mention a point or two in this regard.

One wonders how it is possible for anyone to continue advocating sanctions against this country of ours. How can one argue that it is moral to put more of our Black people out of work with the corresponding increase of poverty and suffering. That in turn must lead to more crime and general unrest in our society. If it is not on a moral basis on what principle do the advocates of sanctions base their arguments? Unemployment is largely the direct result of this type of attitude that favours boycotts, sanctions and so forth. No one wants to be unemployed or to remain in a destitute state.

Unemployment is a vehicle for revolutionary thinking and those who are not employed are easy prey for the anti-government forces. The exact measurement of unemployment creates special problems all over the world. This is so especially in developing countries. South Africa is no exception and the dualistic nature of our economy serves to aggravate the problem. There is a decrease in the unemployment of Whites, Coloureds and Indians, but there is at this moment a 35% increase in the unemployment of Blacks.

Some local authorities are tardy to apply for funds to embark on projects that will afford employment to those who are unemployed. Provision to the tune of R8,8 million is provided in the provincial budget for the creation of employment opportunities. The cardinal question is whether this is enough.

With the recent flood damage to the roads, bridges and buildings of this province I am sure that employment can be created for those who are desirous to be employed. They could help with the reconstruction of these roads, bridges and buildings. The hon the Administrator must address this problem. It really needs serious consideration.

I am referring to all population groups when I speak of unemployment. I am not for one moment suggesting that the hon the Administrator should take over the functions of the Department of Manpower, but rather that he should see to it that the local authorities apply for funds to create employment opportunities. I want to quote from the latest report of the Department of Manpower:

In conclusion I make this appeal here today that serious consideration should also be given to the creation of employment opportunities for the thousands of matriculants from the various racial groups that are unemployed in the province of Natal. With these few words I want to say that unemployment does not only exist on a large scale here in Natal. Nationally it has reached proportions where it really needs the serious consideration of the various provinces. In this case I am appealing to the hon the Administrator to see what he can do.

Mr Chairman, many of the speakers have raised the matter of beaches. I listened to the hon member of the Executive Committee categorising the various beaches and saying that all the beaches from Richard’s Bay down to Port Edward had been identified. That has been done for some time. They have been categorised into A, B and C. He also made the point that most of the A and B beaches are in a White group area and the situation seems to have been left at that. I do not lay any blame at the door of the province, but I do lay blame to a certain degree on the local authorities. However, the point is that we have to accept that our beaches are a national asset. If we can proceed from that position then I believe the Government should provide the province with the necessary funds to develop new beaches.

If we look back over 30 or 40 years, how many new beaches with amenities or facilities have been developed over these years? I think one can safely say that if they number two or three it is a lot. However, what has increased is the number of tourists and people who visit our beaches. I would like to suggest that the province and this Committee should tell the Government that for starters we need R50 million in Natal at least. I want to go further and I would say that sharknetting is also part of the national asset. I do not believe that a local authority should have to contribute towards the shark-netting because the shark-netting is more for the tourists than the locals.

Having gone this far I believe that the province should invite the hon the Minister or the hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning down to this province and that he should meet with the local authorities. These local authorities can be divided up into areas. I would just settle for my area which is the lower South Coast. I believe that a meeting should be held and that the hon the Deputy Minister with the MEC should say to the local authorities: “That is the area under discussion, those are the beaches that have been identified, now you as local authorities must tell us which beaches must be developed on a priority basis.” They should be given a month or two months to make this decision. If they do not make that decision, which is a big possibility because it is the old story of “we all need a Black bus stop but not outside my house”, we have to tell the local authorities that if we are going to provide the money, they can select their beaches to be developed or alternatively we are going to select the beaches and develop them.

I do not believe that the friction on the beaches is racial. I believe the friction on the beaches is caused by numbers. That is where the problem comes from. I do not believe that it is racial at all. However, I believe that once we have sufficient beaches with full amenities and full facilities that we should come to a stage where we can control the beaches. I am not speaking about racial control. I am speaking about a control by way of what the facilities can cater for. In other words, if the beach can take 1 000 people and the facilities can cater for 1 000 people then that beach should have 1 000 people on it and that is it. Whoever wants to go to the beach, will then have to go to the next beach.

It is amazing that people want everything but they are not prepared to pay for anything. However, if one travels overseas one cannot go on a beach or use a facility or even order a glass of water without it costing money. I think we have to reorientate our thinking. I would therefore like to suggest that the province ask the hon the Minister to have a meeting. Let us see if we can get the local authorities to say which beaches must be developed, but first we must get the money. I believe that this Committee should unite and go to the Government and say: “Please provide the province with the funds”, because those funds will be used in the national interest.

I now want to turn to another subject which I believe is very valid in today’s world. I believe that the province should seriously consider the possibility of giving the local authorities the power to impose a bed tax. One might ask why. Let us just look at the position with regard to shark-netting at the moment. Ten per ent of one local authority’s rateable income goes on providing shark-netting. With regard to every person who comes down to the coast, I believe that regardless of whether he sleeps in a cottage or a hotel, and regardless of whether or not it is a time-share, a licence should be issued to whoever is leasing beds and a tax should be payable for every night a person sleeps in that bed. That tax should go to the local authority for the promotion of the tourist industry. [Interjections.]

I firmly believe that our Natal coast is losing out to the Cape, and I do not think anyone can gainsay that. Why? It is because the local authorities find themselves in a parlous state and they cannot afford to spend the money that they should be spending on attracting visitors. I believe this is one way of creating the necessary funds to assist the local authorities to promote the area and also to create the infrastructure that is required for the holiday-maker.

With regard to infrastructure, when one looks at my area alone, one finds that the normal population is 20 000 people. However, come high season there is an influx of 80 000 to 90 000 people. [Interjections.] The infrastructure must exist to cater for those people and the local authorities find themselves in a very difficult position due to the lack of funds.

We hope that the RSCs will solve some of the problems but the object of the RSCs is the upliftment of the poorer communities. Whilst on the subject of RSCs, I just want to say that I believe very careful thought should be given to the inclusion of the rural areas in an RSC. I say this for one reason only, and that is that if a rural area is included in an RSC, then I believe that that rural area will have a right to make a claim for services.

We need look at only one service, namely water. What would it cost to provide a rural community with piped water? That is just one of the aspects one has to look at. I believe that RSCs should be confined to local authority areas because it is within those local authority areas that they can do the most good.

I appeal to the hon the Administrator and the Executive Committee to take heed of what I have said here today.

Mr Chairman, hon members have raised a great number of issues to which I think we must respond and I want to begin today by very briefly giving my impressions of what it is like to attend a sitting like the one we have had here today when one’s tradition was founded in this Chamber under the old dispensation.

Very briefly, I would say that the dignity and the decorum that were exhibited under the old dispensation were a considerable improvement on what I have experienced here in the past day or so. [Interjections.] I imagine that this is simply because of different traditions but I want to say that it has been an observation of mine that that dignity and decorum has, if anything, been impugned, not by born and bred Natalians but by those who have visited us on this occasion from outside the province. [Interjections.]

It was a shattering experience for me to sit here and have my Administrator attacked as he was this morning. It is not for me to defend him but simply to comment on the fact that it was an experience which I am sure, in view of the 76 years of history that are to be found in this gracious building, has probably caused the ghosts that flit through these hallowed halls to hang their heads in shame. [Interjections.]

I now want to move on to some practical issues, and I want to deal firstly with those hon members who have referred to the Development and Services Board. I also want to comment on the future of this board.

In the first instance, the Development and Services Board is a completely colour-blind service organisation. I want to state emphatically here today that it is not an own affair—quite definitely not—and that as far as we in the province are concerned, it has served and continues to serve at least three different communities, and it would, of course, be our wish that we could expand it to serve the Black community as well.

The Development and Services Board is in effect the foster parent of many small communities which have neither local authority status nor the infrastructure or finance to look after themselves. In fact, I am astonished—and I want to place this on record—that all three Houses of the senior legislature, namely Parliament, have in fact voted to abolish this very valuable and essential body. If there is anything that hon members present here today can do as legislators to assist us to retain the services of this body in Natal, I would certainly be appreciative of that as, I am sure, the entire Executive Committee would be.

However, in preparation for the situation whereby the legislation is on the Statute Book and the board must one day be abolished—we hope that this will be in the distant future; later rather than sooner—we are taking steps to negotiate the transfer of the staff of the Development and Services Board to the Public Service, where they will be retained as a unit within our administration to continue rendering the service that they do to developing communities. We are very anxious that we should be able to continue to do this and it is no good the theorists explaining to us what the theory says it is so easy to do when we, with our feet squarely on the ground, know that we must have such an organisation to assist, particularly in the peri-urban situation that we find in Natal.

I should like to refer briefly to cemeteries and crematoria. I want to say that this is a function that has been defined as one that can be performed on a regional basis and I want to give the hon member for Red Hill the assurance that with the advent of regional services councils we shall give his appeal the attention it deserves.

I want to deal briefly with Shakaskraal and Umzinto. In so far as the sewage system at Shakaskraal is concerned, I invite the hon member to contact me in this regard. I have a great deal of information but suffice it to say at this stage that we have been waiting for a very important decision from the House of Delegates in this regard since 28 January 1988. We have sent a reminder dated 20 May 1988 and we can make no progress until we get some action from that particular quarter. [Interjections.]

I should like to deal briefly with the remarks made by the hon the Minister of the Budget in the House of Delegates on the Umdloti issue. Far be it from me to cross swords with a Minister of State but I want to make it abundantly clear here today that there is no such bye-law in the borough or the town board area of Umdloti. I concede that in 1950 there might have been one …

Regulations.

… but I want to give him the assurance that there is neither a bye-law, nor a regulation nor any statutory authority whatsoever to prevent any South African from going onto the beach at Umdloti.

What about the arrests?

That is a fact, and I am pleased to be able to state it as such today. [Interjections.] I am sure that an investigation will show that I am, in fact, completely correct in that regard. [Interjections.]

I should like to deal briefly with the hon member for Camperdown. I should like to give him the assurance that we are looking at the road situation in Stockville. We hope, as he knows, to excise that particular area from the local authority which currently controls it and to include it in a neighbouring local authority which is more generous in its allocation to road matters because we are sensitive to the needs of the community of Stockville in this regard. However, we do, of course, have one legal problem in that regard, and that is the question of the private road situation, of which the hon member is fully aware. He, too, of course, knows that my door is always open should he wish to discuss this matter further.

I should like to elaborate briefly on the regional services councils and the situation in which we find ourselves in Natal. I want to thank the hon member for Newcastle for his positive contribution to the debate on this issue. I want to say that his speech was both factual in content, and considered and well-reasoned. I have nothing to add to the technical details contained in his speech. I simply want to say that, as he mentioned in his speech, we are at an advanced stage with the launching of the first four regional services councils and we are investigating what we in this province call mini-regional services councils for at least nine other areas in Natal.

Associated with this whole situation is the question of the inclusion or otherwise of what I call the truly rural areas, the areas with no peri-urban content whatsoever. Bearing in mind that we have problems in Natal associated with regional services councils which no other area has, due to our geographic context and the intermingling of our two second tier governments regarding their areas of jurisdiction, we are at this stage giving attention to the matter. The truly deep rural areas at this stage rank somewhat lower on our priority list than do other important issues.

However, I quickly want to add that we do not, at this stage, eliminate the possibility of including certain rural areas where they will serve the purpose of the regional services council. It is simply not possible to draw boundaries around regional services areas without, at some stage or other, including some of the farming areas. However, we do believe that cost-effectiveness and the ability to provide services are important criteria. I therefore believe we are in fact treading the middle path between those who would insist that the province be covered from boundary to boundary with regional services councils and those who insist that it should be totally an urban structure.

I want to assure everybody that we consider these matters very carefully and that we in fact will endeavour to do our level best on behalf of the community. We attach great importance to the developmental potential of regional services councils and the co-ordinating function they will carry out in the provision of cost-effective services to all communities and we are anxious that these bodies should get off the ground as soon as possible.

As I mentioned yesterday, we are attending to the whole question of our relationship with our neighbours and colleagues in Natal and the KwaZulu Government. I believe to speculate or discuss much further what is being done in that direction is in fact counterproductive. The less said, the better. Let us just get on with the job.

I also wish to comment on what the hon member Mr Redinger said. I spent last Friday in Pretoria with my colleagues from the other provinces and we shared our experiences on the whole question of regional services councils. With regard to the establishment of rural councils, it is the considered opinion of all four MECs that rural councils, where one has to have formal elections which necessitates that one has a structure, a secretary, etc, is the one certain way of politicising the platteland. It is our belief—and the Transvaal has in fact done this successfully—that one can use existing organised agricultural structures as a representative body to give the farming community representation on rural regional services councils.

Regarding beaches, I briefly want to say that I personally—and I am sure the Executive Committee—like the approach which was propounded by the hon member for South Coast. I want to say that, provided we can find a suitable date, which is a difficult thing these days, I will be attending a meeting with the hon the Deputy Minister shortly in Durban where we will be introducing him to the realities of our beach situation in Natal. I want to say that with regard to the priorities for beach development, we are very anxious that we should determine these priorities in collaboration with local authorities. In recent times we have been getting much better co-operation from them.

With regard to shark nets, I want to say very briefly that local authorities in fact pay as little as 15% of the cost of installing shark nets. Of course, others pay more, according to their assessed ability to pay. However, I indeed take note, and we will study the Hansard transcript of the hon member’s speech, because I believe there was much of value in it.

Regarding Umzinto North, I very briefly want to say to the hon member for Umzinto that I have some good news. R1 080 000 will be spent this year on developing the beach facilities at Umzinto North. We would in fact appreciate the hon member assisting us to get the local authority to spend the money that we have allocated to them. I might add that that is simply the first phase of the development that will take place there, but we cannot allocate further funds until such time as these initial funds have in fact been spent.

I would like to deal very briefly now with own affairs local government. I want to state quite clearly that this administration supports the concept of own affairs with regard to the right of a community to exercise executive authority over its own intimate community affairs. However, in doing so we have to take cognizance of many realities and practical issues.

The first is the matter of determining the situation in terms of section 16 of the Constitution, to which the hon member for Umhlatuzana referred. This is an important issue and there is considerable difference of opinion, both legally and otherwise, as to what constitutes affecting the affairs of another group. This is being attended to.

Secondly, I want to report that we are involved in a very exhaustive exercise to determine which functions, in terms of our existing legislation, in fact constitute own affairs as distinct from general affairs. We are looking at these very carefully.

I also want to report—just to get things in perspective—that in my visit to Pretoria on Friday, where we conferred on this matter for a whole day, it was quite clear that other provinces have made no greater progress than we have on this particular issue. It is true that they have made their declarations as to what constitutes own affairs and local authority areas and what does not. However, as to the practical administration of these affairs, the division of the administration, the technical matters and the quasi-judicial matters, they are no further advanced than we are.

When we solve this issue, it will simply be a question of making the declaration, and we are all at the same level. Hon members should not, therefore, get the idea that we are in fact behind any other province.

I want to say that the theory is often a great deal easier than the practice, and in this particular issue we are involved in an enormous task of trying to disentangle the administrative, technical and quasi-judicial aspects. We in Natal in fact like the approach which was described this morning by my hon colleague the MEC for hospital services, which is the one adopted by that particular administration and practised by that particular Minister. This, basically, is one in terms of which we do as little as possible to fragment the administrative process which supports the right to make separate executive decisions. I believe that we are going to find a situation where we are going to be able to implement own affairs without necessarily duplicating, even quadruplicating, the Public Service structure necessary to support the separate executive function.

Why have that?

It is very important to us that we find solutions, because in our administration, dealing with a budget as we are today, and dealing with the everyday practical realities of administering a large portion of public funds, it is important to us to heed the call of the hon the State President for a cost-effective and streamlined Public Service. The hon the Minister of Finance is continuously exhorting us to reduce our post structures and to make our whole Public Service smaller, leaner and more productive. We therefore look very carefully at suggestions— they are seriously made—that we should in fact have four Town and Regional Planning Commissions, four Private Townships Boards, four Town Planning Appeals Boards, four Directorates of Land Usage and so on. We seek a formula whereby we do not at the same time contribute to something that could bankrupt our own country.

However, I want to say that we are looking into these situations very seriously. We seek the formula which will embody the fundamental own affair principle, which in essence is that executive decision-making should be in the hands of the community affected by that decision, together with a streamlined and cost-effective administration. We believe that such a scheme is possible. We could in fact implement this with not a single extra executive functionary, nor a single extra administrative member of staff, and at the same time give full substance to the Constitution with regard to own affairs.

I want to say that we are looking seriously at this matter. We are not dragging our feet. We are as advanced as any other province in this regard, but we do have a fundamental responsibility to see to it that what we bring into effect is in fact something which fulfils all the requirements we have in this country, namely that we must have cost-effective administration, and we must contribute to reducing the size of the bloated Public Service.

It is true—and I want to close by saying this at this stage—that people are paying what I believe to be more lip service to devolution and decentralisation than the reality of the actual implementation. I was therefore very pleased to hear this morning that members present here will support us in our struggle to get decision-making decentralised. I want to say—I say this with all the responsibility at my disposal—that centralisation and empire-building is a real problem. It is one that we experience all the time, and I believe it is to be understood that when people are given responsibility they try to gather around them all the more responsibility because they broaden their own base and therefore the peak of the pyramid goes that much higher. If members here present can support our administration in our call for genuine devolution and genuine decentralisation of decision-making, we would be most grateful. At this stage I want to say that we do not see a great deal of practical progress in that regard.

Mr Chairman, allow me first of all to compliment the hon the Administrator and his Executive Committee for the excellent job they are doing, and the manner in which they are carrying out their responsibilities, albeit with certain constraints, and here I refer to financial constraints since without money there is nothing much one can do.

We are in the same predicament, and I am aware of the fact that financial constraints are really a constraining factor. However, I also take note of what the hon MEC has just said, and we take note of the various matters that will be receiving attention and that have already received attention hitherto.

However, I am constrained to say that his mentioning that the presence of certain people here has brought about a tarnishing of the dignity and decorum of this House, is preposterous. I think he has tarnished his whole speech by preceding it with those remarks.

One must realise that the hon the State President and the NP have gone out of their way to accommodate various population groups, and they are trying their very best to bring in the Black people of this country. We are finding our feet. A good teacher always says one must allow the pupils to find their way, and guide them; not condemn them. I want to say of the hon the Administrator that he has been criticised, but he is a gentleman of the first order. He knows that out of criticism good comes. Therefore I do not think that the hon the Administrator has any objection as far as that is concerned.

The hon member’s reference, either directly or obliquely, reminds me of the wicked wasp of Twickenham, Alexander Pope. I do not think there is place for such remarks in a forum of this nature. At the same time, the NP and the hon the State President should be complimented for their bold steps in getting all people together, because we are living in an age when democracy demands that all should be called to the discussion table. Unfortunately, however, today one of the hon members of the CP, the hon member for Potgietersrus, became the whipping boy—I say unfortunately, because he put his foot in the wrong place. I want to give him a piece of advice. In this day and age there is no need to talk about compartments and putting people into groups. He must help to break down the Group Areas Act and bring people together as has been done here today. We are not working backwards—we must work forwards, and therefore let not posterity have to tell him: “Oh cursed spite, that ever we were born to set it right. You have put it all wrong, and we have got to put it right.” That must never happen.

However, my main purpose in coming here this morning was, through you, Mr Chairman, to tell the Administrator and his Executive two things. The advent of the combi-taxis and the way they ushered in these trades as transport facilities are welcome, but I make an appeal to the hon the Administrator together with his Executive to look at the way in which companies and individuals are running these combi-taxis. This is a facility that is required at this stage, but the gruesome accidents that take place as a result of the disregard for the rules and regulations of the road and the number of passengers these vehicles carry should really concern us. I do hope cognisance will be taken of this.

I have a time constraint and therefore I would like to say thank you very much.

Mr Chairman, I want to start off by thanking you for the way in which you have been presiding over this meeting up to now. I also want to thank the hon member for South Coast for the way in which he has been acting as Whip during this period.

†At no time in the history of South Africa has there been more rapid or meaningful socio-economic and political advancement for Black, Coloured and Indian South Africans than during the past few years. Parliament became multi-racial in 1984. All members—as the hon member for Wentworth and others have pointed out—do not necessarily agree with the system, but there is a lot of goodwill amongst the majority of the people in South Africa at present and there is no doubt about that.

Each House of Parliament, without interference from any other, makes its own laws on matters affecting the interests of the population group concerned. As all hon members know, legislation on general affairs needs the approval of all three Houses before it can become law.

All South Africans are free to form, join and participate in political organisations that do not espouse violence. All communities in South Africa can now have local authorities. By mid-1986 42 fully-fledged Black local authorities and city councils had been established with powers and functions similar to those of White municipalities. The remaining 193 have developed into town committees with varying degrees of autonomy depending on the financial base of their constituencies.

The ideal is that all local authorities of all population groups will be represented on the RSC’s. Whites, Coloureds, Indians and in some instances Blacks share in executive responsibility at provincial level—the second tier of government.

Four Black states have obtained their independence. These are the so-called TBVC countries. Their Parliaments are vested with full legislative and executive powers over at least five million people within their boundaries. For a number of years 10 million Black South Africans have had the right to participate in elections in six Black self-governing states. The leaders are democratically elected. Some of these Parliaments manage budgets larger than those of other developing Third World countries in Africa.

The hon the State President declared his intention to negotiate the establishment of a National Council which will consist of representatives of the Government of South Africa and the self-governing territories as well as leaders of other Black communities. The Council provides an opportunity for Black people to participate in the planning and preparation of a new constitutional dispensation for the RSA.

The Government has outlined the framework for negotiations to find a solution to the complex constitutional and political problems of South Africa. The main premises reflect the essence of the political order of all the world’s true democracies. They are as follows: All South Africans must be given the opportunity to participate in Government through their elected representatives. All parties who are prepared to abandon violence as a means to obtain political ends can participate in the negotiations. The rights of each of the many minorities of South Africa must be protected. Group domination must be prevented. The new structures must be based on the sovereignty, sanctity and indivisibility of the law. They must meet the requirements of the civilised legal order and ensure equal access and treatment before the law. Human dignity, the life, liberty and property of all must be protected regardless of colour, race or creed.

The Government is continuing its endeavours to extend the opportunities of persons and groups who feel themselves limited by present circumstances without impinging upon the lives of other persons and groups who want to retain their way of life.

What is required is patience, understanding and co-operation between the peoples of South Africa. The key to a peaceful future for all is embodied in the principle of good neighbourliness. If all individuals, groups and leaders show understanding for the interests of others we can realise the high ideal, to which we all aspire, through amicable co-operation.

Mr Chairman, the tonal change that has occurred in this House over the last few days will no doubt be reflected next year in the public session that we will be having in the extended Great Hall of the people, for what has in fact been happening is a readjustment between the Houses as to who constitutes the enemy. When we sit in our separate Houses we snipe at one another, but now that has all been reshaped. It was particularly fascinating today that the CP became everyone’s whipping boy and we could all hate the CP together. I think they fully deserve it. [Interjections.] The racist and abusive tones used by them today are particularly demonstrative. I must also say it appears that they have not got their act together because I understand that after losing their point of order in Cape Town they walked out again, as they did in this Chamber today.

It is also very important that the NP hears the views being reflected by the other two Houses because it has been the past practice of the NP to single out the PFP as the extremist of the extremes and to attack the PFP. I am quite willing for them to attack the other parties as well and I trust that they will do so.

I should like to turn to the speech of the hon member for Umhlatuzana who appears to be holding himself up as the ideologue of the NP in Natal and citing scripture and verse why local authorities should be deemed to be an own affair. He has taken up this position in the past. However, here I should like to pose the question as to whether the NP itself is in fact united on this view. We have already heard from Mr Peter Miller who expressed the view of the Executive Committee. I would be interested to know whether either Mr Miller or Dr Steenkamp, the hon member for Umhlatuzana, is expressing the view of the NP caucus in Natal or the federal council. I also wonder if the NP councillors on the Durban City Council who staged a boycott yesterday of the proceedings in that council agree with the hon member for Umhlatuzana that the Durban City Council should be divided on grounds of race. We shall study his speech and we shall study that of the hon member for Newcastle. We shall also look at the logical effect of extending local authority control to own affairs and group area permit decisions because that is the corollary. The corollary is that group area permit decisions will be taken out of the hands of the Executive Committee and handed down to the local authority on a racial basis. We shall watch that very carefully.

With regard to the beaches I agree with the hon member for South Coast that the issue concerning the beaches of Natal is not a racial issue. It is an overcrowding issue. We are going to take the speech made by the hon Mr Miller yesterday and we are going to grapple with it. We are going to look at it in terms of what other NP members are saying and what the hon the Administrator of the Cape is saying about the beaches.

We are going to look at the link between the beaches and the group areas that are immediately adjacent to them. We are going to consider the statement by the hon the State President that the Separate Amenities Act is not a sacred cow and can be abolished.

Fourthly, I should like to turn to a remark made by the hon Mr Volker, MEC, regarding costs of pharmaceuticals. We shall be raising in Parliament this week the question of the cost of those pharmaceuticals. We believe consideration should be given to the excessive profits of the pharmaceutical companies, many of which have direct overseas links and are in fact exporting their dividends.

Mr Chairman, I listened with interest yesterday to the response in respect of the question on Prospecton. I think I would be failing in my duty were I not to take advantage of this opportunity to place on record the feelings of my community. In the present set-up we all have constituents; everybody seated in this august Chamber has a constituency. Naturally we are influenced by the demands of that constituency. I believe, however, that when there is a conflict of interest on the basis of Prospecton or the second access road to Chatsworth, the hon the Administrator and members of his Executive Committee have a tremendous responsibility to ensure that the whole issue is examined in such a way that the best possible compromise is arrived at and so that both the constituencies can be satisfied and the groundwork laid down to serve as an incentive and an inducement for reasonable people to come forward and participate in the exercise that has been launched in terms of the tricameral Parliament.

Our constituency is disappointed that despite the fact that members of the Indian community are now represented in Parliament and are members of the Cabinet and participate in various committees, a constituency demand has been met in this way with regard to Prospecton. Without in any way casting any reflection on anybody, it was part of the promise made during the election campaign that Prospecton would remain a part of Amanzimtoti. What has subsequently happened has been a process of meetings which confirms that what was expected, has come about. This cannot be sold to anybody. It is impossible.

It should also be borne in mind that the people of Chatsworth are not going to accept any answer which says that the road will not be made available to them, since that road was planned many years ago. Every day it becomes more urgent. What is the response to our constituency? Eight members of Parliament represent that area. What I am saying, Mr Chairman, is this: You have an interest, I have an interest, and the way this can be solved, is by us sitting around a table and getting down to negotiation and by way of compromises, getting at an answer which, even though perhaps not popular, is the best in the circumstances. However, imposing the will of one on the other makes my task difficult in the extreme. This is so because we have a constituency.

I want to go further. We have many reasonable men participating in the present set-up, but if we cannot give satisfactory answers to reasonable people, I cannot see myself coming back here. They will say to us: “If you cannot get a reasonable solution to a pressing problem of this magnitude, then what is the use of your presence in that exercise?”

If the walls of this building could talk they would say much more than I am saying, because they have heard all the things that were said to put us in our places. All I am asking now is to help us get out of those places where you put us in the first instance. We want to help you to do just that, but do not make our task difficult.

I say that as far as Prospecton is concerned, nobody can sleep in peace if Prospecton should be taken away from the place that it belongs to. Prospecton was developed by the Tongaat Huletts group with funds made available by Anglo American, who came into partnership, and it was a ready-made, laid-out township, handed on a platter to the local authority. The least I would have expected would have been for some compromise to be found on that issue in terms of which part of the resources that emanate from the rates and taxes after expenditure would be shared between Isipingo and Amanzimtoti. That would have been the bottom line.

Unfortunately I want to say here today that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is in a way responsible for nominating people who, through no fault of their own, do not have the guts or the experience to stand up to the pressures that are present when those discussions take place. In that way, through default, we have also helped in coming to this decision. God forbid that this kind of “jobs for pals” situation should continue. We want the right men at the right places so that they will act as responsible people and examine and take decisions on the basis of merit and nothing else.

I want to say that I was Chairman of the Executive Committee in more difficult times, when I had officials and members of the Cabinet against me, but it was my ability to stand up there and dig in my heels, based on truth, that brought victory on Cato Manor, Richards Bay and numerous other issues. Please, therefore, appoint to these offices the kind of men who will have the guts, the understanding and the ability to put forward a case.

Order! I just want to respond to the point of order raised earlier by the hon member for Brakpan.

*With regard to the point of order that was raised earlier by the hon member for Brakpan, and my undertaking to establish whether members were notified of Mr Speaker’s ruling in this regard, I have been informed that no circular on this matter was sent to hon members, and also that the ruling did not appear in the Minutes of the Houses, but that the ruling has been placed on the agenda of the following meeting of the Rules Committee, as required by Rule 2. Furthermore, I have been informed that the committee is to meet next week on 1 June.

Mr Chairman, may I address you on this ruling you have given? It now appears as you have indicated, that Mr Speaker gave a ruling with regard to a matter on which I raised a point of order this morning, and that the ruling was given without having been made known to members and without having been recorded in the Minutes of Parliament.

With all due respect, the fact that it appears on the agenda of a committee that is going to meet on 1 June, is irrelevant to the point of order that I raised, namely that the decision taken by Mr Speaker, provided it was a valid decision, was not conveyed to the members of this extended committee. With all due respect to Mr Speaker, I consider this unfair to the various extended public committees that we were able to meet here while changes had been made to the Rules without hon members having been aware of them or having been made aware of them.

Secondly, and again with all due respect for Mr Speaker, I question his interpretation of Rule 2, and I want to take a point of order at this stage. Rule 2 reads:

I want to emphasise that in Rule 66 and Rule 163 provision is in fact made for the method in which extended public committees should meet, and how they must act and go about their business. It is not at all an eventuality for which the Rules do not provide. Indeed, the Rules make provision for this eventuality and once again we make an appeal to the Chair to declare this meeting or gathering of hon members invalid.

Order! I have taken cognisance of the hon member for Brakpan’s standpoint that Rule 2 is not applicable in this case. However, I am not prepared to make a ruling in this regard or to say whether or not the matter that the hon member raised earlier was an eventuality for which the Rules provided. All that I can say, is that Mr Speaker did make a ruling in this regard in terms of Rule 2 and that the ruling will serve before the Rules Committee next week. I therefore want to suggest that the hon member raise this matter at that meeting. Perhaps I can add, just in passing, that Rule 2 does not require that such a Speaker’s ruling be published in the Minutes of the House. I should like to request the hon member to accept this.

Mr Chairman, I take cognisance of your request, but I must do my duty and I want to place on record that these proceedings are irregular and that we cannot associate ourselves with the situation as it is unfolding at the moment. I am merely placing this on record.

Order! I have already indicated that in terms of Rule 2, Mr Speaker’s ruling will serve before the Rules Committee. Rule 2(2) provides that this ruling of Mr Speaker remains in force until a joint meeting of the Rules Committee has taken a decision in this regard.

Mr Chairman, I am the last speaker on the Official Opposition side, and I want to tell you that in my opinion the hon member for Potgietersrus displayed prophetic insight when he spoke in the House of Assembly a while ago on the acceptance or otherwise of the Joint Rules of the Houses of Parliament for joint debating. On that occasion the hon member for Potgietersrus predicted what was going to happen when these Joint Rules of the Houses were accepted, and we found ourselves in joint debates as is now happening here in public for the first time. What was going to happen, according to him, was that the NP was going to call in the assistance of the other population groups or Houses in their attack on the CP, in other words the other component in the House of Assembly. How absolutely correct the hon member for Potgietersrus turned out to be! [Interjections.] There was an acerbity in the remarks made by the Government side and an unusual acrimoniousness, which we very seldom if ever heard in the House of Assembly while debates were being debated in private by the representatives of the White voters. Here things have suddenly changed direction and it is very clear to us what has caused this. [Interjections.]

I should like to refer to a few observations made by hon members. The hon member for Umhlatuzana said something more or less to the following effect: “There are those who want to undermine the structures and we have, this morning, seen evidence of this.” He was of course referring to the CP. This indicates the attitude and the absolutely unfounded attacks from the Government side on the CP, because what in effect happened here this morning and yesterday morning? The CP came to this Chamber in terms of and subject to the Rules that were accepted— although initially in the face of our opposition— and took points of order in a completely correct procedural way. We said that we were lodging our most extreme form of protest, not only to the fact that we had insufficient time, as was reported in the media—very significantly the NP-controlled media said we supposedly walked out simply because we did not have enough time— but because we said we were opposed to the process of integration in the government of South Africa. We make no apology for that. [Interjections.] We came to this House and we participated. Incidently, at the time the hon member for Umhlatuzana referred to the so-called events which allegedly referred to the undermining of the structures, we happened to have been sitting in this House the whole day. What that hon member said was absurd. We had been sitting in this House, and then he referred to something which allegedly happened this morning which was indicative of structures being undermined. [Interjections.]

While the hon member for Potgietersrus was speaking one could not help noticing how openly the hon member for Umlazi was seeking support among the ranks of the hon members of the other Houses on the opposite side of this Chamber. [Interjections.]

We are not asking for support.

He sat there smiling and cajoling and winking in an effort to drum up support against the CP from the benches on the opposite side of this Chamber. [Interjections.]

Our help need not be asked for—we give it free of charge!

This is another indication of the new modus operandi of the NP in this type of debate. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Klip River was so alarmed by the hon member for Potgietersrus that he even began his speech with “Ladies and Gentlemen” in addition to “Mr Chairman”. He said he could not think of any positive consequences the policy of the CP could have for anyone in Natal. I want to tell that hon member that to an increasing extent Natalians are becoming aware of the indisputable benefits of partition for everyone—all the population groups in Natal—compared with the insecurity and social crowding out and oppression—political oppression—as a result of the present NP policy. He went further and said there was no White majority in Natal. But what do the statistics say? He said a White homeland was impossible here because there was no so-called White majority. However, the statistics indicate that most of the land in Natal is the property of White owners. In fact propaganda is being made around this. But the hon member said that, according to the numbers, there was no White majority in Natal and the establishment of homelands here was impossible for that reason.

Now we want to ask that hon member whether the NP no longer recognises private property ownership. That is the basis of the policy of partition. If the NP no longer recognises private property ownership, we must issue a word of warning. The NP is in that case moving very close to full fledged socialism, which we shall not accept.

That hon member also said that an hon member of the CP had said that the Coloureds now had sufficient land. That is untrue. I challenge the hon member to tell us where that was said. What is his source of reference when he says an hon member used these specific words? I suggest that what hon members of the CP often say is that the quota in terms of the 1936 Act was the original promise. In other words that land has been allocated, and additional land can be acquired by means of exchange or purchase. [Interjections.] However, the CP has never said that the Coloured population cannot obtain additional land in any of these ways. [Interjections.]

The hon member went on to say that it was a pity that we had to discuss such an absurd policy— referring to the CP policy. He meant the partition policy. The absurdity of this hon member’s remark becomes very clear if one looks at the homelands. That hon member is part of a party which developed and is still maintaining the homelands. During the recent election campaign they were saying that the self-governing territories could receive independence. What is a good thing there, is apparently not a good thing elsewhere.

Mr Chairman, the CP maintains that just as provision was made in the 1936 legislation for the land requirements of Black people, just as we have said that apart from that undertaking we are also prepared, when we came into power, to negotiate with the Black people on the purchase or exchange of further territory for the meaningful consolidation of their states, so we will also negotiate in respect of the Coloured and Indian population groups on the basis of meaningful states so that they will also have sufficient territory within which they can exercise their rights to self-determination. [Interjections.]

†About the so-called impracticability of partition, and still in reply to the hon member for Klip River, I would like to refer hon members to a countrywide survey among Whites conducted in October 1987 by the HSRC. The question was asked during this survey whether Whites and Blacks have enough values and principles in common jointly to design a democratic constitution for South Africa. The interesting fact here is that this was conducted in October 1987—several months after the general election on 6 May of last year. Fifty-six per cent of all Whites in South Africa said that Whites and Blacks do not have enough values and principles in common jointly to design a democratic constitution for South Africa. Therefore, based on this scientific research, the statistics of which are there for everybody to see, we can argue that the NP policy of power-sharing has already been proven to be impracticable … [Interjections.] … and unworkable. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I also deplore rather strongly the personal attack that was made upon the hon the Administrator. I think all hon members are entitled to criticise the hon the Administrator or to disagree with things he might say or do. However, to make a direct and personal attack upon the person of the holder of the office is in very poor taste. Those of us who have known the hon the Administrator for some time—I have known him since he was junior counsel—and who may have worked with him or against him, have always found him to be unfailingly courteous. As a politician he has always been unfailingly courteous. To that extent I would recommend to my young friend, the hon member for Potgietersrus, that he should observe how his own leader comports himself, knowing that that is also an example of courtesy.

While the hon member for Umhlatuzana was speaking and while he was rather arrogantly setting out the terms of the Constitution and rather impertinently—if I may say so—insisting that the rest of us had to observe that constitution, I interjected: “Who passed that silly constitution?” The hon member said that he would deal with me in due course, which he did by making a rather unflattering personal remark. [Interjections.] However, the personal insult is a refuge not only of the uncouth, but also of him who is bankrupt spiritually, intellectually and in a political sense. I feel rather sorry for that particular hon member. However, the interesting thing … [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon member for Umhlatuzana should rather come to the podium.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: If the hon member for Umhlatuzana wishes to make a point of personal explanation, this should be done at the conclusion of the speech that is presently being made.

Mr Chairman, on a further point of order: In terms of the Rules specific provision is made for a member to make a personal point of explanation.

Order! The hon member for Umhlatuzana may proceed.

Thank you very much, Mr Chairman, for your ruling. I just want to explain that the hon member for Reservoir Hills now attributes sentiments to me which I did not express. May I repeat my words during my speech? I quote: “Not all of us in this Committee are in love with our own verbosity.” [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, that is not a point of explanation. The hon member is abusing the privilege.

Order! The hon member for Umhlatuzana is on his feet on a point of explanation. The hon member has been given permission to do so and he may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. I repeat what I said and I quote: “Not all of us in this Committee are in love with our own verbosity. Not all of us suffer from verbal diarrhoea.” Mr Chairman, I am still convinced that what I said there is correct. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member for Umhlatuzana is not making a point of personal explanation. He is repeating a point he made in a speech. [Interjections.]

Order! May I advise the hon member for Umhlatuzana that that has been my observation as well. The hon member must please resume his seat.

May I now continue, Mr Chairman?

Mr Chairman, may I address you on a point of order?

Sit!

Order! The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I read from Rule 97(1) of the Order and Rules of Debate.

You are now further abusing the process.

It reads as follows:

That is exactly the point I am trying to rectify, Sir.

Order! However, the hon member for Umhlatuzana has merely repeated what he said at the end of his speech while he was supposed to have given an explanation. I think I should uphold the hon member for Pinetown’s point of order. The hon member must please resume his seat.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. I believe I made my point.

Mr Chairman, my pity for that hon member increases. [Interjections.] That hon member in fact earlier on wore the mantle of the Conservative Party when he said that there would be no power sharing and when he said that the policy of his party was to have apartheid at every level—including the third-tier local government level. I do not see any difference in the policy of the CP and what that hon member put forward as the policy of his party. If that is what they want to do, their policy is doomed to absolute failure.

The hon member talked about group rights. There is no such thing as group rights, but there are group privileges. However, that hon member would embrace the Portuguese, who were never born in South Africa, as part of his group. He will embrace the Cypriots, Greeks and the Maltese— all of whom have mixed blood and all of whom strictly speaking are Coloured people. He would embrace them, but he will disown his immediate cousins. To which group do members of the Coloured community belong? To the Indian group, the White group or the Negro group? Which group? They belong to every group! That is the beauty about the Coloured community and I believe the time must come when all of us in fact and in deed call ourselves Coloureds, because they are the only true South Africans. [Interjections.]

There, you see!

There you have it!

Hear, hear!

Talking about own affairs in health—unfortunately nobody took the trouble to teach the tubercle bacillus or the mosquito how to read and write. At least if the viruses knew how to read they might read the Constitution and know about own affairs. In the meantime, however, the mosquito moves from one own affairs region into the other, biting White, Black, Coloured and Indian alike. [Interjections.] If the White man’s servant has TB and she carries the White child, the White child is just as susceptible to infection from the TB bacilli as is the Black child. Therefore, to have this concept of own affairs in health is absolutely ridiculous.

I want to take this opportunity of congratulating Mr Volker, MEC, and his colleagues who are now reintroducing what Dr Stals rejected in 1952. Sidney and Emily Kark pioneered the concept of community health clinics and they started it in Polela. Six such centres were established at Springfield, Wentworth, Tongaat, Polela, Edendale and Newlands. Dr Stals was the one who said that money was being wasted by giving free medical aid to Black people and he got rid of these community clinics. Thank goodness common sense is now prevailing after 36 years have elapsed. Even though it is 36 years later, it is never too late to do something worthwhile.

In the same way the officials of the administration, whether in the roads department or in the other sectors, are certainly doing their work. Our criticism levelled at members of the Executive Committee does not translate into criticism of the officials.

I want to deal now with the question of services generally as well as the report. Not only are the Black South Africans not represented here—this is a great void—but we have not been informed adequately about what the administration is doing or proposes to do for the benefit of Black Natalians who do not fall under the jurisdiction of KwaZulu. Indeed, Sir, there are a substantial number of Natal people who are Black and who need the services. We know that they benefit to some extent from the services of the King Edward VIII Hospital. However, what about the other services that are necessary for them? We are constantly told that the local government authorities would have to be strictly on a apartheid basis.

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

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May I inquire of you as to whether the time utilised by the hon member for Umhlatuzana has been deducted from the time of the hon member for Reservoir Hills?

Order! Yes, according to my records it has been deducted from the time of the hon member for Reservoir Hills.

Mr Chairman, on a further point of order: May I point out that according to the new Rules points of orders made and motions raised are deducted from the party which does so.

Order! We will not fight about this. We will give the hon member for Reservoir Hills two more minutes as injury time.

As the Chairman pleases.

I now want to deal with the question of local government. In Westville there is a tiny so-called Indian enclave. Is Westville then going to have a Westville Indian local authority with a mayor, a town treasurer and a town clerk? According to the racial composition, to use that expression of Stanger, 80% consists of members of the Indian community, 12% consists of Whites—they are really a floating population—and the rest consists of members of the Coloured and the Black communities. Is Stanger going to be divided into four local authorities? The mind boggles at that kind of idiocy. It is the complete obsession with race that clouds the judgement of people who talk in that manner. Will Estcourt now have to be divided into four local authorities? One can go on and on along those lines.

In the same way that the CP policy of “groot apartheid” has been proved to be unworkable or unworthy—it used to be the NP policy but they moved away from it because it proved to be unworkable—similarly, this nonsense about separate group authority and the group rights and the refusal to have power-sharing is also being proved to be unworkable. It will be established that it is completely useless and within the next five to six years it will have to be jettisoned. If they do not jettison it, it will get thrown out. I want to say to my friends and fellow-countrymen who are White that if they do not learn to share they will lose everything. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I wish to devote a few minutes to the Development and Services Board. Since its inception as the local health commission in 1941 the board and its organisations have played a valuable role in exercising local authority functions and environmental, health and building controls in numerous areas throughout the province.

Initially established to introduce a degree of order in the developing and heavily populated Black areas of Edendale and Clermont, the board’s responsibilities were gradually extended to include Indian and Coloured areas. Although the central Government took over the Black areas in 1974, the board today administers 90 areas in Natal, comprising 57 development areas in which the full range of local authority services is supplied according to the needs of the respective communities, as well as 33 recreated areas in which environmental, health and building controls are implemented.

The total population of the communities under the board’s jurisdiction is close to 100 000 and consists of approximately 50 000 Indians resident in 22 areas, approximately 16 000 Whites resident in 51 areas, approximately 3 600 Coloureds resident in six areas and approximately 27 000 Blacks in mixed areas. The annual cost to the board of running these areas is approaching R22 million of which nearly R10 million or 45% is provided by way of a provincial grant.

As a result of its policy to reduce the dependence of its areas on outside financial assistance and to bring as many of them to the point of financial self-sufficiency, the board has succeeded in reducing the provincial grant as a percentage of its annual budget from 51% in 1984 to 45% in the financial year ending 31 March 1988. If one considers this achievement in the light of the fact that no rates are levied in any regulated areas except three where potable water is supplied, it cannot but be regarded as highly credible and the board is to be commended for its efforts in this direction. Not only do they cut down subsidisation but they also bring home to the communities themselves an awareness of the financial responsibilities they will have to carry even when they seek autonomy at local government level.

At present the board itself constitutes the legal local authority in each of the areas which it administers. In order to maintain direct contact with the communities in its development areas, the board arranged for the establishment of advisory committees elected by the ratepayers and residents of such areas. All matters affecting a development area are referred to the advisory committee for that area and the board takes careful cognisance of the views of its advisory committees before taking decisions which impinge on the interests of the areas in question. A total of 41 of the board’s development areas have functioning advisory committees—27 White committees, 12 Indian committees and two Coloured committees. The Indian and Coloured advisory committees are about to be elevated to the status of local affairs committees.

The volume of its work demands that the board meets twice every fortnight. In addition the board undertakes regular tours of its areas every year where it meets its advisory committees to discuss matters of policy and common concern. This practice keeps the board in touch with local problems and constitutes a healthy measure of consultation and communication with the communities themselves.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure to follow the hon MEC, and I am sure that we all listened to his remarks with great interest.

*Before I go any further I just want to place on record that the hon members of the CP have not made a single reference in this debate to any Natal matter. [Interjections.] I think their complaint that they did not have enough time was a completely hollow cry because the fact of the matter is that they squandered the time they had on nonsensical and unsavoury matters. They wasted the golden opportunity they had to prove that they had a really constructive interest in the people of Natal. However, the people of Natal see right through them, and that is why they will never make any headway in Natal. [Interjections.]

†There are two unrelated matters with which I should like to deal briefly today but before doing so I should like to add my thanks to those expressed by the other participants in this debate towards the hon the Administrator and his Administration for what they did for Natal during and after the Natal flood disaster.

*They acquitted themselves very well indeed of their task and in my constituency, which was hit very hard by that flood disaster, we really saw in what a wonderful way they supported the population.

†The first matter to which I should like to refer, is the question of the future of King’s House, a matter which has of late been the subject of speculation from time to time. I am aware that the matter is being considered at Ministerial level and that the hon the Administrator will also be consulted but I should nevertheless like to refer to it briefly before a final decision is taken.

In my view—and I must emphasise that this is my personal view—King’s House has come to belong to the people of Natal. I use the phrase “people of Natal” advisedly as I am not referring only to Durban but to Natal as a whole. It should be restored to its full former glory by the central Government and, in my view, handed back to the Natal Provincial Administration for future maintenance and usage in line with its history and traditions. I am not saying that it should be used for Government offices as such but it could easily become a dignified and visible manifestation of government in the wider sense, being sited there and having been brought closer, physically and otherwise, to the people of Natal. This would not preclude it from still being utilised for accommodation and, from time to time, even for the performing and other arts or purposes in keeping with its very high status. That aspect must be paramount at all times.

I trust that we in this Committee will stand united on this issue when the hon the Administrator takes it further at a higher level later on. If this matter is handled properly King’s House could become a symbol, not only of a proud Natal heritage but of renewal and of our determination to build on that which was good in the past for the sake of the future.

The second point I wish to refer to is a problem with potentially serious implications for everyone living in this province because it is manifesting itself to an increasing extent throughout the province, and that is the question of informal settlements and the problem of squatting.

The situation is one which will have to be dealt with in part by this Administration, which is responsible for administering Black townships outside KwaZulu. According to my information the number of people involved already exceeds 200 000 and if one looks at the situation in areas within the KwaZulu boundaries as well, this problem is far greater.

This rash of informal settlements which has arisen, has accurately been described by the hon the Administrator as “a festering condition which demands urgent attention”, and we in this Committee must give him and his Administration all the support and encouragement we can.

Interestingly enough, in an article which appeared only yesterday in the Natal Daily News Durban was, in fact, described as “a city under siege” and mention was made of the fact that it is the second fastest growing city in the world, being second only to Mexico City.

There are strong and very persuasive humanitarian reasons for doing something about this situation, but there are equally compelling practical reasons for doing so. No man or community is an island and our day to day existence in this province is inextricably intertwined. If we, as nondeprived, more affluent communities and our agencies adopt an “out of sight, out of mind” approach to this problem, we do so at our peril.

I say this, firstly, because if our labour force is exposed to infectious disease and generally unhealthy conditions, so are we.

Secondly, if crime and anti-social behaviour are rife in these areas due to poverty and deprivation we, too, become potential target markets for the perpetrators.

Thirdly, if there is a total lack of services and consequent massive degradation of the environment, we all see the result in the form of plastic and other pollutants in our rivers and seas, and the world in which we live becomes a poorer place for us all.

This being so, there is no point in adopting a legalistic approach. The problem must be approached in its totality and realistically and whatever has to be done, must be done. There is obviously no “quick fix” and major problems such as an almost total lack of infrastructure and services and the instability which results from the grinding poverty in these areas must be tackled.

I know that there is a committee in the province called the Squatters Settlement and Urbanisation Committee but it has also been said in some quarters—and this does not necessarily reflect my own view—that a commitment is needed on the part of the region to get together and adopt a plan of action, or to form a sort of urbanisation “super committee” with enough clout to settle political differences that may exist. My question to the hon the Administrator and his Administration is this: Is the Provincial Administration satisfied that enough is being done in respect of this problem and does it have the tools—the ways and means—to do the job? If it does, we should say: “All strength to its arm”. However, if it does not, we should help it to obtain those tools.

Mr Chairman, I listened to the hon member for Potgietersrus and I thought to myself: “Well, he is just inebriated by the exuberance of his own verbosity.” [Interjections.] However, he is dwindling in the pool of ignorance, and so I forgive him for that.

*However, I reject the attack made on the hon the Administrator by the hon member for Potgietersrus with the contempt which it deserves. [Interjections.]

It is an indisputable fact that the indigent patient always remains the responsibility of the State, and I must admit that nowhere have the authorities flinched from doing that. This also means, however, that the State itself need not inevitably build and operate all the hospitals for this purpose all the time, but that it may possibly compensate private organisations to perform this task on behalf of the State.

At present there are already major differences in the standard of health care in South Africa, owing solely to geographic and incidental factors that have nothing to do with whether or not a patient can pay. It is an indisputable fact that if a person suffers a heart attack in the vicinity of a hospital his chances of survival are far better than if it were to happen to him in a little town situated many kilometres away from the hospital.

The latest edition of Hospital and Nursing Yearbook gives the cost to the taxpayer per patient at a training hospital as an amount of R397 per patient bed-day. This figure can be doubled if the private sector were really to make a calculation of the costs. The costs of private health services is in this way placed in a far more favourable perspective than is generally realised in South Africa. Mr Chairman, all of us would like to see far better basic health services and care of all people in South Africa. However, that costs money. The better the standard of care, the more expensive it becomes. If privatisation brings about greater cost effectiveness in health care for more people in South Africa, it ought to be supported.

†Sir, as a result of the hon the State President’s announcement in Parliament during February 1988 of a wage and post freeze for public servants, health workers have warned of a looming crisis in State-run hospitals. They predict the closing of wards throughout the country—particularly in large teaching hospitals—and patients being forced to cut short their stays or be redirected to private hospitals.

The president of the Nursing Association of South Africa, Miss O H Muller, said the wage freeze could result in staff leaving State-run hospitals and moving to private hospitals. Miss Muller said that they had been told that no new posts would be created. The existing number of nursing posts is already inadequate and nurses are over-extending themselves as it is. With the wage and post freeze the staff would simply not be able to cope.

Miss Muller maintains that the only solution would be for the wards to be closed down and that the country’s teaching hospitals which include the Johannesburg Hospital, Baragwanath Hospital and the H F Verwoerd Hospital would be most effected. If wards were to be closed patients would have to be redirected to private hospitals or would have to cut short their stay in hospitals.

The Health Workers Association said that the Government’s announcement would create added tension in hospitals and staff would become more disgruntled and unhappy. The wage freeze proposals as far as the hospitals are concerned would impose unfair pressure on the maintenance and provision of quality service and cause irreparable harm in the long term.

I had the opportunity to speak to Dr S Padayachy, former Minister of Health Services and Welfare in the Administration: House of Delegates, and he informed me that in his extensive visits to the provincial hospitals in Natal he found that the provincial hospitals, which cater for the Blacks could be compared to Crossroads in Cape Town whereas the White hospitals could be compared to five star hotels. In our hospitals there is not only overcrowding but there is also no space. Patients are sleeping under the beds, in the corridors and outside. Certain MPs said that in the White hospitals there are empty beds and empty rooms. The hospitals are practically empty and yet our people have to suffer the indignity of an overcrowded, unhygienic and inhospitable situation.

Mr Chairman, we are South Africans. I was born in South Africa.

*I am a true South African.

Where were you born?

I was born in Potgietersrus. I am a South African and I was born here. I eat South African, sleep South African and my children speak Afrikaans. Here in South Africa, however, I am a South African citizen in the little document. The problem, however, is that as soon as I leave South Africa to go to Mecca, and I arrive in Nairobi, then I am a South African. Now the discrimination begins all over again. You are a South African and you have to pay for it. Mr Chairman, I am not the oppressor; I am one of the oppressed.

Do the Indians vote there?

It is not my business what they are doing there. I am not there; I am here. I am a South African. [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon member for Roodepoort that when he says the National Party is egging us on, he must come and sit in the House of Representatives for a while and see who is egging who on. We are not being egged on, because we are not little children. We have come a long way in politics. Perhaps you can now ask me: Why do the doctors and staff not complain about these conditions?

†Obviously, Sir, after the deplorable action taken against the 101 signatories at Baragwanath Hospital they dare not speak out. They would expose themselves to accusations of collusion and public humiliation. [Interjections.] By whom? By you! They were told that if they did not sign the petition withdrawing what they said they would lose their jobs.

Are they not public servants?

Yes, Sir, they are public servants. Mr Chairman, the legal principle of res ipsa loquitur applies. Let the thing speak for itself. Unless fundamental changes are made in our society to bring about changes in attitude the wider dilemma of a society in which compromise and conciliation are consistently rejected in favour of confrontation can be expected.

Mr Chairman, one of the advantages of speaking towards the end of a debate is that one has had time to reflect on what is being said and one can perhaps come to some conclusions and pass on some impressions. The first conclusion relates to the nature of this body and the procedures that have been followed. It seems quite clear that every party or group represented here has pointed out the inadequacies in dealing with the provincial budget in this way. To a greater or lesser extent the hon MEC Mr Volker and the hon member for Umlazi suggested that one should have more time and that one sought debate specifically around the individual votes. Members came with more fundamental observations namely that the present provincial executive is undemocratic. Of course the present provincial executive is undemocratic. The present provincial executive has not been democratically elected. That has no relevance to the individuals who occupy the positions but it relates to the constitutional structure in which this provincial executive body finds itself.

Mr Chairman, irrespective of what the hon member for Umlazi may say, the provincial executive as presently constituted is not accountable to the people of Natal in respect of whom they take decisions. Accountability suggests the ability by those who are effected by the decision to apply a sanction to the decision-maker. In a democracy that works through an election, if one’s representative or executive makes a mess, one kicks him out and gets a better person in. Our present constitution does not provide for democratic regional government because it is aimed at entrenching the power and privileges of one particular minority party in the overall South Africa scene. We have to move away from that and hold always in front of us the goal of a representative regional government in Natal. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, a second observation that I make is that whilst the Provincial Executive Committee—that includes the Administrator—appeared to have an approach towards the difficult problems of Natal and towards the difficult relationship between Natal and KwaZulu it has come to the fore in my view that it is a very pragmatic approach. On the other hand, one gained a clear impression that as far as spokesmen of the National Party were concerned there was a distinct shift towards a more orthodox approach, an approach which decided on behalf of others. [Interjections.]

It is a shift towards a more verkrampte approach, best epitomised by the hon member for Umhlanga. He gave notice that as far as the people of Natal were concerned, irrespective of whether they constituted 80% of the majority or not, they would now know that as far as the NP was concerned, they were going to enforce own affairs on Government. He has in an arrogant way told us that others do not come into the decision-making process as far as that is concerned. He wants to twist the arm of the Provincial Executive Committee to allow the prejudices of that small group to implement their own affairs local government in Natal.

Why does the NP, with a shift towards the right and a more orthodox verkrampte view, want to create problems in Natal where they do not exist in the local government sphere? The reason given by the hon member for the own affairs local government was that that would enable local government to have greater decision-making powers. He spoke about devolution of power. Let us not be bluffed about the concept of devolution of power. There is no devolution of power taking place in terms of decision-making, nor will it take place under own affairs. There will be devolution of power in terms of administrative powers.

If the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning makes a decision on third and second tier government, the local authorities will have to implement them. That is what is happening. We are not talking about decisionmaking power. If Natal becomes an own affairs local government, it will not have greater decision-making power at third tier government level. It will just be given more orders to implement and tasks to administer. That is what is going to happen. The people of Natal do not want own affairs local government. I am sure the majority of the people will reject it.

I do not know why there is this shift to the right. There are no CP representatives in Natal. They are not going to be a threat in Natal. They will stand for elections, but that is not their home ground. The Natal NP MPs are shaking in their shoes for no valid reason. We ask them please to take the interests of Natal into account, in the first instance, and not their narrow Pretoria interests.

I want to deal now very briefly with another issue. My hon colleague from Umhlanga has already dealt with it, but it does not happen very often that one can persuade a NP MP to join in on a very worthwhile cause. He has now joined in in a cause with which I have had to do with some time, and that is King’s House. I am very glad to have him with me. King’s House is in my constituency and I agree with the sentiments expressed by the hon member. I want to urge the hon the Administrator to give it serious attention. However, I do not believe that it should even be considered that King’s House should be turned into Government offices, as obliquely suggested by that hon member.

That is not what King’s House is all about. It would destroy its historical background and value as a cultural entity. I also want to urge the hon the Administrator and the Executive Committee to please consult the people of Durban, maybe even the City Council, because that is something which the hon the Minister of Manpower has suggested one should perhaps do, as well. I trust that the Provincial Executive Committee will deal with that competently, just as they are doing right now in respect of this building. I compliment them for having arranged for this meeting to take place in this building.

In the Transvaal and the Free State the NP was too scared to hold their similar meetings in the Ou Raadsaal in Bloemfontein or Pretoria, because they thought the conservatives would say: Now you are allowing Coloureds and Indians in here.

*They are too afraid to stand on their own two feet. In those two provinces those two buildings are now vacant. They have spent millions of rands on renovating these buildings.

They are not vacant. That is a story.

I compliment the Natal Provincial Executive Committee for not being deflected by such silly points. If we can have future meetings—hopefully more democratic— in this building, one will be carrying on in the very sound tradition of Natal history and Natal decision-making processes. After all, we in Natal do recognise that we are different from other provinces. We are slightly more pragmatic. Several PFP people are running scared now, because they want to accommodate the CP.

Why does the NP criticise the CP for partition? What is own affairs local government other than partition? It is a question of the NP camouflaging it with sentiments of equal power and powersharing. They still discriminate, but they are doing it in gentle, sugar-coated terms. The CP says straight out: We are the boss, and that is how it is going to remain!

The NP pretends that it is interested in powersharing. The position in Natal will come to the fore in the municipal elections. I can predict that, contrary to an earlier decision, the NP is going to run scared of fielding municipal candidates throughout Natal under their party flag. Why? They have become embarrassed since Mayor Klotz was kicked out of his party. They have become embarrassed to field candidates under their party flag. They will now come in the disguise of independents!

You do not know what you are talking about!

I welcome that stage. I want to see as many NP candidates standing under their party flag in Durban, but they will not. Already in Pietermaritzburg we know of a number of NP members who are standing, but they are too scared to show their flag. They are masquerading behind independents, because the Natal voters in the municipal elections—in Pietermaritzburg and Durban, at least—will not support a NP candidate who stands under this flag, because they know that NP representatives will execute orders issued in Pretoria. They will not act in the interests of Pietermaritzburg or Durban. They will in the first instance rely on NP instructions. We do not need those people. We want representatives in city councils who act on behalf of the people in their cities and towns.

The NP is not interested in that. They want to force down the norms and straitjackets that are designed in Pretoria. I believe this year’s municipal elections, because of a jittery NP, has no confidence anymore in Natal. Because of the threats from the right and possible clashes from English-speaking voters in Natal, they are now taking a middle road. They are sitting on the fence under the guise of independents. It is not going to work.

Mr Chairman, I always admire the fire of a speaker when he has limited time and a lot to say. I simply want to deal with one small issue, and I am sure it will interest all hon members in this Chamber this afternoon. This is something that I personally experienced. Many hon members who are sitting here, have previously served in provincial councils. I am sure that they will have experienced the same thing, and that is, it is incorrect to state that the public could throw out an executive committee.

In all the years I have served in the Provincial Council, the Executive Committee could be appointed in its entirety from outside the membership of the council itself. The principle that, provided one had somebody who had the confidence of the majority caucus, he could be appointed whether he was a member of the council or not, is a statement of fact.

We ourselves—and I look at my former colleagues—experienced being told by an Executive Committee to go and jump in the lake if we did not like their decision. Hon members will all know that special legislation had to be passed to get rid of Dr Latsky in the Transvaal. Until the Latsky clause came in, no Provincial Council could get rid of an Executive Committee or an MEC. My friends in the CP will know that legislation was brought in specially to get rid of Dr Latsky at that time.

I want to kill this misconception once and for all. If hon members want to get rid of at least two of us on the Executive Committee, Mr Volker and myself, they can exercise their right at the next general election and kick out the majority party in Natal. Hon members are free to do that in exactly the same way as it was done before. I want to put that issue to rest once and for all, because the arguments that have been used in this Chamber are not based on facts.

I want to come back on some other issues. The Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Delegates raised the question of the Chairmen of Local Affairs Committees being permitted to serve on the management committee of local authorities. I want to report to the Chamber this afternoon that we are making extremely good progress in this regard in Natal. I agree with the hon member who spoke just before the hon member for Durban Central that we too have to deal with attitudinal problems and we are doing so in our quiet way and we are overcoming them. Whereas two or three years ago we had local authorities that believed that they were not prepared to have a Chairman of an LAC sitting in and participating in their debates, they are doing it today although they are still the same local authorities with no change in their membership. If we tackle this problem in a confrontational way or in the way that our good friend the Chairman of NALAC—our pet name for him is Haile Selassie—does, one in fact makes enemies. It retards our ability to persuade or make progress.

I therefore plead for a dropping of the direct confrontational approach.

Does this apply to community councils as well?

I am going to be dealing with Black local government in Natal in a moment because the question was posed by the hon member for Reservoir Hills. Before I move onto that subject I want to say that I as an individual strongly support the fact that our question and reply session, which was held in Cape Town over three days, should be held in the province before the public of that province. In that question and reply session we dealt in great detail with what we are doing for Black local government in Natal and had the hon members, who are legitimately posing the question now, had access to that information they would have been extremely well informed. They would have been better informed than I am able to do now with the time at my disposal.

I believe that we as an Executive Committee need the opportunity to represent and be responsible to the people of Natal so that this session becomes our shop-window as well.

With regard to Black local government in Natal we have 18 local authorities outside KwaZulu that are fully autonomous. They have town committees serving them and I want to pay tribute here and now to those members who at great personal risk and under very trying circumstances are prepared to work for their communities. I want to pay tribute to them for their courage, for it is nothing less, that they exhibit under those circumstances.

Mr Chairman, will the hon the MEC take a question?

No, I shall not take a question as I have limited time.

May I suggest that the reference to the hon the President of NALAC was completely unwarranted.

Mr Chairman, the Chairman of NALAC shares that joke with us and laughs. He does not need to be defended by the hon member for Stanger.

You complained about his attitude, because it is devolution of power …

Mr Chairman, I am making a speech at the present time and not the hon member for Stanger.

May I say that having paid tribute to those hon members I also want to pay tribute to the leadership of the Urban Councils Association of Natal who also from a position of limited experience and limited access are doing a good job to promote Black local governments. I want to say that in the last two years we had supervised through our community services office the spending of some R117 million on upliftment programmes in the local authorities to which I have referred. I am pleased to report that the effect of this upgrading, which was justly and properly deserved—I am not saying that it was something that was not their due—has done a great deal for the morale of the people that live in those communities. I look forward a great deal to having a Black colleague on the Executive Committee who will join me in attending to this sector of our Administration which is the single most important sector if we are to secure a future in this country.

I want to deal briefly with other matters raised by the hon member for Reservoir Hills. I think it is fair to acknowledge publicly that there are many small enclaves of Indian and Coloured people that have no prospect of being an independent local authority in the full sense of the word. We and the Co-ordinating Council for Local Government and the Action Committee—and I trust all the separate Houses—wrestle with finding just and legitimate solutions for those small communities. However, there are communities that are viable, that are big enough, that are a geographic unit and are able to adopt local authority status and they should be encouraged to do so. Shallcross is an immediate example of this that comes to mind. It is a big, viable community which stands there as a geographical unit. There are others.

The question of squatting is another one of the nettlesome problems that has devolved upon province. The question was put by the hon member for Umhlanga. Have we the tools? I answer honestly and I say no, but we will get the tools with the new legislation that is about to be passed. We look forward to the hon the State President assenting to that legislation. At the moment we have problems with existing legislation. Secondly, are we doing enough? Again I answer no, but I want to say that we will do enough and we are going to make every effort to do enough, particularly when the legislation is through.

This problem is something new to us. There was a void for a time when the development boards were abolished. We are overcoming that void. While I am saying that about the abolition of the development boards may I take this opportunity to pay tribute to those members of staff from the old Natalia Development Board who have come into our Administration and who have proved to be such a marvellous asset to this province. I want to say that freed from the shackles of enforcing influx control and freed from the shackles of frozen townships those peoples’ true colours are coming to the fore today. They are sympathetic, they are understanding and they are not the ogres that the public would have them be and I am proud to be part of an administration and in charge of a community services branch that has those people in their service. They are doing sterling work and it is with regret that I realise some of the senior men are about to retire.

With regard to squatting there are two essential things that we have to attend to. It has to become unprofitable for land barons in Natal to farm with human beings and to, in fact, make their living out of selling 20 square metre plots to people to build shacks on and then putting that money tax free into their back pockets. It must also become unprofitable for the tribal chief in KwaZulu to do the same because one cannot divorce squatting in Natal from the squatting that is taking place in KwaZulu.

Finally I want to deal with land availability. I publicly here today ask for the support of the House of Delegates particularly as they are such an important part of the society in Natal. We have to make it uneconomical for land barons to sit on land and to refuse to develop it. We have information that there is a desperate shortage of land for housing in the Indian community and that is correct. However, we also have information that the Indians own more than enough land to house their community for the next 30 years. They own it but they will not free it for development. [Interjections.] I want to ask them to join with us in evolving a system of punitive rates and other structures that will encourage those people to make their land available to the community.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Durban Central accused the NP of being jittery. I will leave it to hon members to decide which party is jittery; the NP or the NDM—people who do not have a mandate from the electorate to be represented in Parliament under that flag.

I must also refer to the speech made by the hon member for Reservoir Hills, and his reference to the irrelevance of groups. I must say that when I listened to this speech, for a moment I thought that we were far, far away in some airy-fairy world, some cloud-cuckoo land where there are no differences in values and traditions, no ethnic or cultural differences, no prejudice—a world without any history of strife and bloodshed which arose as a result of group differences. I thought for a moment that we were far removed from Africa—Africa, where the Western democratic tradition is foreign; where one man, one vote leads to one exercise, and then to Marxist dictatorships; where there is no economic progress despite world recognition and despite an absence of sanctions. I thought we were not in Africa, where the weak are in fact devoured before breakfast. However, I also thought that we were not in South Africa, which is in fact a world in one country, with a multitude of cultures, ethnic aspirations and backgrounds.

The only point I want to make is this: There are no simple and quick solutions to our problems. The one aspect that everyone must concede— here today as well—is that under this Government, and especially under the leadership of the hon the State President, there has been unprecedented reform in South Africa. All our peoples have in the last few years been given more and more authority to decide for themselves, and our experiences and the proceedings here today and yesterday constitute dramatic proof of that. I want to say that this Government is committed to proceed with this process. However, members must understand that this Government will not allow this country to degenerate into the type of country we have to the north of us.

I am the first to concede that we do not have all the solutions, but the solution obviously lies along the route of co-operation among groups. That can only work if there is the maximum self-determination for groups, and we are committed to that. However, we are also committed to looking after the interests of communities. We are committed to the opening of amenities to all. However, communities should also have the right to reserve amenities for their own use. This right should be available to all communities. If there are communities or groups that do not want to make use of this right, it is up to them. We, however, are committed to looking after the interests of our community life as well. We will not shirk that responsibility.

I should like to refer to two aspects. The first is the creation and the filling of posts in this Administration in Natal and Pietermaritzburg. One of the major objects of this new governmental dispensation was to bring Government closer to the people. This was to be brought about by devolving power from the central Government as far as general matters were concerned, to the provinces, so that in future executive and administrative decisions would be taken locally. I have no doubt that this has in fact happened to a great extent. This Administration does have more powers to make decisions as far as Natal is concerned.

Who gave them the power?

What concerns me, however, is ensuring that where the posts have indeed been created and filled for this Administration, proper use is made of this authority and that the increased functions which this authority has been given are properly dealt with. As a Natalian and an MP who must also look after the interests of this capital, I am concerned about this problem. For instance, I have heard that of 30 senior positions which should have been transferred to this capital as far as the administration of national health is concerned, only two posts have been transferred and filled in the capital. I should like to hear from the hon the Administrator or the members of the Executive Committee as far as this aspect is concerned.

I believe that one of the main stumbling blocks is that officials in Pretoria are loath to come to Pietermaritzburg and Natal because the husband and wife work and the one does not want to sacrifice his job. One can understand this predicament, but on the other hand, personal preferences of public servants cannot be allowed to stand in the way of the implementation of governmental policy, and I would submit that this administration must look at a strategy to meet this problem.

Finally, I should like to refer to a very local issue, but one which, I would submit, is very important. I would like to refer to the noise pollution created by air brakes down Town Hill on the N3 motorway. I would submit that there is no area and no roadway in the country which is suffering to this great extent as far as this is concerned. Last night I was sitting in my house preparing this speech— my house is about a kilometre away from the motorway—and this problem was very, very evident. I have had numerous letters and telephone calls over the last few weeks about this problem, and it is in fact the case that there has been a reduction in the land values of the area next to this motorway.

Part of the solution is obviously more effective law enforcement in the area, but I would submit that that is only part of the solution, and experts should be called in to look into this problem. The hon the Administrator will know that I have made representations about this matter since September last year, and he has made known to me that there has in fact been a committee appointed under the aegis of the Council for the Environment to look into this. I would submit that they be called in to have public investigations into this matter.

Mr Chairman, this afternoon I want to discuss a clinic situated in Beaconsfield. I believe it forms part of the King Edward VIII Hospital. The clinic there is in an extremely deplorable condition, and this is a very bad state of affairs. Three to four hundred patients visit the clinic daily, and I believe there are only two toilets; one for males and one for females. Four to eight hours are spent there by waiting patients, and how long does a doctor take? Less than five minutes. All he or she does is to test blood pressure and prescribe the medicine. I appeal to the MEC in charge please to pay a visit to the Beaconsfield Clinic; I undertake to come with him to see what a deplorable condition the clinic is in at the moment.

I also want to put a simple question to the hon the Administrator. Will he please let me know how many Indians or members of other groups apply for group areas permits to live in a Black township or Black area. How many permits have been refused or granted?

In billiards there is a game called “Monk’s game”. I want to appeal to the hon members of the CP not to play the Monk’s game here. We cannot tolerate it anymore. When the hon member for Reservoir Hills referred to the assassination of the late Mr P S Jacobs as a result of the apartheid laws I want to remind him that Mahatma Gandhi and Indira Gandhi were also assassinated. Does apartheid exist in India? No, it does not exist. [Interjections.] I do not believe in group areas. Assuming that the hon the State President says that there is no more apartheid or group areas, will we all be happy? No, there are people here and outside of South Africa who want everything or nothing. Everything or nothing. What are you going to do? Who are you going to please? The important thing is that the hon the State President has said that he is prepared to discuss and sit around the table with people provided they renounce violence. I appeal to hon members in this House, if they have friends in jail, to convince them to renounce violence and the hon the State President will be prepared to talk and discuss the problems of South Africa with them.

Mr Chairman, in my concluding contribution I should like to make a few observations about roads and it is a pleasure for me to be able to announce that we received a letter from the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs in which he informed us that the National Transport Commission was prepared to accept responsibility for the financing, building, rehabilitation and maintenance of four national routes which were at present the responsibility of the province. These include the national route from the Transkei border to Port Shepstone via Harding; from Marydale to the Umsinduzi River, the Natal North Coast route; and from the Vaalkrans traffic interchange near Ladysmith up to Volksrust—this is the present old road which will soon be replaced by the freeway; and the national route, number 20, from Port Shepstone to the Umtamvuma River and onto Brooks Neck. In total this is an estimated 360 km which will now be financed by the National Transport Commission. It is hoped that for this year alone a saving in maintenance costs of R1,7 million will be effected.

The rehabilitation of the Port Shepstone-Brooks Neck Road which is in a very poor condition, will entail a saving for the province of R26 million over a three year term. The traffic interchange at Vaalkrans-Roosboom will bring about a saving of approximately R9 million. We have not yet made an estimate of the saving in respect of the rehabilitation costs to the N11—this is from Newcastle up to Volksrust, and it is important that the Transport Commission has undertaken to bear these costs in future. This will bring relief, but I must nevertheless emphasise that with the additional responsibility transferred to the Roads Department of Natal, to accept responsibility, for example, for the main routes through KwaZulu which were previously considered to be their responsibility, we have not yet extricated ourselves from our problems.

I think it is general knowledge that in the past amounts of approximately R100 million that had been allocated for roads in the budget by the then provincial administration were transferred to hospital services and education. That shortcoming must now be eliminated. We are of the opinion that it is faulty politics to consider the spending on roads to be of less importance. A proper road network throughout the province is the lifeblood which contributes to an increase in economic activities. We are of the opinion that it is wrong to cut the costs of providing a proper road network.

I should like to announce further particulars in connection with District Road Advisory Committees. Those of you who were previously provincial council members and who dealt with these matters are thoroughly aware of the existence of District Road Advisory Committees which provided the Natal Roads Department with advice on district roads. At present we are considering the possible revision of the system in terms of which 15 District Road Advisory Committees are designated in Natal. I shall not have the time to read out the full declaration in all its particulars, but in the Press interview I shall elucidate the matter more fully.

We are considering the revision of the composition of the District Road Advisory Committees and also a change to their mandate. We think it would perhaps be better if greater scope were given to the authority of the Road Advisory Committees; that they should not only have responsibilities in respect of district roads, but in respect of all roads and that representation on these committees should be given to the various bodies that have an interest in the road network of this province. Agriculture will continue to have proper representation. I think, however, that the businessmen ought to have more representation. Bus contractors, trucking contractors and the combi-taxi operators all have an interest in the overall road network of this country. If enhanced status is given to these Road Advisory Committees so that they are in fact able to act as a liaison between all the interested parties in the roads of the various districts and the Roads Department, we could be doing a service to the persons in Natal who have an interest in the entire road network.

The hon member for Umfolozi discussed the allocation of funds to Natal. Our concern is that the allocation of funds was to a great extent done on an historic basis, and not necessarily according to the needs that do in fact exist. What the hon member for Umfolozi said is true. The topography of Natal, the fact that we receive more rains than many other areas, make the construction and maintenance of roads far more expensive. We realised during the floods that there was damage which one could not see during the first week after the floods. A vast amount of damage was done to the underlayers of the roads, which is only now becoming apparent after use. For that we receive no compensation from the Government’s flood disaster fund. We are receiving compensation for direct damage—for the bridges or roads that were washed away—but we are suffering under the situation that has arisen since the floods.

†The hon member for Mariannhill raised the question of Main Road 468 with reference to pedestrian control. I should like to advise him that we shall investigate that situation. An investigation was conducted about three years ago and at that time it was found that a robot-controlled pedestrian crossing was not economically justified. However, we shall certainly look at the matter again.

He also referred—as I think the hon member for Greytown did—to the R613, which is also referred to as the Arthur Hopewell Main Road, that is to say, the Fields Hill to Durban road. There was an idea that that road should be upgraded and be declared a freeway. We have reason to be concerned at the number of accidents involving pedestrians or cyclists on that road. However, this matter will be looked into very carefully and we shall not indiscriminately have the whole section of road declared a freeway. Nevertheless, we do have a responsibility in this matter to ensure that the status of the road is such that road safety can be promoted.

The hon the Minister of the Budget in the House of Delegates referred to combi taxis. On 3 June there will be a symposium in Pinetown on this very issue and I can assure him that we are very concerned about the situation.

In the Road Transportation Bill that is to be introduced in Parliament during this session, provision is to be made that all vehicles carrying 12 or more passengers will be have to be checked for roadworthiness every second year, and that will automatically include the vast majority of combi taxis. [Interjections.] Whether they are registered as taxis or not, it will include pirate taxis because the method of determining this will be to establish the number of passengers that a vehicle can carry.

Moreover, we hope that since such a vehicle is to be considered a public transport vehicle, there will also be a requirement that the drivers of such vehicles must hold public driver’s licences and not ordinary passenger car licences. We hope that we shall be able to effect more stringent control in that respect.

Certain other matters were mentioned but unfortunately, due to time constraints, it is not possible to deal with them at this stage. Certain other hon members raised issues pertaining to hospital matters. The hon members for Stanger, Pinetown, Pietermaritzburg South, Durban Point, Umbilo, Durban North, Griqualand West, Brickfield and Pietermaritzburg North raised issues in connection with hospital matters and the JEA. I shall attempt to provide them with that information in writing at a subsequent stage.

I should like to express my appreciation to those hon members of Parliament who over the years have attended to matters which fall within the ambit of the province. It is important to us that a close liaison is built up and maintained between those representatives who serve in Parliament, and the provincial government. This link is important to us and it is important to the voters of Natal. I should like to express my sincere appreciation to our senior officials, who are always extremely willing and who are always available to attend to all matters on a regular basis.

Mr Chairman, before I make my final remarks about the sitting that we have been attending for the past two days, I just want to clarify one point. I was unfortunately not present yesterday when the hon member for Pinetown made certain remarks about a possible link-up between the standing committee and KwaZulu and so I cannot make any comment about what he said at first hand. All I know is that I was approached and asked whether I agreed that joint meetings between the standing committee and representatives of the KwaZulu Legislative Assembly would be possible. My reply to that was that I saw no objection to such joint meetings, although I was not aware of any particular proposal in that regard.

However, I still think that if there is merit in joint executive negotiations there is possibly also merit in discussions about legislation on the part of KwaZulu and Natal, which could be of a similar nature. However, there was certainly no reference to joint consideration of ordinances by the standing committee and representatives of the KwaZulu Legislative Assembly.

Therefore, let me make one point quite clear. As far as the NP is concerned, we are certainly not in favour of any indaba-style of joint legislature. My attention has been drawn to the fact that it has been stated in one of our newspapers that new hope has been given to the indaba proposals based on the reactions of the hon member for Pinetown and myself. Even if there were talk of joint discussions between representatives of the KwaZulu Legislative Assembly and the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Provincial Affairs: Natal, it is a far cry from what was proposed by the indaba and I fail to see what other purpose that particular question could serve other than to revive the flagging fortunes of the Natal-KwaZulu Indaba.

Over the past two days we have had our first experience of joint debate in this Committee in this historic hall, and I think that at the end of these two days of debate we can say that on the whole it has proved to be a success. I think the joint debates have gone without a hitch. I think that for the first time, hon members of all three Houses of Parliament, in conjunction with the Province of Natal, have had an opportunity to discuss those matters which affect the province in which most of us live and which most of us represent. It is true to say that the needs and requirements of all groups have been placed in greater perspective and we have probably had an airing of the aspirations of all the population groups—the Coloured, Indian and White groups—in this province such as we have never had before.

Admittedly there are certain hon members who apparently think that what they term as apartheid is the beginning and end of all evils, but I think most hon members have been positive in their contributions. I also think that most hon members agreed with what was said here, namely that own affairs are not necessarily apartheid. I think we have also had an opportunity of meeting one another outside the debating Chamber and of getting to understand one another better.

A second benefit of the two days of debate has been that they have thrown into sharp relief the fact that this Budget is basically a document drawn up in Natal by Natalians for the benefit of the people of Natal. Subject to the overall limits and constraints placed upon it by the Treasury, it has given the people of Natal the opportunity to see the affairs of Natal being debated in this province.

Certain criticisms have been levelled at these extended committees, and one of them has been the costs involved. I think that if we look at what the alternative would be to a system of extended parliamentary committees dealing with the Natal Budget, it is quite clear that any form of revitalised or revived provincial council representing some 55 constituencies as we do here, would be infinitely more expensive than this exercise in which we have been engaged over the past two days.

Let us just for the sake of argument use the figure of R100 000 extra expenditure which the hon member for Brakpan referred to yesterday in his statement criticising this Extended Public Committee meeting. If we agree, for the sake of argument, that that was the additional expenditure, we are talking about R1 307 million and we are talking about R100 000 for two days to discuss this Budget. In other words, if you compare the two figures it is R1 spent for every R13 000 of the Provincial Budget. Even so, this amount is not required from the people of Natal. It is being spent by the central Government and by Parliament. The total Parliamentary budget is an amount of R40 billion. If we talk about R100 000 as a lot of expenditure it means that it is R1 for every R400 000 of income for the State. If the hon members of the CP should have heard that that is overspending on the affairs of Natal then it is quite obvious that they have no interest in the affairs of Natal. They do not care two hoots about the affairs of Natal. [Interjections.]

I do not propose to deal with the other arguments against this first Extended Committee meeting but all I can say is that most of those arguments are no more than a smokescreen to hide the fear, especially of the members of the PFP and the members of the CP, that this system will succeed in Natal. [Interjections.] The CP comes here with a complaint about debating time as a pretext to make an unbridled attack on the Republican Constitution. I have already this morning referred to the type of language they used about the Constitution. That is a party which professes to speak on behalf of the Whites. That is a party which has very little to do with the views of any other population group in this country. They absolutise the views of the Whites. They attack this Constitution which, more so than any previous constitution of the Republic of South Africa, was endorsed by the White voters. This Constitution was endorsed by two out of every three White voters. That is the party which comes and delivers a sermon to us about democracy. They come and say that this exercise here is not democratic. They themselves do not even honour democracy amongst the White people.

Why not hold an election?

Mr Chairman, the election will follow and that party will be destroyed in Natal as it was destroyed in Natal a year ago. [Interjections.] The hon members of the PFP and the NDM also come here and talk about the undemocratic system of these committees. Those two minute groups in this province were all in the Progressive Party which was established in 1959. For 27 years the old Progressive Party to which all those members belonged tried to get into the Provincial Council—the passing of which they now lament. What did they succeed in? Getting one man elected once with a majority of 59 votes. Mr Chairman, for those people to come and shed crocodile tears over the demise of the Provincial Council really does not wash. Mr Chairman, all this is just a “beshu”. I do not know whether the members of the CP know what that is but it is a “beshu” to hide their naked racism. [Time expired.]

Order! I just want to respond to the hon member for Stanger when he raised a point of order earlier this morning. The hon member drew the attention of the Chair to Rule 75. Can the hon member indicate which specific portion of the Rule he was referring to?

Mr Chairman, I specifically referred to the Rule that provides that when hon members leave the Chamber they should bow to the Chair. It was obvious that some hon members were ignoring that particular provision.

Order! At this stage of the debate I would like to remind hon members that that is the Rule and it is also applicable to members of the Extended Public Committee and the members of the Executive Committee of the province. I trust that this Rule will be respected in future.

Mr Chairman, as is customary, it falls to me to reply to the debate on the Budget of this province. Before I go further, may I on behalf of those of us in the province, and I am sure those who are visiting here, pay tribute to yourself and to the members of the Parliamentary staff for the manner in which they have conducted these proceedings and the assistance that we, who are not part of the Parliamentary establishment, have received in this two day debate. I should also like to pay tribute to the provincial staff who assisted the staff from Parliament in the work of the last two days.

There is one other point which I should like to touch on very briefly before I deal with the debate and that is the remarks by the hon member for Potgietersrus. He, Sir, is a young man in politics. There is no crime in being a young man in politics. I was one myself once. I knew his parents and I knew him as a schoolboy and I speak now more in sorrow than in anger that he should have found it necessary to try to elevate a sentence of gentle humour by myself at a social function yesterday into a crime of ill-mannered bad behaviour. [Interjections.] Mr Chairman, I find that very regrettable. You know, Sir, my experience has taught me that if one wants to impress in public life and one assumes that that was the object of this exercise, probably the worst way to do it is to adopt that method. Mr Chairman, I have had the good fortune in the almost 30 years that I have been in public life, and I believe I can say this in all due modesty, to have established a reputation in so far as personal standards and ethical standards relating to me personally are concerned which the hon member might well emulate in the years that lie ahead. [Interjections.] Indeed, Sir, may I suggest to him, again with due modesty, that he would do well to aspire to achieve the reputation in that field which I believe that I have succeeded in doing in the 30 years that I have been in public life. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to deal with one or two matters which have been raised by individual members before dealing with these proceedings in general. Some hon members raised the question of the Natal Parks Board and the need to upgrade the facilities in our reserves so as to keep pace with those offered elsewhere in South Africa.

I should like hon members to know that the Executive Committee is very alive to this question, as are the members of the Natal Parks Board. It so happens that on 1 June, which is in the near future, the Parks Board—that is to say, the members of the board—will be meeting the Executive Committee on this very issue to see how funds can be raised and where they should properly be spent in order best to serve those who find enjoyment in our parks.

The question was also raised by one hon member that he found it strange that the top posts in most of our departments and in our statutory bodies were occupied by White men or women. Hon members may not be aware of the system that is adopted when it comes to the filling of the top posts in the province. These posts are advertised, if they are public service posts, within the Public Service, and anybody who has the qualifications and the seniority to apply for those posts may do so. Indeed, we have recently advertised vacancies in the two top posts in the Parks Board administration, and it is open to anybody to apply if he has the right qualifications for those posts.

The hon member for, I think, Pietermaritzburg South asked me about the old Greys Hospital accommodation in the centre of Pietermaritzburg, and about what the intentions are in that regard. The Greys Centre has been reallocated, partly to the Natal Provincial Library Service, partly to the Provincial Museum Service, to the security services’ training school, the Road Traffic Inspectorate training school, various components of the Natal Education Department. The C Nurses’ Home has been allocated to the Natal Roads Department. The only portion of this complex which is still to be allocated is the old block, comprising the previous out-patients department, the admitting office, etc, which is in need of extensive renovation and which is being attended to. The doctors’ quarters, which were referred to specifically by the hon member whom I have just mentioned, is being let to employees at economical rentals. There are some vacancies in that block.

The hon member for Newcastle made an interesting speech. It was one of the few that dealt solely with financial matters. He made the point—and quoted figures—to show that we were disadvantaged in this province because we had to raise from our own resources a higher percentage than was the case with the other provinces. If that were the case, it would be a serious matter that would require attention. However, I have been given figures which show that that is not the case. In the case of the Transvaal, the own income generated is 16,32% of total expenditure; in the Cape the figure is 15,08%; in the Free State, 11,2%; and in Natal, 14,9%, which is of course the figure which the hon member gave. Therefore, we do not compare badly with the other provinces, save for the Free State, which is better off than the others.

I come now to the hon member for Glenview, who made an important speech, if I may say so, because he touched on both the advantage and the difficulty of the system in which all of us associated with the tricameral Parliament have to work. Intergroup debate in this province did not begin yesterday here. It really began two years ago in the Executive Committee of Natal, when the present Executive Committee was appointed on 1 July 1986. I have a lot of feeling for what the hon member said about the necessity for compromise in the viewpoints of the various communities in order to be able to reach a decision which can be defended in all the constituencies concerned. That is what the Executive Committee of Natal has to do every week when it meets as an Executive Committee to debate and take decisions upon issues which concern the government of this province. It has been a most salutary exercise for somebody like myself who two years ago sat down in an executive position with members of the White, Indian and Coloured communities and had to have a debate of this kind for the first time.

I believe that all of us on the Executive Committee have learnt a lot from our experience in this field over the last two years. It is with great pleasure and a feeling of hope and optimism that I can say again, as I said earlier to this gathering here this afternoon, that it is only very rarely that we have not been able to reach consensus, even on the difficult issues that it has fallen to our lot in terms of our powers to decide.

The hon member for Glenview raised the matter of Prospecton, as did a number of other hon members. I should like to touch on that. The demarcation board that made the recommendation to the Executive Committee consisted of members of both the Indian and White communities. It was an independent body. There was a public hearing. Senior counsel argued the case for both sides. In that evidence, 34 bodies and 18 individuals were opposed to the request that Prospecton be transferred to Isipingo. Thirtyfour bodies and 18 individuals gave evidence against it. That included all the tenants or owners of property in that industrial estate. One State department, one borough and one person gave evidence in favour of the proposal. I do not have time this afternoon—I have but six minute left— to go into all those details. I did send a copy of the papers concerned to the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Delegates to keep him informed. However, the evidence is overwhelmingly in one direction, and one of the principal difficulties in that case was that it was undisputed that the borough of Isipingo had neither the financial capability nor the skilled personnel in its staff to handle an industrial estate of this kind; not to mention a whole lot of other factors relating to the treatment and disposal of effluent, the disposal of sewage, the ability to pay compensation and the ability to provide services.

I want the hon members on that side of this Chamber please to accept that the Executive Committee had the most time-consuming and anxious debate over this issue, for the very reason that the hon member for Glenview mentioned earlier, namely that all of us—if we did not know it before the debate, the Indian members on the Executive Committee made it clear to us in the debate—know how closely this would affect opinion in the House of Delegates. This arises all the time, not only with the House of Delegates, but on other issues where we have to take a decision where opinion is closely affected in the House of Assembly or in the House of Representatives. I have gone into that at some length, because I could see that it was an issue on which feelings ran high.

As regards the point that we are merely a puppet of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning—that we get our instructions and we carry them out, as I think the hon member for Durban Central said—I wish to say that in the two years that the new dispensation … [Interjection.] Please do not ask me questions, I have so little time left.

Mr Chairman, in the two years that I have been Chairman of the new Executive Committee I have never received a Ministerial instruction. There is consultation between various Ministers and myself and there are requests made from time to time by me to Ministers and by Ministers to me. It is part of my constitutional function from time to time to convey Government policy to the Executive Committee, as has been the case with Administrators going back to 1910. We do not receive instructions but we assess and adjudicate matters on their merit to the best of our ability. There is a new relationship which I think today’s proceedings have helped to bring home and that is the new relationship that the Executive Committee has with a new set of public representatives on provincial matters. We used to be responsible to provincial councillors. Now Sir, as this has shown, we are responsible for our stewardship to members of Parliament and I invite members of Parliament to develop a communication with the members of the Executive Committee or with myself on any matter relating to provincial affairs because these gentlemen are our link between the Executive authority in Natal and the electorate.

I have only a minute left and I would like in that time to pay tribute to my colleagues in the Executive Committee. They do not sit in their offices all day waiting for a telephone to ring. The new ball game that we are playing requires endless consultation, endless travelling to meet people and to interview endless meetings, and the workload which is carried by members of the Executive Committee—and I can speak with experience from the previous system—is far greater than it ever was before and I pay tribute to them all for the manner in which they have carried that load.

Finally Sir, may I say this: Senior officials of the provincial departments carry four times the load which they carried previously. Not only because of added responsibilities which have been devolved to us by central Government departments but because the system requires so much more consultation and consideration of the views of other communities, which was not the case before.

Mr Chairman, I have no time to deal with any other matter. I would like to express my appreciation to the hon members who have taken part in this debate. I think it has been—if I may say so—worthwhile. I think we could look at changes so far as the future is concerned. We could possibly consider combining the sitting that we had in Cape Town with this sitting into perhaps a four or a five-day session. We could possibly start with Second Reading type debates and end with individual Votes. These are just thoughts that have occurred to me during the proceedings of the past two days.

Mr Chairman, may I close by expressing once again my appreciation and that of all members of your kindly and firm handling of proceedings.

Order! That concludes the business of this Extended Public Committee. The Schedule to the Appropriation Bill will be put at a later stage. I think this would also be a fitting moment to pay tribute to each and every hon member of this Extended Public Committee for their assistance and tolerance in making the task of every one of us here an easy one. I would also like to thank the hon the Administrator and his Executive Committee for hosting us here in this province and I want to thank every person involved in making the arrangements here, to make our stay a memorable one over the past two days, for their contribution.

Debate concluded.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: In my opinion the proceedings of yesterday and today are ultra vires the Standing Rules of Parliament and this has such far-reaching implications that I must ask you for an opportunity to explain my argument to you.

This is a far-reaching point of order which is based on four Rules of the Standing Rules of Parliament. I want to refer to Rule 43 of the Standing Rules and Orders, and Rules 163, 66 and 35 of the Standing Rules of Parliament. In terms of the old Rules, and specifically Rule 43 (1) (b), the Estimate of Revenue and Expenditure of the provinces was read in conjunction with the Appropriation Bill, Bill No 55 of 1988, and referred to the Standing Committee on Provincial Affairs: OFS. The old Rule was replaced, however, and provision is made in two of the new Rules, Rules 163 and 66 (4), for the proceedings that are in progress.

I request leave to read Rule 66 (4) (a) to the Committee for the sake of the argument. It reads:

The next relevant Subrule that is related to this, is Subrule 66 (4) (c) (i), which is the crux of the point of order. It reads:

The emphasis is on the words “during the period”—

This can take place during the period in terms of Rule 66 (4) (c) (i). If one then looks at the provisions of Rule 163, which is related to the Rule about business, Rule 163 (1) (a) states very clearly, and I quote:

This provision was complied with in the case of the Free State, but Rule 163 (2) says the following:

1. (a) the joint committee under which financial matters fall and a joint committee on provincial affairs, to a maximum of seven consecutive Parliamentary working days.

This is the crux of the matter. This Bill expressly provides that the period is restricted to a maximum of seven consecutive Parliamentary working days. This provision is further qualified in that these seven consecutive days must be days, and I quote:

The word “limited”, and not “extended”, is used—

In this case, the budget was submitted on Wednesday, 16 March, 1988. This means that the committee’s business should have been completed within seven consecutive working days, in terms of the provisions of Rule 163 (2) (a). Because this is a Joint Committee on Provincial Affairs, Mr Speaker can further limit the deliberations in terms of the proviso to section 163 (2) to the days determined by him after consultation with the Chief Whip. The proceedings can therefore be limited, but not extended. Nor can they ever last longer than seven days. The Provincial Committee of the OFS did sit, but no matter how one works it out, the maximum of seven consecutive Parliamentary sitting days after the submission of the Budget lapsed on 25 March, 1988.

In concluding my argument I briefly want to discuss the implications of Rule 35 which deals with the establishment of extended public committees. I quote …

Order! The hon member for Randfontein has put his point of order and I permitted him as much scope as possible in elaborating on it. I want to request, however, that the hon member not go any further at this stage. The hon member must please conclude.

Sir, the fact of the matter is that the Rules determine very clearly that this extended public committee may take place, but that this should occur within seven days after the submission of the budget. That has not been the case, however. It has not happened. The implication of this—unfortunately I could not set out my full argument—is that this sitting is ultra vires the Standing Rules of Parliament. This has far-reaching implications for Parliament as an institution.

This is a drastic situation, but the Standing Rules of Parliament are very clear that this should have taken place within seven days after the submission of the Budget. That has not been the case, however.

Order! I want to thank the hon member for Randfontein. In this connection I want to refer to Rule 2 (1) which provides that Mr Speaker can give a ruling or frame a rule in respect of an eventuality for which these Rules do not provide. On 18 May this year, Mr Speaker gave the following ruling, and I read it for the attention of all hon members:

This was a ruling given by Mr Speaker. If hon members have any further problems with this, they must raise their objections in the House of Assembly as soon as possible. The proceedings will now be resumed.

Mr Chairman, I should like to carry on where I left off yesterday. No one can say the CP did not try to disrupt the proceedings yesterday. It is a pity that they were unsuccessful, because had they succeeded in their purpose, we could have broken up the structure. Each political party has its own objectives and strategies. Bismarck said at one stage that politics is the art of the impossible. The late Mr B J Vorster said that politics was the art of bringing conflicting interests together. We want to say today that politics is bringing a Third and a First World together without this being to the disadvantage of the First World. We in the LP do not accept this system, but hard-won experience in Africa has taught us that there are going to be winds of change and that changes in Africa mean Uhuru and revolution. To prevent that, we have learnt that one must have a strategy and an objective. In the process of bringing the First and the Third Worlds together, one’s planning must be such that one can take one’s people along with one. It is of cardinal importance that the people be involved. The CP launched a protest action yesterday, which is ancient history to those of us in the LP. The question is: What are people trying to achieve with actions of that kind? I ask myself whether the CP was successful when they walked out of here yesterday. What political points did they gain by doing that? In my opinion they did not achieve anything. What did the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke achieve here this morning? The answer is absolutely nothing.

Order! Is the hon member referring to the point of order raised by the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke?

To his point of order, Sir.

Order! I merely want to point out to hon members that any hon member is entitled to raise a point of order at any time. The hon member for Western Free State may proceed.

Sir, I abide by the ruling of the Chair.

What we are doing here today, is to try to bring a Third and a First World together. Irrespective of the system’s shortcomings, we have a bounden duty to our people—to the so-called minority group that are called Coloureds—in the province.

The hon member for Groote Schuur, in his commentary yesterday, implied that we did not have the interests of Blacks at heart. I want to tell hon members, however, that if I walk down the street with a Black man, only my dear late mother will know the difference between Black and Coloured. We are tired of having the Whites talk on our behalf, because Africa, and South Africa in particular, belongs to everyone. In the eyes of the CP and many other moderates, the Black man—and this includes the Coloureds as well as the Indians—will always be Black. This has been a hard-won lesson. There is no difference in colour, however. I do not want to dwell on what other hon members said. I am here to put the case of my people, especially with regard to the numerous shortcomings. We do not want to be seen as people who are building up the system. We want to bring the First and Third Worlds together. To effect that, however, it is necessary to involve one’s people, but then one must make use of all available structures. All the present structures must be used, as well as abused, to their full extent. The NP is the governing party, and Africa has taught us that economic and political power is attainable. If, however, one’s people do not maintain a civilised Western standard and cannot enjoy the basic qualities of life to the full, political and economic power serve no purpose. Economic power must be to the benefit of our people. One must use the system in order to attain that economic power.

In the almost 25 years in which the LP has been involved in politics, we have gained hard-won experience. One of the things we learnt during this period, is that an opposition party must not be an opposition only because that is what its name indicates, because then it ends up in a rut. An opposition party must be able to spell out alternatives. That is why I regard this meeting as a historic occasion, because it means that another bastion of apartheid has fallen. The fact that I can talk in this hall today implies the dismantling of apartheid. It implies reform, because we are dismantling apartheid. What we have here is a new system of provincial government which permits me to participate as a representative of a minority group—and I mean “group” in the sense in which the NP uses it. The LP’s policy provides that we strive for loyalty and for the cause of our people. We believe that the rights of the individual must be protected at all times and that that is all-important. We believe in the promotion of human dignity and that the socioeconomic and cultural rights of all South Africans are of cardinal importance. That is why we are using the system to attain our objectives. We reject any sign of racial discrimination, and that includes the CP policy of partition, or whatever the new name may be. The establishment of a national economy which will lead to a united South Africa is of the utmost importance.

When I talk about a united South Africa, I think of the dream of a federal structure, of the federal Republic of Azania. How does one get there, however? One cannot live on dreams alone. One has to make use of the existing system to get there.

We argued here yesterday for my people to be uplifted out of their poverty. We believe that the system of forced labour and exploitation of cheap labour should be rejected unequivocally. There is nothing new about the “living wage campaign” that Cosatu is conducting today. As early as 1977, the LP took a congress decision that people’s standards of living should be improved and that the system should be used to this purpose. The provincial system must also be used to the advantage of one’s people. One must use it to put one’s people’s case. I spoke yesterday about what one of the young members had said to me, and I want to repeat what I said, because many of our people forget this. They are so eager to score petty political points that they forget that we are representative of our people. In the first place a parliamentarian is a representative of his people. He has to deliver the goods. That is what we are here for. We must deliver the goods first, and then try to attain the political objectives. We are not going to attain the political objectives without the voters’ support. I believe that I must take my people with me.

I should like to take the argument I put forward yesterday further today. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I do not really want to react to what was said by the hon member who has just spoken. He reminds me of the mouse who said to the elephant: “Look at how the two of us are weighing down the bridge.”

Order! I assume that the hon member is not referring to another hon member as an animal.

No, Sir, he merely made me think of that.

When one takes a penetrating look at this Free State budget, one thing emerges very clearly. That is that slowly but surely we are becoming a poorer county. Slowly but surely South Africa’s economy is becoming a Third World economy like that in the rest of Africa. All indications are that if we carry on in this way, we shall also have a Third World government. One need only read last Sunday’s Rapport to see how they are already speculating about the National Council which will contain fewer Whites than non-Whites in the end. Where are we heading? We are on the way to the Third World government which is desired by so many people in South Africa. On the surface the budget does not look too bad; there is an increase of approximately 15% on last year’s budget. If, however, one takes inflation into consideration, there is actually no increase or any improvement in real terms. On the contrary, if one takes everything into account, this Free State provincial budget is actually smaller than it was last year.

Particularly striking are the large amounts that have been added as a result of the devolution of functions, especially the functions of the Department of Development Planning and the former Development Boards which have been added to Vote 1. When one looks at Vote lA(iii) which deals with salaries, wages and allowances, one sees that there is an increase of R4,6 million inter alia as a result of the wages of the said department which have been transferred to the province. Under Vote lE(ii) there is an increase of R780 000, inter alia as a result of the transfer of duties. Under Vote 1G, which deals with furniture, works of art and equipment, there is another increase of R83 000, also as a result of this transfer. Under Vote 2J, Health Services, there is an increase of R21,2 million, inter alia because of the transfer of functions from the Department of National Health and Population Development. In this way a larger bite is taken out of the budgetary cake unperceived by anyone, leaving an ever decreasing balance.

Another cause for concern is that the province, after cutting its expenditure in respect of hospitals to the bone and doing everything possible to keep costs as low as possible, requested R424 million; only R342 million was appropriated for the province, however. In other words, only 80% of the minimum that was requested is being granted. This is bad news. We are observing this, and it will catch up with us slowly but surely.

Provision is made under Vote 2B(iii) for only the essential replacement of obsolete equipment. That is piecemeal. Nothing new is being added and there is no improvement. The cancer patient has to die, slowly but surely. [Interjections.] Another cause of anxiety is the reduction in funds for the maintenance of the province’s buildings to R3,2 million.

I now come to Vote 3: Roads and Bridges. The hon member for Bethlehem had a great deal to say yesterday about how proud the Free State is of its roads. If the trend of this Budget is continued, however, I predict only misery, because there is an increase of only 7% in the budget. The equipment is becoming obsolete, and it will be impossible to maintain the standard. After the extensive floods we have had during the past year, I predict enormous problems with the roads in the province of the Orange Free State.

Vote 6 deals with community services and Vote 6J specifically with bridging finance. Last year it was R60 million and this year it is approximately R48 million. What is this bridging finance? Is it bad debts that have been written off, or gifts that have to be handed out, or is it for Black local authorities? Where has this money been spent? I think of the Black squatter camp, Thumahole, at Parys. No board was established there. What is going on there? Who is collecting the service fees and the rentals? An amount of R360 000 was budgeted for services for the squatter camp at Allanridge. For what services was this budgeted? An amount of R800 000 less has been budgeted for employment creation in the province. Has the province now attracted sufficient squatters, so that it no longer needs as much money for that purpose? What is the R7,6 million being budgeted for? Squatters cause dissatisfaction. The jobs of established Black workers are being threatened.

What do you mean by a squatter?

Their peaceful residence is affected drastically by the increasing number of squatters who are moving to the towns. I want to know from the hon the Administrator how many Black squatters there are in the Free State this year.

I now come to Vote 6L, where there is an increase of R154 000. The total allocation is R6,7 million. Is that for salaries of law enforcers in Black towns, or what is that money being used for?

According to Die Volksblad of 2 May 1988, each MEC is now being entrusted with bis own portfolio. All four MECs of the Free State, Messrs Dreyer, Mokotjo, Simes and Henney have their own portfolios. Now the hon the Administrator says the impression must not be created that a specific MEC is responsible for a specific population group. He says the Administrator and the Executive Committee bear joint responsibility for all the people of the Free State. [Interjections.] Ostensibly the NP is fighting for us not to have a Black State President, and we as their opposition supported them in that. Here in the Free State, however, Blacks are already in positions in which they govern Whites. We already have joint responsibility here. [Interjections.]

I tell hon members that as surely as I am standing here, a Black majority government will come into power if the NP continues in this way. [Interjections.] I see that the hon Member of the Executive Committee, Mr Henney, is the MEC for museum services. [Interjections.] I merely want to say that the Afrikaners in the Free State …

Are good people.

… request that we should not be kept away from our monuments. This is their request to the Administrator and the MECs. They must not keep us away from those places which are dear and precious to us. They must not prevent us from celebrating our festivals at our monuments. I want to issue a fond warning today that the people are going to revolt if we are prevented from doing that, and the hon the Administrator and his Executive Committee will be the losers.

Mr Chairman, I shall deal presently with the hon member for Witbank and his party. In the meantime I should like to describe the events of yesterday and today as of great historical importance. Last night we also had the privilege of being entertained by the hon the Administrator at the old Free State Presidential residence. The people who attended were impressed by the stateliness of the residence with its beautiful furniture, its paintings, carpets etc. Although we appreciate the Bloemfontein Municipality’s hospitality in making available the City Hall for today’s meeting, I am of the opinion that in future we should look for a place which would establish its own traditions in a new era. The Synod Hall of the Dutch Reformed Church has, as far as I know, not been used for years and I should like to request the hon the Administrator to investigate the possibility of using this beautiful building for future meetings of this particular Committee.

Before I deal in detail with the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly I should like to repeat and prove a particular standpoint that I have already adopted in the House of Assembly. When one visualises political structures one usually thinks of a horizontal line with the government of the day in the centre of this line and the left wing and right wing parties to the government’s left and right respectively. This conception is correct in the short term only, because the distance of each from the centre may vary: As one moves along this particular line in the two directions, it bends into the shape of a horseshoe. As the line bends still further its two end points draw closer to one another until the points— which represent the extreme right and the extreme left—almost meet in the middle, by which time the two have many things in common. I propose to deal with only two of these things which the extreme left and extreme right have in common, viz the hatred they feel for the NP and the tactics they employ to get rid of the Government. These tactics border on revolutionary activities.

*The hatred for the NP is clearly written on the faces of the hon members of that party—fortunately only on some of the faces. I want to draw the Committee’s attention to the tactics of the CP, to show the similarities between the CP and the leftist tactics. What happened here yesterday was the first tactic, namely their absconding by walking out of this Committee. [Interjections.] How does this differ from what Dr Van Zyl Slabbert did by boycotting the House? Can hon members see the similarity between what Dr Van Zyl Slabbert and the CP did? That is only the first attempt. They walk out of here and then go and gamble with my nation’s future at the showgrounds. I want to ask them a reasonable question. Are they going to claim their travelling and accommodation expenses from this Committee? [Interjections.] They will have to clear that with their own consciences. As we know them, they will have some sly plan or other. Politically and otherwise they are bankrupt. That is why they take the opportunity to attend meetings at Government expense. [Interjections.]

We are here in the Free State, which played a large role in the Second World War. The Official Opposition remind me of the “hensoppers” and the “joiners”. Yesterday they quitted (gehensop) when they had to face the realities. [Interjections.] Do hon members know what their next step is going to be? It will be the “join” element. They are the people that have so much to say about Afrikaner culture and traditions. They are “joiners” and “hensoppers”. [Interjections.]

The second tactic is that of disinformation, false representations of history and, of course, suspicion-mongering. Suspicion-mongering is a well-known phenomenon. We are familiar with suspicion-mongering and the international onslaught on our country—false representations and distortions, despite our intentions. At the moment, the CP’s tactics are very much the same. Why do they employ these tactics? Because they do not have a viable policy. [Interjections.] Their only hope of achieving a democratic takeover is by causing sufficient suspicion among the voters, thereby misleading them into voting the CP into power.

Another tactic is the element of division. There was to have been one cultural festival in Bloemfontein, but those people put pressure on those who belonged to their party but who, in the cultural sphere, wanted a unified festival for the commemoration of the Voortrekkers. They rejected that idea. For that reason there are separate festivals. They are dividing the Afrikaner in the cultural sphere as well. With regard to democracy, we had another wonderful example this morning in the person of the hon member for Randfontein, who once again came forward with a technical point. Now that is democracy. I do not want to say any more about democracy, except that they say that they reject a dictatorship. The AWB is the senior partner of that party. They claim to have a membership of 600 000, something that I heard with my own ears in this chamber. That is the number of votes that they hold, and by implication therefore, they are all members of the AWB. [Interjections.] The AWB refers to the parliamentary system as objectionable, and then they embrace a dictatorship.

Finally, those hon members proclaim blatant racism, just as the ANC proclaims racism. I shall let one example suffice, something which took place on Friday during the debate of the hon the Minister of Law and Order. What were they asking? The hon member for Ermelo did not want to answer my question at that stage, but I shall have other opportunities to put that question to him. Prompted by the presence of Blacks in the SAP and the Defence Force, the hon member for Ermelo said that as a member of the Pretoria Bar, he opposed the admission of a Black advocate, because, as he said: “Imagine a Black judge on the Bench passing sentence on my child and your child.” [Interjections.] Those are the words of a senior advocate. [Interjections] If that is not blatant racism, then I do not know what is. [Interjections.] Once again there is a strong similarity between that party and the ANC with regard to the concept of racism, with colour as the only difference.

I want to leave the Official Opposition at that and, in conclusion, make an appeal to local authorities. The idea is that local authorities should be expanded in order to attend to one of the main problems, namely urbanisation. The Government has already done this. Various bodies have already been created. For example, I am thinking of the creation of municipal development councils, proposed training in terms of the Local Government Training Act, the Pension Benefits for Councillors of Local Authorities Act, the Remuneration of Town Clerks Act and such matters. The accusation that the Government is not doing anything, is therefore devoid of all truth.

Mr Chairman, posterity will record this very historic event at which an actual parliamentary exercise involving all three Houses of Parliament was carried out for two days. History will also record the opening of the Orange Free State to the Indian people of South Africa.

I am also mindful of the very important part being played by the hon the Administrator and organs of the State who, in the face of tremendous pressure and opposition, were able to extend a welcoming hand to the Indians of this country.

As one who is interested in history I may mention that there were two Great Treks in South Africa. The one, we know, involved a band of discontented Boers, who decided to trek in search of new pastures and a new way of life. They were brave and courageous people who struggled against tremendous odds. History records that this band of men and women opened up what was then known as the dark part of South Africa. We salute them.

From the East, Sir, came another trek—the Indians from India. They came across the Indian Ocean to a strange land to answer the call for stabilised labour in the sugar fields of Natal. There is ample evidence of their initiative, their drive and their industriousness—so much so that they put the sugar industry on the map in South Africa.

I bewail the fact that opposing forces precluded my people from coming to this province earlier. I am sure that their same dedication and industriousness would have made the Orange Free State a richer place. Still, as the saying goes, it is better late than never.

Mr Chairman, I want to comment on two aspects of the Provincial Administration’s annual report. The first aspect concerns the hospitals. I know that the category A and category B hospitals offer specialist services. However, the category C hospitals and other categories do not have this very important medical and professional facility. I want to appeal, therefore, to the hon the Administrator and his staff to consider providing specialised services in all spheres of medical care.

The other matter concerns the rebuilding programme. It was with a sense of regret that I discovered that all the forward planning that the hon the Administrator and his able band of men had done for this province was negated by the disastrous floods we had. I want to extend to the hon the Administrator and his staff my sympathies in respect of those who lost their lives and to wish them well in the rebuilding that has to follow. I presume that the floods gave rise to tremendous costs that were not provided for in the budget.

Lastly, there was something else I was very pleased to note. Hon members probably know the saying, “Reading makes a full man.” I am proud of the hon the Administrator and his team not only for having provided libraries and library services, but also for extending these to all areas and to all community groups. What was of particular interest to me, however, was the formation of reading groups. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is a great pleasure for me to be in the Free State. I should also like to take this opportunity to extend my sincere thanks to the hon the Administrator for the hospitality with which he has received us and for the function held for us last night. I also wish to convey my sincere thanks to the hon members of the Executive Committee and all the officials of the province for the excellent way in which they serve the cause of the Free State.

Mr Chairman, the lot of a backbencher is mine today. That is to say, the majority of matters concerning important events in the calendar of the province over the past year have already been touched on to a greater or lesser extent.

Permit me, then, just to refer briefly to yesterday’s proceedings and to say that to me, as a young member of the House of Assembly, it was an experience to be present here yesterday. To me this was a demonstration of the good relations among the various population groups in the Free State. Moreover it fills one with hope and optimism that we in this country can maintain and promote good neighbourliness and peaceful coexistence.

Yesterday and also today political parties have had the opportunity to indicate to what extent they are desirous of promoting the Free State and the interests of the Free State, and after today voters can judge for themselves which parties have and have not passed that test.

I should just like to take this opportunity to refer briefly in passing to some remarks made here today by the hon member for Western Free State.

He referred to the high premium he placed on individual rights. In doing so he also indicated that he regarded individual rights as an absolute. That points to the fundamental difference between the points of departure of that hon member on the one hand and the NP on the other, because the NP bases its approach on the principle of the existence of a diversity of peoples and population groups in this country and also the right of those different peoples and population groups to protect their identities. [Interjections.] That is why the NP places a very high premium …

Order! I wish to point out to the hon member for Witbank that the hon member Mr Aucamp is behaving himself very well. The hon member Mr Aucamp may proceed.

Thank you, Sir.

As I said, Sir, that is why the NP places a very high premium on group rights. I say that merely in passing.

I must also refer to the speech made by the hon member for Groote Schuur yesterday. He said that these proceedings were totally irrelevant. I am tempted to be spiteful enough to respond to that by saying that it is my opinion that the PFP is irrelevant in the country in general, but particularly in the Free State. Therefore if the hon member wants to use the term “irrelevancy” he must bear in mind that it is very applicable to his own party. The PFP has recently been making very strange pronouncements—pronouncements such as that they regard these proceedings as a colossal farce, a facade. The hon member for Green Point, who will quite probably also speak today, is on record as having described a fine Defence Force occasion last year as a political orgy.

They complained about the time, but yesterday hon members pointed out that the Progressive Federal Party thought so little of the Free State that initially they had not even asked for time to participate in the debate. I want to tell the Progressive Federal Party that they are irrelevant in this country because the Whites reject them. The NP represents the interests of the majority of Whites in this country. In the same way we have the House of Representatives where the Labour Party looks after the interests of the Coloureds and the Indians who speak on behalf of their people, and the Black people also wish to speak on behalf of their people. Therefore all the groups reject the Progressive Federal Party, because they do not trust them. So much for the Progressive Federal Party. I think that the hon member for Bloemfontein North dealt very effectively with the CP.

I want to dwell briefly on some important events of the past year of concern to the Provincial Administration. Among these events the floods, to which other hon members have already referred, were probably the most important. To give some brief indication of the extent of the floods, it is interesting to note that during February and March of this year a total of 14 000 million cubic metres of water flowed past Upington. That is considerably more than the quantity of water that would flow past there in an average year if there were no dams in the Orange or Vaal rivers. To put it differently: It is more than twice the capacity of the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam. The biggest damage caused by the floods in the Free State, estimated at R48,6 million, was to roads. Apart from that, nature conservation was also hit by damage to reserves amounting to approximately R2 million. The bridge over the Caledon River to the Tussen-die-Riviere Reserve was damaged to the extent that it will cost between R1,5 million and R2 million to repair it. It is essential that the road be repaired because the only other access for the majority of people is a detour of approximately 50 kilometres which only provide access to the furthest point of the reserve. Some dwellings close to rivers and pumping equipment were also damaged.

As far as resorts are concerned, buildings at the Willem Pretorius Resort and the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam were damaged and the damage amounts to approximately R500 000. This includes damage to the brand new hall at the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam.

The floods have entailed considerable problems for the road network in the Free State. The good agricultural soil of the Free State is a poor base for roads that have to carry heavy traffic. Clayey soil dries out and shrinks in times of drought, and this causes cracks. Although during dry periods the soil can withstand a reasonable amount of pressure, when wet weather comes the position is just the reverse. When it began to rain the cracks in the formation absorbed water from above and water also penetrated from below, resulting in failure, particularly under heavy traffic. This was particularly prevalent in the face of older primary roads. As far as draining structures or bridges are concerned, bridges may be designed and built for very major floods, but it is still a matter of the cost that has to be weighed up against the risk of damage. If a flood with a repeat frequency of once every hundred years is to be referred to, this means that the additional cost that will have to be incurred to deal with such a flood will be utilised on average only once every 100 years. Engineers have norms in terms of which the structures throughout the country are designed so that they will provide an acceptable level of service at affordable prices. In the case of primary roads a flood once every 25 years is accepted. When floods such as the recent flood are experienced, which occur only once every 100 years, it must be expected that problems will occur. Smaller water drainage works are designed for a flood every 10 years and in this regard the network in the Free State handled the flood extremely well. In the Free State only two bridges were damaged by the flood. This attested to sound foundation and superstructure design. The majority of problems concerned the approach roads which are usually built with gravel and soil. Designs of secondary roads are based on floods that occur more frequently. If the extent of the flood is taken into account, relatively little damage was caused. These roads carry less traffic than primary roads, but are essential for agriculture which provides essential products as well as fresh products. Here the greater part of the gravel surfaces was washed away, or else the finer binding material was washed out so that the road surfaces became rough and pebbly.

The restoration of the road network will take approximately two years because in the case of primary roads thorough investigations will have to be carried out. It is good to know that the Roads Division is doing everything possible to normalise the situation. Although the Minister of Finance has appropriated funds for restoration, the damage will not necessarily have a detrimental effect on progress with regard to the provision of new services and the upgrading of existing services. The country’s road network is an expensive means of production and must be used, maintained and extended, taking into account the country’s available resources and with the correct priorities, since there are also other vital needs. As regards the problems relating to private roads and semi-rural and smallholding areas, the Provincial Administration is unable to provide funds, but they have made their skills available. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, permit me to begin with my theme once again. It concerns those who have and those who do not have. We people of colour do not have what the Whites have. I want to remind our colleagues opposite, those who belong to the CP, that it is those same people that they look down on who make their beds, cook their food and look after their sheep on their farms so that they can go and become doctors at the universities. I want to appeal to the CP not always to look down on the non-Whites.

We worked for them. We got up early in the morning and walked barefoot in the dew. Where were the members of the CP then? They were at the universities, studying. Is it a sin before God that a Black man could become State President in South Africa? Is it a sin to stand under God’s Word when a Black man, a man with a vocation who has been anointed, preaches? I want to ask you, a CP brother, whether that is sin. After all, the hon members are doctors, learned people. I have no book politics and I do not speak book politics; I speak from experience as someone who was born on a farm. I am Ben Grobbler. Where do I get the surname Grobbler? I got it from my own White brother; I got it from you. Do not reject your child.

I am grateful for the new dispensation. The new dispensation at present works like this. If you have a child by my daughter, you have to maintain him. In previous years she was sent to jail for six months. Those days are past, my doctor brother.

Order! Is the hon member referring to Whites in general?

Yes, Mr Chairman. I shall leave it at that for the moment, but I shall come back to those that have and those that do not have.

I want to draw hon members’ attention to the self-help housing scheme to which reference is made on page 39 of the annual report of the Provincial Administration of the Orange Free State. On 21 July 1986 we had representatives of the Department of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture from Cape Town in Heidedal. We began a self-help building scheme here in Heidedal. I am sorry to ask the Administrator today to see to it that the housing that is planned for Heidedal will be on the same basis as in Nyakallong residential area and in the Western Free State.

Order! Is that not an own affair which falls under the House of Representatives, or does it fall under the Administrator?

I am merely discussing the report, and this appears in the report. With reference to the report I want to make the appeal that consideration be given to us too, because sometimes these matters are handed over to men who are unable to administer them. These matters must be entrusted to people who have initiative and who know what to do with our people’s affairs so that things can be done more rapidly. When I look back I think that the delay in regard to these matters was caused by the fact that the people to whom they were entrusted did not know what to do and that is why more than 900 people are on the waiting list in Heidedal. There are no houses. That is an area where there have only been a few houses for more than three years now, because at present no houses are available.

Order! With all due respect, that is an own affairs matter which should really be raised in the House of Representatives. I appeal to the hon member to raise the matter in the right place. The hon member may proceed.

Thank you very much, Mr Chairman. I raised it merely because it appeared in the report. I now wish to come back …

Order! I just want to inform the hon member that what is really envisaged here is housing etc for officials transferred from the development boards.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. As far as health services are concerned, I want to ask the Administration please to see to it that the health centres in Heilbron and Wepener are looked into. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, during 1986 the Government saw fit to delegate authority in respect of permit control in terms of the Group Areas Act to the various provincial administrations. This placed the provinces in a certain dilemma because in the nature of the matter they have no control, and perhaps had a limited say in the first instance, with regard to the proclamation of areas and, in the second instance, the administration of housing affairs within the specific group area. Nevertheless such problem situations often create new opportunities and it is interesting to see what has happened since then and how the various provinces have dealt with this very sensitive situation. It is illuminating that although the Orange Free State has received and dealt with a relatively small number of permit applications under the Group Areas Act, this province has displayed the most accommodating approach with regard to exceptions in the implementation of the Group Areas Act. Of the permit applications received by the Administration during this period of a year, 98% were granted, as compared to 67% in the Cape Province, 86% in Transvaal and 79% in Natal. Of the permit applications in respect of business premises during the same period, not a single application was turned down in the Orange Free State while 90% were granted in the Cape Province, 85% in Transvaal and 96% in Natal. This situation is a credit to the Administration of the Orange Free State, certainly from my political point of view. It is a tribute to the political realism and the humanity with which the Administration have approached this difficult situation, because the issue here is the granting of permits signifying that restrictions in terms of the Group Areas Act will not apply in certain instances.

In my opinion the Group Areas Act is more often than not inhuman in its effect on and is an insult to all South Africans who are not White. Any exception to the rule in the implementation of that Act therefore represents an act of humanity. Judging by the relatively small number of permit applications received by this Administration, and also perhaps owing to other circumstances which are understandable, it is fairly clear that the increasing population pressure which is making the Group Areas Act increasingly untenable and difficult to implement has not yet had as pronounced an effect in the Orange Free State as has been the case in the other provinces. Let me state clearly that by pressure in this instance I am not referring only to an increase in population, but also to the upward movement of Black, Coloured and Indian South Africans in the labour market and in the entrepreneurial class in South Africa, improving educational standards as well as the housing shortage in regard to Black, Coloured and Indian South Africans, whereas there is in fact a surplus of housing in respect of Whites. All these factors are making the Group Areas Act increasingly contentious and a political hot potato in this country and are making it increasingly difficult to implement at all.

Specifically because this population pressure and the other factors have not thus far exerted as much pressure on the Orange Free State as on other territories, this province is in a better position to plan and learn from the mistakes made in other areas. If in future the Administration wishes to take successful action in this regard, I believe that it will have to be with acceptance of the fact that the policy of apartheid, the segregation of residential areas and the Group Areas Act in particular simply cannot form part of a peaceful future in this country.

They simply cannot form part of our future in the long term. By that I do not wish to say that this Act will disappear overnight. I wish we were that fortunate, but the fact is that in the long term it cannot form part of a harmonious South Africa.

I do not think that—apart from our political convictions—there is an hon member sitting here today who will not concede that the Group Areas Act is already disintegrating in many parts of this country owing to economic and demographic circumstances which are making its implementation impossible. In my opinion there is very little hope that the plans of the central government— in so far as they are currently known—to effect amendments to the Act will resolve these problems. I think we must recognise that this process of fragmentation will continue and I hope that the Administration will take cognisance of this and that it will act accordingly.

There are certain things that are happening and that are probably known to the officials of the Administration. They will know how sensitive permit applications and the surrounding circumstances are and how fearful Whites often are about the idea that people of colour are moving into their areas. In reaction to that one can do one of two things: One can either succumb to these prejudices, or on the other hand one can really go out of one’s way to convince the people that in the final instance we are all South Africans after all, that we do not seek one another’s downfall and that on the contrary, we are trying to coexist in harmony. The Administration will know that when Black, Coloured and Indian South Africans are together in a residential area with Whites, there is a fear amongst the Whites that their property values will fall. Once again I say that it is within the power of the Administration, the Government and the local authorities to make a contribution to removing this idea from the thinking pattern of people, because it is simply untrue that this happens. Unfortunately it is a fact that the uncertainty that is often entailed by the administration of the Group Areas Act also means that people do not look after their properties so well, and this often results in urban decay. In this regard, too, it may be in the power of this Administration to exert pressure or even to take steps by way of legislation to ensure that high and new standards are maintained specifically in order to deal with this problem.

In the nature of the matter there are fears when racial mixing takes place in public facilities. Once again we must choose whether we are going to succumb to these race prejudices and simply act in accordance with them—always at the expense of the position of our non-White South Africans—or, on the other hand, choose to try to provide guidance, to convince people that there ought to be a place in the sun for everyone, to maintain standards and to ensure that other statutory measures, perhaps at the local level, will be sufficiently implemented to ensure that proper standards are maintained. We dare not permit people’s fears to be realised owing to the lax implementation of other local measures and in that way undermine race relations. That is the type of situation we cannot accept.

In the final instance I just wish to make the point—and the administration will also know this—that despite the number of permit applications they receive there are people here in the Free State, as there are everywhere in South Africa, who in spite of the existence of the Group Areas Act, often disregard the Act owing to these other circumstances that I have mentioned. In my opinion this is a process which unfortunately cannot be averted or avoided. Once again I want to appeal to the Administration, for the sake of good race relations and in the interest of our finding one another in South Africa, to act as sympathetically as possible in those circumstances as well and not to try to force people into the framework of an impossible piece of legislation. Rather they should ensure via other channels that circumstances created for other persons in that specific residential area are made as pleasant and as tenable as possible. In that way we shall be making a sound contribution to good race relations in South Africa.

Mr Chairman, yesterday I began my contribution by telling you that I thought that we could conduct a meaningful debate in this Committee provided we recognised that the various political parties represented here would also uphold their political standpoints. On that basis I should, on the one hand, like to react briefly to the hon member for Green Point, but also perhaps on the other hand to the hon member for Western Free State. The hon member for Western Free State, who belongs to the Labour Party, stated his party’s political standpoint very clearly. He said that this party took cognisance of the winds of change in Africa and on that basis had adopted a political standpoint of seeking to achieve a federal state of Azania.

Let us as the National Party state our political standpoint very clearly to the Labour Party. As we read the winds of change in Africa, if one were to enter a federal system, be it a geographic or a racial federation, one would inevitably be heading for Black majority government in South Africa under which the rights of Coloureds, Whites and Asians would count for very little.

Not necessarily.

You may say not necessarily, but that is the fact of the situation; that is how we as the NP see this.

I now turn to the hon member for Green Point. I have come to know the hon member for Green Point. When he makes as calm and controlled a speech as he did today he is at his most dangerous. The hon member brought the very sensitive matter of the implementation of the Groups Areas Act before this committee today. What is the standpoint of the NP? The standpoint of the NP is that the Group Areas Act will where necessary be adapted to permit its implementation to be as humane as possible. If the hon member now wishes to prescribe to the Administration, the hon the Administrator and the Executive Committee and to say that this Executive Committee must take cognisance of the fact that the principles embodied in the Group Areas Act will in due course necessarily have to disappear, then in the first instance he will have to get rid of the NP. I do not think that that hon member and his party have it in them to achieve that. I cannot resist referring to the political alternative presented by the hon member’s party. The Progressive Federal Party puts it to us that they want to establish a new constitutional dispensation for South Africa by way of the convention that is to be held. I want to present three brief quotations about the way in which they want to change the constitutional face of South Africa by way of this convention. In one of its policy documents the party states that the PFP believes that all significant political groupings in South Africa must be represented at the national convention and that the deliberate exclusion of any significant political group from the convention would make the entire procedure futile. In other words, that convention would have to include the Conservative Party, the Labour Party, the Progressive Federal Party, the AWB and probably the National Party as well. They go on to say about this convention:

What rubbish! Do you really expect that, for argument’s sake, the Labour Party, the Conservative Party, the AWB and the National Party will be able to agree on a programme of principles? You see, Sir, that hon member would be able to make no progress in terms of what he himself says before this agreement was reached. They are a party that stands for the status quo. I should like other political parties in this committee to take cognisance of that. They even say:

In other words, the hon members know in advance that they will be bringing together parties upholding irreconcilable principles in a national convention, and until they achieve the consensus that cannot be achieved, the status quo will be maintained.

I should very much like to react briefly to the hon member for Witbank. I really think that the behaviour of the hon member for Witbank is absolutely transparent, in that he merely wanted to score a political point today. This hon member was part of the Standing Committee on Provincial Affairs: Orange Free State in Cape Town. The hon member participated in the discussions of this standing committee and on not one occasion during the sitting of that standing committee was there a hint of criticism from him.

Now that hon member comes along today and puts forward a serious of objections and shortcomings to be pointed out and all of a sudden this is clear to the hon member. I call that political opportunism of the worst kind. I foresee that if this is the way in which the CP participates in the kind of meeting we are having today, they have no positive contribution to make. I see the hon member for Lichtenburg, who saw fit yesterday to—I am tempted to call it—run away; perhaps I should say it—is with us today. The hon member’s big reason as to why they demonstrated yesterday was that we were supposedly practising power-sharing here.

Let us just dwell for a moment on the constitutional solution put forward by that hon member’s party. The top structure of that solution is a Conference of States. Thus those hon members would divide South Africa into 13 partitioned states and there would be a Conference of States at its head. Now, what would he do at that Conference of States? What would he discuss there? Would he simply sit there chatting or would he take decisions there? You see, Sir, these 13 states, of which one would be a Coloured homeland—and those hon members would have to persuade the hon members of the LP that they will have to accept a Coloured homeland— would, together with the White state, comprise a Coloured state and an Indian state and ten other states, which would share one integrated economic system. If that is the case then surely one has to practise joint decision-making and powersharing.

[Inaudible.]

I wish I could have heard what the hon member’s interjection was. Now he will say that this may be something strange or new, but it need not be strange or new even for that hon member. Yesterday I referred to the multilateral Council of Ministers in which political and administrative decisions affecting everyone were for many years taken jointly with the TBVC countries. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, firstly, on behalf of the Indian community, I want to express my gratitude to the authorities and the people of the Free State, our White friends and Coloured brothers, who played an important part in opening the doors of the Free State to our people in this part of our country. Yesterday the hon member for Lichtenburg said that power-sharing had not succeeded in any part of the world. I merely want to mention one clear example of power-sharing between two hostile communities, the English and the Afrikaners, which created a very successful country.

He was not born yet!

He said that the House of Delegates had no votes in the Free State but how does he know that, if open voting was allowed, the Whites would not vote for the Indians.

The AWB would!

In Bulawayo in the time of Ian Smith, the Whites voted in an Indian candidate, who is a relative of mine, as member of Parliament by an overwhelming majority. The hon member’s party has not only come here to boycott this sitting, to break down bridges or to hold their party meeting at State expense, but also to stir up this kind of mischief. This fact was evident yesterday evening soon after their meeting at the Maitland View building where the Indians are being accommodated at night and where they are staying. If they are so brave, I want to ask the man who is involved in this matter to put his name to it, and then I shall be happy to take this matter further. It will be a pleasure. I challenge them. I am grateful to the Province of the Orange Free State, the Administrator and his people for the proclamation regarding the land for Indian occupation at Harrismith and the additional land that is being considered at Bloemfontein and on the gold-fields, but I wish that this matter would be expedited. It is very important and very urgent.

With regard to hospital services, we have been promised that these services are always available to all race groups as far as emergency services are concerned. However, I have been informed that things are apparently different in practice. Certain doctors recently operated at the Universitas Hospital on an elderly Indian woman, who is now deceased. When the superintendent of the hospital became aware of that, unfortunate circumstances emerged. I think such incidents will have to be avoided in order to build a healthy community. As someone said yesterday, we also need a graveyard for our people as our people are in the Free State now, and if there are no graveyards they will not die in peace. I think it is a serious matter that there are no graveyards in the areas where the Indian community find themselves at present.

It is the job of the province to issue permits. There are delays with regard to permit applications for premises that Indians wish to occupy and where the owners have no objection and want the Indians there, and it takes a very long time before permits are issued. In the meantime the applicant has to pay rent for those particular premises which he cannot occupy until the permit is issued. There are unnecessary formalities. I should now like to advocate that this formality be curtailed and that permits be issued as soon as possible in cases where it could be to the advantage of all the people. We talk about sanctions that countries abroad want to impose on us. We all stand together, that is the Whites, our Coloured brothers, the Indians and also the majority of the Blacks, in order to show the world that sanctions are not the solution for South Africa. Sanctions will result in more disadvantages than advantages. Everyone knows that. It is clear, not only to our people here in South Africa, but also to the peoples in our neighbouring countries. Sir, you yourself know what role the Indian community has played here, that we send our people overseas to convince people there that sanctions hold no benefits for South Africa or the world.

Our Indian community—we may well be called Indians, but we are not Indians—are citizens of South Africa. We were born here, we grew up here, we attended school here and we would like to develop South Africa as our country. Today India does not want us, and Pakistan does not want us, because we are South Africans. I, as a member of the House of Delegates, am not allowed to visit India, because I am participating in the system in South Africa. Why am I participating in the system in South Africa? To bring people closer to one another, to allow them to get to know one another. I grew up with Afrikaners. I grew up on a farm in Germiston where all my neighbours were Afrikaners. There were Afrikaner women who in times of sickness came into my father’s home and sat until twelve, one or two o’clock in the morning to administer white dulcis, “rooilaventel” and such Afrikaner medicines to my little brothers and sisters.

Those were the actions of saintly people.

That was saintliness, Sir, that was humaneness. That is how our people should live—not by breaking bridges. We are here to build bridges. And if we establish hate in the hearts of our people things will turn out for the very worst in this country.

I do not want to take up much time. I actually did not have time, but the Chairman allowed me a little more time.

An Englishman referred to the “Orange Free State” and told me: “There are no oranges; it is not free, because it is bonded to South Africa; and it is not a state, because it is a province of South Africa.” In the light of all these circumstances I want to say that the Free State has played a tremendous role in the building of bridges. I am very grateful to the province, the Administrator—who is such a fine person—his spouse, as well as his colleagues and officials who extended such a friendly and warm welcome to us and who were so kindly disposed to us to prove that we can work together, live together, stay together and build together. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure to speak after the previous speaker and I want to tell him that it is the wish of the Free State that all should live and die here in peace. Therefore, if they do not have a cemetery they should make use of the channels whereby one can be obtained in an orderly way.

The first toll road in the Free State will come into operation in my constituency shortly. It is a toll road that has been privatised, and we have now found that the CP is once again spreading a scare story and disinformation about privatisation in South Africa.

As usual.

The spectre that they are holding up is so-called big business which will supposedly take over and run this country eventually. However, they never qualify what this big business to which they refer is. Today I want to ask a few questions concerning who this big business to whom they are referring is. Do they regard Sanlam, which is one of the strongest financial and insurance institutions in this country and invests a great deal in the private sector, as big business and a danger to South Africa as well? Do they regard all the mining groups in this country, with their affiliations, as big business and a danger to this country? Those institutions create job opportunities for millions of people. Do they want those institutions not to participate in the economy of the country at the level at which the Government had to take responsibility previously?

I think it is foolish to want to make the allegations that we can continue with the old dispensation which we had before, where the central government had to levy taxes to such an extent that all of us were weighed down by a tax burden that we as individuals could no longer carry. If there are other methods by means of which money can be generated in order to provide public services in this country, why cannot we make use of them? Why does the CP see spectres in this? Why do they not qualify the big business to which they are referring or inform people about it?

I think it is a shame that there is an unsubstantiated scare story about big business in South Africa. If there were no people here who were prepared to use capital in the development of South Africa, I should like to see what misery and poverty there would be.

The hon member for Witbank comes here and says that we are continuing to grow poorer. There certainly are problems regarding the economy in South Africa at present. There was a drought, after all, unequalled in the history of South Africa, which influenced all the economic sectors in South Africa. That certainly is so. But no, they lay it all the door of the Government. The whole world is struggling to improve itself financially— the whole world. However, in South Africa it is a scare story; it is a story they are using to frighten the voters.

There is an expression: “You cannot fool all the people all the time.” Hon members must stop scaring people with their disinformation. The CP has been challenged repeatedly to spell out its policy of partition in its fullest consequences. They have been asked this repeatedly. The hon member for Ermelo stated in Parliament that the CP cannot be expected to spell out that policy in detail at present; they will work on it when they come into power. I understand that in regard to the position of Blacks, Dr Hartzenberg, the hon member for Lichtenburg, last night stated that when the CP comes into power these Blacks will simply disappear. If I am reporting him incorrectly, I apologise, but one cannot wish people out of the surroundings and milieu in which they move. The CP will have to announce a system if they do not want them here.

What is so ironical about this issue? All these Blacks who are in the so-called White areas to which the hon member referred, are here because Whites have job opportunities for them.

The hon member is disseminating disinformation.

Why do they not begin with the Whites and tell them that they should dismiss the Blacks? Why does squatting take place? Why is there such an influx to the Black urban areas? It is because Whites give those Black people job opportunities. There is unemployment amongst these people—we admit it. However, in terms of the regulations of the Government, which have to be dealt with by this Executive Committee, a Black person cannot go to a Black township if he does not have a job opportunity or cannot show that he has a job opportunity in that area. That is so. Now we have squatting, but we have had squatting in South Africa all our lives.

Let us be positive about these things. Let us ask the CP to stop misleading the White voters in an emotional manner which will in any case have to be put right eventually, because they will eventually have to begin addressing the realities of South Africa. I want to suggest to the CP that if perhaps they were to take over the government of the country, they would continue with this same tricameral Parliament because they would have no alternative to replace it with. They would continue with this tricameral Parliament, the executive committee system and the regional services councils system which they now want to throw out and destroy.

What are regional services councils? They involve the devolution of power from the central Government to the local level, where people can decide for themselves on their needs in their areas and where they themselves can generate capital in order to render services there.

The time has passed when if area X received a million rand from the State for a certain service which was essential there, the State also had to give a million rand to area Y which did not need the service. This is a rationalisation to address the needs of a region and to develop it without one region’s having to be envious of another and without one region’s being able to force the Government to give it aid for services which it does not need simply because the Government gave this aid to another region.

This is the logical conclusion of the state of affairs in South Africa. After all, we are in a development phase. South Africa cannot cease to develop or change. We must continue to address these needs daily and we should draw up our structures, laws and ordinances in accordance with the everyday requirements. South Africa cannot cease to change, because we are a developing country. Hon members pointed out that there are communities that have to be developed from a Third World standard into a First World standard. Can we stop that development from taking place? We cannot. However, the CP must stop disguising a partially socialist system and socialism in the system they advocate. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, yesterday I said that today I would talk about relations strategies. I believe today is the right time to talk about this and what we are trying to achieve by means of the improvement of relations and attitudes between the people of South Africa.

South Africa has undeniably been placed on the road to change with the introduction of the new dispensation. White South Africans must be aware that South Africa is a part of Black Africa and that most of South Africa’s inhabitants are Blacks. The Government of the day has realised that the time has come to take into account the politics of reality, the politics of survival, the politics which tell me, in the words of Die Stem: “Dat die erwe van ons vaad’re vir ons kinders erwe bly”. As fellow South Africans we must preserve this beautiful country of ours so that it will not fall into the hands of forces which will violate the character of this beautiful country. We shall simply have to get used to the fact that the position of the White man as sole master of this land is a thing of the past. The winds of change have also blown over South Africa and those winds which are now blowing over South Africa need not fill us with dread. We should not be afraid when we think about that. White South Africans will experience this when they have lost their fear of the Black man, because what is happening now is that the people of South Africa are being exposed to scare-mongering and terrifying lies. Those fears will only be overcome when we can communicate with one another. Together with the Black man the White man will more easily preserve the values of civilisation which have been built up with so much effort, sacrifice, love, enthusiasm, abuse and pulverisation in this beautiful country with its fine diversities if we, Black and White, take each other by the hand and follow the path of true reform and change in this country together.

How will the values of civilisation in this cradle of civilisation at the southern tip of Africa ever be maintained in any way other than along the lines of the JMS, relations strategies and communication? We can only bridge the differences which exist across the colour bar by communicating. I am glad that people in the Free State are working with so much enthusiasm and fervour to bridge the differences in attitudes through the establishment of relations committees, the JMS and so on.

The arguments which were raised here today and which, I believe, were also raised yesterday by the CP when they spelt out their policy for the retention of partition and tried to counteract the broadening of democracy through the devolution of power to the third tier of government, require attention. We, like all right-minded South Africans, consider this ridiculous. Have the CP ever asked themselves what their policy of partition and their policy of the retention of Afrikaner identity will cause in South Africa in terms of social injustice and human suffering? I want to ask the CP on what grounds they typify the Coloured nation in South Africa, in view of the fact that we do not even see ourselves as such. If interbreeding is the denial of God-willed identity, how do the CP explain the origin of the Afrikaner in South Africa?

Mr Chairman, I just want to react to a few of the remarks which were made here, specifically by the hon member for Witbank, whom we heard earlier today. He referred inter alia to the hon member for Western Free State’s speech and drew a comparison between the mouse and the elephant. I just want to state clearly that the CP boasts so much about wanting to rule South Africa one day and that they see that day as being very close. I want to tell them today that any constitutional and fundamental change in this country can only take place with the consent of the House of Representatives inter alia and we will not allow ourselves to be driven into a corner.

Another very important facet is that in the new South Africa the mere colour of a man’s skin, especially a white skin, will not mean much.

Let me go further: We will not allow any other party to prescribe to us. We say this, and we say it openly. Perhaps it is a good thing that we are in this Chamber today, so that we can tell the CP and anyone else directly, that we regard the Defence Force as our Defence Force; we are part of it. We regard the Police Force as our Police Force; we are part of it. There are political parties which are collaborating with pistol-packing bullies in this country. Let me make it clear: We will protect the reforms which have been made through the new dispensation. We will protect them, because we are in the Free State—let us say it—even if this may eventually be with the blood of our own children.

In conclusion, the new dispensation with all its shortcomings is an incontrovertible fact, and we in the LP have as our objective to replace it with a system in which all South Africans will eventually have a place in the sun. In the process things like the Group Areas Act will, of course, have to go, or will have to be adjusted in such a way that the main points which affect us at present will no longer exist. Mr Chairman, as you know, the English say: There is a natural gregariousness amongst people. This is a fact. People do not need laws to protect cultures. That law no longer belongs on the Statute Book. Let me finish with these words: We in this country can fight from morning to night if we have to; we may even miss each other, but even if we do not hit each other, we hit South Africa’s cause—the larger South Africa—every time.

Mr Chairman, yesterday was a monumental day in the constitutional history of the Free State. Yesterday we demonstrated that political parties of different population groups could agree with one another. Today I believe we are going to demonstrate that we can also disagree within this consensus democracy without shouting at one another. The hon member for Fauresmith has already pointed out that the NP differs constitutionally from the LP. I want to point out that to my mind there is also a difference between the NP and LP in regard to economic policy. The hon member for Heidedal spelt out the dilemma of the “haves” and “have nots” which we experience in this country of ours—the fact that a big prosperity gap exists. We agree about one thing, namely that this prosperity gap must be narrowed and the differences eventually eliminated. The question is merely: How do we do this? The method by which to achieve this, is important to us. We in the NP say we do not believe in socialism. In all honesty I must say that I have not yet studied the LP’s economic policy. We say socialism cannot work. Socialism has impoverished the people of Africa. To take from those who have and give to those who do not have, results in a situation like the one we see in Mozambique today: No food, no schools, no houses, no work. We believe that one should work for what one wants; that private initiative and freehold constitute the system within which one can qualify oneself and can utilise the opportunities which South Africa offers. We believe that for its part the Government must create the climate for people, the private sector, to establish the opportunities so that those people who want to utilise them can do so.

However, Mr Chairman, I believe that in future we shall debate these terms, the economic policy, on a sound basis with other parties.

This brings me to the CP. The CP have a slogan which reads: Freedom with justice. I have already attended many CP meetings to ask their leader a few questions, especially here in the Free State, and this slogan is displayed as large as life at all these meetings. I do not know whether it was at yesterday evening’s meeting too—“Freedom with justice”. It is a slogan with two legs: Freedom and justice. During yesterday’s debate, which was the first opportunity during which they could state their party’s position, also as regards people of colour, they walked out, and I suspect that they are ashamed of this, ashamed to defend this slogan of theirs. They are afraid that this concept of freedom in the slogan is not acceptable to people of colour; they are afraid that people of colour may laugh at their conception of justice, because to my mind this conception of justice only means justice for Whites, and that is unacceptable to the NP.

[Inaudible.]

In this country, and especially in our province, we will not only announce from platforms that we also allow other people a place in the sun. We will do something about giving them a place in the sun, and we will not give our place in the sun to anybody else. However, we are seeing to it that we do not begrudge other people what we are demanding for ourselves. You see, Mr Chairman, the CP is involved with fictional “facts”. That is why they are suggesting fictional solutions. Yesterday they proved that they were boycotting truth, reality, in the Free State and that they were demonstrating against the facts of the Free State. Let me just tell them in passing that boycotts and demonstrations in White politics have always backfired on those who have wanted to demolish and break down. Yesterday they walked out on the truth of South Africa; they walked out on the realities of the Free State—into the sunset, heading westwards, always westwards, into the political desert, into political oblivion. That is what they did yesterday; this has great significance.

They proclaim majority occupation. Has the hon member for Lichtenburg ever read any of the development reports of QwaQwa? He cannot answer, because he has not read them. If he were to read any of the development reports of QwaQwa, he would see that employment opportunities cannot be created even for the present inhabitants. Nevertheless we have made fantastic progress in QwaQwa as well as in Botshabelo. We have also made tremendous progress there with the policy of decentralisation in order to create employment opportunities for people, to bring the jobs to where the people live, and we shall continue to do so. However, in the Free State we are facing the reality that it is simply not possible to create employment opportunities for all the South Sothos in QwaQwa and Botshabelo. It will simply never be possible to do so, and for that reason majority occupation, which the CP is advocating, is simply not feasible in the Free State. It is not economically feasible, because the people they want to send to QwaQwa and Botshabelo will die there in misery. I hear it was stated at the meeting last night that they were not going to remove the Blacks from the Free State with bulldozers and machine guns, but that they had a secret plan. The people need not be worried; the plan is not going to be announced now. However, they have this plan up their sleeves. They will execute this plan when the CP comes into power. At the next opportunity they have, they must get up and tell us how they are going to remove 1,7 million South Sothos from the Free State, without bulldozers and without machine guns. Their policy is ridiculous; this was demonstrated yesterday when they walked out on the realities of our province.

We Free State Afrikaners are not intolerant. We have never been intolerant; that has never been one of the characteristics of the Free State Afrikaners. We have always had good race relations in this province. We got on with our Coloured and Black neighbours. They knew the Free State Afrikaner’s “yes” was “yes” and his “no” was “no”. However, one could trust him, Mr Chairman. He did not lie. One can still trust him today. We say so. We say to our White Free State fellow Afrikaners: We have come to demonstrate to you in Bloemfontein how consensus democracy can work; we have solutions for a peaceful future. Join us, because a glorious future awaits ail our children.

Mr Chairman, unfortunately I did not have the opportunity yesterday to complete my speech and to react to the hon member for Welkom who spoke about the N1 route that had to be realigned, and also about the roads in the gold-fields. I should like to reply to him now.

I have already said that the N1 is an NTC road, and therefore one which is going to be routed by them, but we in the Free State have made proposals with regard to the new routing, or routing, of the N1 and sent them to the Department of Transport. They are presently under consideration. With regard to the gold-fields, the large-scale development that has taken place there has also made heavier demands on the province, and it was possible to undertake the construction of certain dual carriageways that had already enjoyed high priority. As was the case last year, over R17 million is being spent on the improvement of the road network in the Free State this year.

The road between Welkom and Riebeeckstad is at present being converted into a dual carriageway—in fact, it is almost complete—and work on the dual carriageway on the Virginia-Welkom road will be commenced. The conversion of the road between Welkom and Odendaalsrus into a dual carriageway is also enjoying priority. The alignment of this road has already been accepted and we hope that it will soon be under way.

Initially, the dual carriageway conversion of the road between Virginia and Welkom was going to be done by a departmental unit, but because the contractor who is building the bypass near Virginia is already on the site, it was decided that this contract would also be given to him. It will save a great deal of money and the road will also be built more quickly, as it is not necessary for him to move there. He is there already.

We are aware that motorists who drive through the Free State have to endure a degree of discomfort at the moment as a result of the flood damage, but we can assure members of the public that this is enjoying a very high priority. We are attending to the roads and additional funds for the repair of the flood damage—for which we are truly grateful—will also speed up this repair work. We applied for funds to repair flood damage in the Free State. A total amount of R48 million was granted to the Free State for use in this regard, and of this amount an amount of R23,746 million was made available for the repair of roads and bridges. The units of the Administration as such will be employed to do this repair work.

The hon member for Western Free State said that we should review the salary scales of employees of the Branch Roads. Salary scales are prescribed by the Government and, as you are aware, the Government is in the process of bringing about parity with regard to salaries in any case.

†The hon member for Natal Midlands referred to the “Keep South Africa Clean” campaign. The Administration of the Orange Free State now has a representative on the directorate of this organization. The Department of Roads has an ongoing campaign to clean up and to prevent littering, but we do not receive much support from the travelling public, and it would be appreciated if hon members would also urge the public and their constituents to support this organization.

The hon member for Eastern Transvaal asked quite a few questions of which he gave me a copy. Firstly, he asked how many White, Coloured, Indian and Black traffic officers have been employed by the Administration. The answer is that 233 White, 9 Coloured, 107 Black and no Indian traffic officers are employed by the Orange Free State Provincial Administration. Secondly, he asked whether there was parity in the salary structure of all population groups in all provincial departments. The answer is that there is parity in the salary structure of all population groups in the Traffic Department. Thirdly, he asked what steps have been contemplated to curb the high death rate on provincial roads. More stringent law enforcement is being applied with special attention to the reckless driving, driving without due care and consideration, indiscriminate overtaking and drunken driving. No personnel is granted any leave during the Easter or Christmas holidays, and longer hours are worked by traffic inspectors. His next question was how much has been budgeted for effective programmes for rehabilitation of drunken drivers and for other precautions. My reply to this question is that it is not the function of the Provincial Administration to rehabilitate drunken drivers. His last question was how many vacancies there are in the traffic force and why the vacancies have not been filled. There is only one vacancy in the traffic force at present. The vacancy has not yet been filled as applicants who were interviewed were not considered suitable to fill the vacancy.

*The hon member for Ladybrand also spoke about roads and referred to the fact that certain dual carriageways from the Transvaal or from other provinces disappeared in the Free State, and that the traffic was then channelled along a single road. The Sybrand van Niekerk road is the road that leads to the Vaal River. We are already building a road in the Free State to join it. The NTC have to build a bridge over the river and as soon as that bridge has been built, the flow of traffic will be quicker and smoother. Therefore, I want to ask the hon member to be patient. When the bridge has been completed all these problems will be solved. He also spoke about the Senekal-Ficksburg road. We are in the process of realigning this road on a route which can eventually be tarred. The road will then be built in phases. He also referred to the Ladybrand-Clocolan road which has deteriorated considerably. I can tell the hon member that we shall soon award a contract for the rehabilitation of this road as well. Finally, with regard to the bottleneck that has been created by single roads in the Free State, may I just say that there is very good coordination among the various provinces in their efforts to eliminate these bottlenecks.

The hon member for Actonville referred to the applications with regard to the group area for Indians in the Free State, and requested that they be expedited. The Provincial Administration did what it could in this regard. This matter is before the Group Areas Council at present and it will be dealt with by them. The Provincial Administration does not declare group areas. With regard to the applications for permits, we try to deal with them as quickly as possible and I should like to recommend that if problems are experienced in this regard, the people involved should get in touch with us. We also want to request that when applications for permits are made, the hon members concerned should work in close conjunction with the Administration, because in that way they will be able to expedite the matter.

The hon member for Witbank referred to matters regarding the Free State Administration, and expressed certain criticism. Of course, one does not object to criticism. It is good to express criticism from time to time, but I feel that one’s information or the facts on which one bases that criticism, should be correct. The hon member spoke about squatters at Thumahole. Thumahole is the Black residential area in Parys. There are no squatters as such in Thumahole. Thumahole is an area that was created for Black people. It is a declared development area in which they can settle. There are therefore no squatters.

He also referred to the reduction in the amount made available for bridging capital. This reduction is as a result of the fact that the areas of Lekua and Evaton fell within the borders of the Development Council of the Orange River area and were initially transferred to the Free State. However, the areas are now back with the Transvaal and therefore they are now receiving their bridging capital from the Transvaal and not from the Free State, which has led to the reduction. The hon member also referred to the area at Allanridge. Allanridge is a development area in terms of section 33 of the Development of Black Communities Act and has been identified and proclaimed as such. Approximately 700 families from the squatter area have already been relocated on a voluntary basis in this development area. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I do not want to participate in the political part of this debate, but I want to tell the hon member for Lichtenburg, in all friendliness, that because he left yesterday and is back today, it seems to me as if the CP has one policy for Monday and one for Tuesday. I should like to see what the policy for Thursday is.

The hon member for Bethlehem referred to the prices of medicines and to the new system introduced by the provincial administration in this regard. Because of the necessity for economy measures, we have decided that at hospitals which employ full-time pharmacists we would provide State patients—I want to emphasise “State patients”—with medicine, and this has brought about a saving. In the past we worked on a basis of estimates, but now I have actual figures. Let me give the Committee the figures for Bloemfontein, Bethlehem, Kroonstad and Welkom. The average expenditure on medicine for State patients at the hospitals in these four centres was R422 905 per month before we put the new system into operation. After we had introduced the new system, ie when full-time pharmacists supplied medicines to indigent patients, the amount decreased to R124 738 per month, ie a saving of 70%. I do not think anyone can blame us—not even the Pharmaceutical Society—for having introduced these steps. We shall have to deal with this matter in a different way. I want to assure hon members that the relationship between this Administration and the pharmacists is not a strained one. To date we have been negotiating with each other to see whether we could not find a solution to this very difficult problem.

The hon member for Diamant referred to the poor hospital facilities in Welkom. There, too, we are experiencing problems as a result of Black people recently flocking to the gold-fields. The planning of a new 620-bed hospital at an estimated cost of R70 million has been finalised. In this year’s budget provision has been made for an amount of R2,65 million. In the meantime we have taken urgent steps, ie with the erection of 3 prefabricated buildings, to relieve the unsatisfactory conditions in regard to the overpopulation of Black wards.

†A number of hon members referred to facilities for Indian patients. I should like to explain the position as follows: The current position in the Orange Free State is that separate facilities are provided for Whites and non-Whites. Secondly, no provision has been made for Indian patients. Thirdly, they are welcome to make use of the available facilities for non-Whites. If, however, they should require their own facilities, the House of Delegates must provide the funds.

*The hon member for Western Free State and the hon member for Opkoms both referred to problems experienced with district surgeon services. As from 1 April 1988 we have taken over the services of full-time district surgeons—not those of temporary district surgeons—from the Department of National Health and Population Development, which furnished these services on a certain basis. The province will give attention to this matter. The hon member for Opkoms referred to a need for a nurses’ hostel for Coloured nurses. We wholeheartedly support the hon member’s representations.

†The hon member for Groote Schuur referred to the higher death rate amongst Black people in provincial hospitals. This could be interpreted as a serious allegation in regard to the quality of medical services rendered by our doctors and nurses. I hope that this was not the intention of the hon member. There are various reasons for this phenomenon. It is a known fact that nonWhite patients tend to present themselves to a hospital when the disease they are suffering from has reached an advanced stage, often with serious complications. Social factors also play a major role, eg they have large families, which results in overpopulation. A further factor is the abuse of alcohol, resulting in a high incidence of serious assaults. I want to assure hon members that in our hospitals we do our utmost to render the best possible medical services within the means at our disposal.

*The hon member for Heidedal referred to recreational facilities for Blacks. At the moment we are constructing a resort for Black people at the Allemanskraal Dam. We are also planning a resort for Blacks on the eastern side of the Rustfontein Dam. This project is therefore still in the planning stage. I think, however, that this is a field in which the private sector could invest its money.

†The hon member for Natal Midlands referred to littering. In this regard I should like to inform the hon member that the Orange Free State has an ordinance on littering, ie Ordinance No 8 of 1976. Up to now we have been the only province with an ordinance prohibiting littering. The hon member for Eastern Transvaal indicated that he would like to know how tenders are called for and what criteria are applied in determining the successful tenderer. Tenders are called for weekly in the Official Gazette of the Orange Free State, which can be purchased throughout the province, as well as in the local newspaper, Die Volksblad, and a publication called The Daily Tender Bulletin. Furthermore, the particular tender documents concerning the various disciplines such as building, electrical, civil and mechanical engineering, etc, are also sent by certified post to all known potential tenderers in the relevant disciplines. The criteria used in determining the successful tenderer can be summed up as follows: The lowest tender complying with all the requirements as specified in the tender documents is accepted. Should the lowest tender be the only one received, the authority to accept tenders up to certain amounts has been delegated to senior officials and the Chief Director of Works. In all other cases, or if there are well-founded reasons to believe that the tenderer will not be able to execute the tender according to specifications within the contract period, the next lowest tender will be considered. The final decision to accept a tender or to make a recommendation to a higher authority rests with the Tender Board.

*Mr Chairman, I have finished speaking. I had very little time, but in conclusion I just want to say that you should report to Mr Speaker that it is very unfair that, with a two-day debate being conducted here, hon members of the Executive Committee are being given only 10 minutes to furnish their replies.

Mr Chairman, please allow me the opportunity to convey to you briefly a few impressions that I have at the end of this debate. Firstly, I want to express my appreciation to all hon members who took part in this debate, in particular for the way in which they appealed for the improvement of the living conditions of all the people in our province. Secondly, I want to express my thanks to my colleagues on the Executive Committee for their valuable and much appreciated contribution in this Committee. If I have time, I shall return to the Executive Committee and our work. Thirdly, I want to point out that this Committee and its business is a first attempt and a first classification of rules and procedures. If one requests a few adjustments in the procedure, one does so with great responsibility and in an endeavour to improve the system; one does not do so critically and negatively. To do justice to the speeches that hon members made and to the questions that they asked, and considering the broad field of activity that the Provincial Administration is dealing with, I do not think there was sufficient time to react properly to the various matters.

We shall have to investigate this matter further. I respect the arrangement of Parliament and Mr Speaker. The fact of the matter is that in this reply, for which I have only 14 minutes, I cannot attend to every hon member who took part in the proceedings. I shall have to limit myself to a few general remarks that touch on themes that were raised by various hon members. However, I can assure hon members that I listened to their requests, suggestions, criticism and questions and that I shall do my best to answer all unanswered questions in writing. I trust that hon members will understand if I do not refer to everyone separately, or address everyone separately. Therefore, if I use a starting point for a few statements and in that way refer to an hon member, it must not be regarded as preferential treatment of a specific member.

This was an appropriation debate, which means that we cannot escape the financial implications. The hon member for Bethlehem, who is the chairman of the ordinary standing committee, as well as other hon members, referred to the financial difficulties that we were experiencing and the effect that they were having on the services and needs of our province. We appreciate the understanding and the pleas of hon members and I just want to express a few ideas about this. The Free State Provincial Administration does not want to shirk its responsibility by not contributing to or making sacrifices for the Government’s attempts to place the country’s economy on a sturdier and healthier footing. We do not lay claim to preferential treatment above other provinces. Nevertheless, I have enough confidence to try to spell out what we are trying to convey to the Treasury.

Firstly, unit costs in the Free State are higher than in densely-populated areas. This means that as a result of the lower population figures of our province, the costs per unit of a patient or a scholar are higher than in other parts of the country. If we have to build a hospital—no matter how small—there are certain basic services that have to be provided, for example steam services that cannot be ignored in a hospital. Secondly, we believe that there is a historical handicap built into the infrastructure of this province. One of the main reasons for this is that the Free State, probably more than any other department or province, has not only respected but also effectively carried out all orders for cutbacks by the Treasury and calls for savings by the Government over the years, for the sake of the South African economy. Thirdly, we are experiencing the problem which arises from the non-participation of political office-bearers or officials of the province in determining priorities or bargaining for funds in specific functional areas. Regional priorities still remain a function and an autonomous right of a provincial administration, but we believe that, with the necessary persuasion, we shall be in a position to bargain within the framework of the greater allocation of priorities in South Africa. Fourthly, I want to mention that with the development of any region, the assets of such a region are increased by the creation of an infrastructure. The maintenance involved in eliminating and preventing deterioration and neglect and in protecting assets, has become an incalculable cost factor today.

However, I want to conclude by saying that we shall continue, to the best of our ability, to refrain from negotiating for astronomic allocations for the Free State, and to negotiate for realistic amounts for the services that have to be provided in this province. Every person adopts a position in life—especially with regard to intellectual values—which determines his opinion and his policy. It is a fact that different people adopt different positions and that one surveys a specific situation or occurrence from one’s position, from a different point of view. Political choices from this arise and that is fit and proper. Many political issues were spoken about in this committee debate. My colleagues on the Executive Committee and I have no desire to become involved in party politics at this stage and there are various reasons for this. One of the reasons is possibly that you as hon members of Parliament are politically more adept than we are, because as members you have the advantage of caucus negotiation and discussion, something we do not have. For this reason we do not want to become directly involved in political arguments. Nevertheless, I want to tell hon members to guard against holding us responsible for services that are not the responsibility of provincial administrations. We act within the framework of Government policy. This policy is determined at central government level and we on provincial level have the opportunity to determine our priorities and to carry out our activities in our province within the framework of that policy that is determined at the highest government level.

I cannot omit to add a little humour. The hon member for Lichtenburg referred to NP members who would be here to protect the Executive Committee. That makes me think of the story that is told about an old woman who called the vet to look at her cat that, according to her, was sick. The vet examined the cat and found that it was soon going to have kittens. The woman insisted that that was impossible because she had kept the cat in the house and that she had not come into contact with any other cat at all. Just then another cat emerged from under the bed. The vet then said to the old woman, “But madam, this is a male cat.” The old woman then replied, “No doctor, you do not understand, that is my little cat’s brother and surely the two of them would not do anything wicked.”

I want to give hon members the assurance that the pressure on and criticism of the Executive Committee came largely from the ranks of the NP members. Seen in the light of the fact that they are representatives of voters in our province, I merely want to say that we in the provincial administration are not touchy about criticism. I also do not think that we really need protection.

†Various speakers referred to the historical value of this special occasion. I believe that for no one the activities of this committee have more historical or emotional value than for hon members of the House of Delegates. I wish to express my sincere appreciation for the way in which these hon members referred to the past and to the present, without any reproach about the past, and without any sign of boasting about the present. Their attitude could so easily have been different. These hon members, however, only referred realistically to a past about which they had been unhappy; at the same time they referred to the present in which they have undertaken to honour the obligations towards their people in the Free State. I know that these hon members are also realistic about their presence in the Free State. Honour and respect can only be earned by exemplary behaviour. Their presence in the Free State is most probably not welcomed by all. It is also interesting—I studied the debates of the old Free State Volksraad—that the law which prohibited the presence of Asians in the Free State was not a unanimous decision. As a matter of fact, the first motion was rejected by the Volksraad and the Bill was only adopted after the second motion.

Some of the hon members pleaded for certain services for the Indian community. I want to tell them that we are somewhat ignorant about the customs of their people and the rules they are subject to. However, as far as possible and as far as funds allow, we will heed their needs where the numbers justify it. As a matter of fact, I have already instructed that a study be made of their way of life and the principles of their community.

*Various hon members referred to areas in which there were many needs and in which there was great suffering. Although my administration will try to meet these needs, one of the instruments that was created to uplift the backward areas was the system of regional services councils. Although some hon members blame us for not having progressed more quickly with the creation of more regional services councils, I want to announce today that in the light of certain problems that are being experienced with the demarcation, I am going to request permission from the co-ordinating council to withhold councils in the regions that have already been demarcated until the whole province has been demarcated. This will mean that the next councils will probably only be established early in 1989. With regard to the demarcation, we are now finding that certain borders are going to be overstepped for practical purposes, which will mean that existing councils or councils that are established earlier will be subject to redemarcation, which we should like to avoid.

The present system of provincial government is not ideal. I want to agree with the hon member for Lichtenburg that the ideal situation has not yet been reached. However, I suspect that we agree with each other for different reasons. No government is as pure as the one that consists of democratically elected representatives. It is possible that we are at present involved in the run-up to such a system. The system that we are dealing with at present, is rightly a laboratory in which a model for co-operation is being tested. I believe that we are being successful with this experiment that we are conducting in the Executive Committee, not only in the Free State, but also in the other three provinces.

I want to make a few further remarks. An hon member said that the venue in which we were meeting at the moment was not ideal and that we should, for example, consider the old Synod Hall that was not being used. I want to agree with him. Allow me to express my thanks to the City Council for making this hall available and also to my officials for the way in which this hall was equipped for the sitting of this committee. However, we should also consider the wishes of Mr Speaker.

I am sorry, but the hon the Administrator’s time has expired.

Before I conclude the business of this committee I should like to make a few remarks. Firstly, I want to thank the officials involved under the leadership of Mr Beckmann who helped with the arrangements for this sitting. I also want to extend a sincere thank you to everyone, Black and White, who worked together. I also want to thank all hon members of all political parties for their co-operation and the responsible way in which they took part.

Debate concluded.

Mr Chairman, what is at issue here is the interpretation of a former rule, Rule 43 (1) (b), which has been substituted. The old rule refers to the new Rule 163 and Rule 66 (4) of the new Standing Rules of Parliament. It relates to the business of this extended standing committee, which is meeting at the moment.

Rule 66 (4) (a) contains the enabling provision, and Rule 66 (4) (c) (i) reads as follows:

Rule 66 (4) (c) (ii), (iii) and (iv) also refer to this. Rule 66 (4) (d) provides that:

We now come to the important provision in terms of which we have raised the point of order, viz Rule 163 (2) (a), which is of particular importance here. I quote Rule 163 (2):

1. (a) the joint committee under which financial matters fall and a joint committee on provincial affairs, to a maximum of seven consecutive Parliamentary working days

In the case in question the Budget speech was made on Wednesday, 16 March 1988. The proceedings of the joint committee have to be completed within seven consecutive Parliamentary working days, as provided in Rule 163 (2) (a). Since this is a joint committee on provincial affairs, Mr Speaker may further—take note!— limit the deliberations to the days and times determined by him, after consultation with the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament, in terms of the proviso with reference to Rule 163 (2). It is stated very clearly that these deliberations may be limited, and not extended. This means that they can be limited to fewer than seven days.

I want to argue that the Cape joint provincial committee did sit on Thursday, 17 March, Friday, 18 March, and then again from Monday, 21 March, to Friday, 25 March. The Transvaal joint provincial committee sat on 17 and 18 March, and again on 21 and 22 March. This means that these committees sat within the fully permissible maximum period of seven consecutive Parliamentary working days. No matter how this is calculated, the maximum of seven consecutive Parliamentary working days lapsed on 25 March 1988.

I should now like to refer to the provision with reference to extended public committees. Rule 35 determines what members an extended public committee should consist of. The crux of our complaint resides in Rule 66 (4) (c) (i) and (iii). I quote:

It is very clear, therefore, that this extended public committee can function only within the period in which the Appropriation Bill is before the joint committee—within the prescribed seven days to which reference is made here. In the case in question this would be from 17 to 25 March 1988. If, therefore, this joint committee wanted to perform its functions as part of an extended public committee, the extended public committee should have been in session before 25 March 1988. No session after this would fall in the period in which an Appropriation Bill could come before the applicable joint committee in terms of Rule 163. This can take place only within seven days.

The question now is whether Rule 66 (4) (c) (iii) gives one a way out of this dilemma. I quote:

This provision with regard to day and time can still only be intra vires within the period of seven days, as provided, or if this Rule is suspended, which is not the case here because suspension has to take place explicitly. Last but not least, the only way in which the Rules can be suspended is in terms of Rule 3, of which paragraph (1) provides as follows:

In our opinion this was not done in this case. Therefore we cannot take part in these proceedings, because we believe there are good legal grounds on which this extended committee is out of order and therefore cannot continue with its proceedings in terms of the existing Rules of the Parliament of the Republic of South Africa.

Order! The hon member for Pietersburg raised a point of order. I want to point out that the hon member is raising this point of order at a very late stage—even after his own hon leader has spoken. That means that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly was advised to address the committee despite the legal opinion obtained by the hon member for Pietersburg, a copy of which he apparently has in his hand. It seems to me that that is what he is holding, since it is a typed document.

Nevertheless I want to point out the following to the hon member. Rule 2 (1) of the Standing Rules of Parliament provides that:

Mr Speaker made a ruling in this connection, and I shall read it as follows:

In the circumstances I cannot accept the hon member for Pietersburg’s point of order for two reasons. In the first place, according to the above explanation, it would not be legally correct. In the second, the Rules do now provide for exactly what the hon member is objecting to.

Mr Chairman, may I reply to that?

Order! No, the hon member may not. I have given my ruling. No reply to my ruling can be permitted. The hon member must please resume his seat.

Mr Chairman, in our opinion we are entitled to that.

Order! That is the hon member’s problem. I have given my ruling. No reply is given in respect of my ruling. The hon member must accept that.

Mr Chairman, you leave us with no choice but to leave the Chamber.

Order! The hon members of the CP can decide what they want to do. Whatever they do is their own affair.

Mr Chairman, I should like to convey a particular word of thanks to all hon members of Parliament who have come here for this meeting, but unfortunately I have not been given an opportunity to do so.

I was very surprised and impressed by the fact that of the 25 speakers who took the floor yesterday, 19 decided to speak about hospital services. This particular interest, let me say, is appreciated. I also just want to express the hope that hon members will continue to show such an interest and that they will lodge their pleas with those who control the source of funds.

Mr Chairman, in the time at my disposal I shall try to reply as comprehensively as possible to the contributions made here. You will nevertheless have to indicate to me if I am going too far, Sir.

Firstly I want to express my sincere thanks to hon members for the thanks and appreciation they expressed—yes, that was also a conspicuous element yesterday—for the services furnished at various hospitals and institutions. The hon member for Langlaagte, amongst others, made some sound comments on Baragwanath Hospital. The hon member for Rosettenville spoke about accommodation for nurses and also about proper conditions of service.

†The hon member for Bezuidenhout made some exceedingly positive comments in relation to mental-health services. He expressed his admiration for the fact that health services could still be performed in spite of financial difficulties.

*The hon member for Edenvale gave an exceptionally thorough exposition of the financial situation and also praised the cancer units. The hon member for Gezina extended his good wishes to the new H F Verwoerd Training Hospital. We also share the hon member for Toekomsrus’ pride when it comes to the Coronation Hospital, of which he is the esteemed chairman. I want to point out to the hon member, however, that as an academic hospital the Coronation Hospital is a general affair, also furnishing services to race groups other than the Coloured group. It is not the only hospital, however, which furnishes services to Coloureds. The Boksburg-Benoni Hospital also comes to mind, for example, with its 32 beds for Coloureds, the Hendrik Verwoerd Hospital with its 104 beds for Coloureds, the Klerksdorp Hospital with 22 beds for Coloureds, the Middelburg Hospital with 24 beds for Coloureds, the Paul Kruger Memorial Hospital at Rustenburg with 42 beds for Coloureds, the Vereeniging Hospital with 16 beds for Coloureds, etc. In total this makes 797 beds, and an additional 314 beds which are interchangeable and can also be used for Indian patients.

†The hon member also commented on the utilisation of vacant beds for patients of other race groups, particularly in relation to the Johannesburg hospital. I presume the hon member has already heard that there are not sufficient funds available to open beds at various hospitals, for instance those of Kalafong, Lenasia, Ellisras and Johannesburg. Furthermore, those patients cannot be dealt with at Coronation or referred to the J G Strydom Hospital and the Johannesburg Hospital, where many patients receive tertiary care.

*We agree with the hon member that the hospital in Soweto ought to be very high on the priority list, a position it does, in fact, occupy. Very many years ago the Executive Committee approved the granting of relief for Baragwanath Hospital. For that reason a site was acquired in Soweto. In the meantime facilities such as water, electricity and sewerage had to be made available. At present planning is being done for 800 beds for this hospital, and as far as we are concerned the construction of this hospital is a top priority project. It will be constructed as soon as possible after the planning has been done, bearing in mind the availability of funds. I should like to give hon members the assurance that we are doing everything in our power to obtain the necessary finance.

The hon member also referred to the fact that the bed occupancy in Baragwanath and Coronation Hospitals was too high. As far as Baragwanath is concerned, the occupancy rate is in fact too high. We are nevertheless trying to grant relief. I shall be coming back to this at a later stage.

In regard to the Coronation Hospital I merely want to focus the hon member’s attention on the fact that the bed occupancy rate at the Coronation Hospital, measured over a period of one year, was 90,6%. That is a very high occupancy rate, but not yet too high by any means. If the necessary finances could be found to bring Lenasia Hospital into operation—a point I shall also be coming back to at a later stage—and if other facilities on the West Rand were also properly supported, the occupancy rate would decrease considerably.

The hon member for Newclare referred to the high occupancy at Coronation Hospital, and I think I have already furnished a reply. The hon member referred to the theft of vehicles and also to the fact that several of the vehicles were in a dilapidated condition. He also spoke about insurance. We know that as a rule State vehicles are not insured. Unfortunately we cannot replace vehicles as often as we would like to. In regard to security, the department is nevertheless devoting attention to special measures.

The hon member asked about the bed occupancy at the J G Strydom Hospital, and I want to tell him that over the past year the bed occupancy there has been 61%. He also asked why nonWhite patients could not be admitted to the J G Strydom Hospital too. In that regard, of course, I have already said that patients who cannot receive the necessary service at the Coronation Hospital can in fact, when necessary, be treated at the J G Strydom Hospital and the Johannesburg Hospital.

I agree with the hon member when he says that day hospitals should be made available to furnish services at a reasonable distance from the communities concerned so that patients can be kept away from expensive hospitals.

The planning of the outpatients’ department is receiving attention, but the hon member will agree that on such a limited site there are serious planning problems.

I want to clarify matters for the hon member. The fact that there is a nurses’ training college on the same site as the hospital does not make the hospital a general affairs hospital. Coronation Hospital is a general affairs hospital because it is an academic hospital and because more than 5% of the patients treated there are members of another population group.

In my opinion the hon member was also generalising when he referred to people dying in hospital because of apartheid and to patients who died because of the fact that they could not be treated at a specific hospital. He referred to a White patient who had been stabbed on a train, had to be taken to Roodepoort, but subsequently died. The fact is that that patient was taken directly from the station to Roodepoort and was never taken to the Coronation Hospital or turned away from that hospital. The hon member also referred to a case in which two Black nurses were not permitted to touch a White patient. We want to point out to the hon member, however, that that occurred at the scene of an accident and that no hospital official was involved in that incident.

We would appreciate it if hon members would ascertain the correct facts before making statements. We would also appreciate it if they did not inundate us all here with all this information, but informed us rather of each individual case so that we could take timely action to put matters right. It would also be appreciated if any cases of patients being prejudiced could be brought to our attention as quickly as possible.

The hon member also argued that when the Lenasia Hospital was put into operation, it should not only be used for Indians, but for all the communities in the area. That has already been arranged with the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare of the House of Delegates, and that is what will happen.

The hon member Mr Seedat also referred to the Lenasia Hospital and the Ellisras Hospital.

†He was not satisfied with the explanation regarding the funding of these hospitals. However, a fact is a fact and due the situation of Government spending, new services could simply not be commissioned. The fact is, as hon members have seen in the document I have handed out to them, that this does not only affect the Lenasia Hospital. The Ellisras Hospital and various other hospitals are affected, and at the Laratonge Hospital an extra 200 beds cannot be commissioned.

The hon member viewed this as inefficient planning, because funds were not requested timeously. I can give hon members the assurance that in our Budget every year we ask for the money we need. However, when the Budget is cut by 10% or 15% one must decide what one will do. Will one stop existing services or will one rather not start new services? That is what one must decide with the money one has available.

The hon member also referred to the possibility of the judgement of the total Budget, but I must repeat that limited funds were made available which could not even cover existing services.

The hon member also referred to the overcrowding at the Baragwanath Hospital and the way in which certain doctors were dealt with. In this regard, I would like to refer to a Press statement by the hon the Administrator. I quote:

Incorrect statements were, amongst others that nurses were allocated to the number of beds, whereas in fact they were allocated according patient activities. It was further stated that the new hospital to be built next to the H F Verwoerd Hospital in Pretoria was mainly for Whites, whereas approximately half of those beds—900 or more—would be for other population groups to provide relief in the Pretoria area. Here I am thinking especially of Mamelodi and Eersterus.

The Administration was, inter alia, accused of being indifferent, callous, utterly hypocritical and that its attitude is deplorable, uncaring and uncompromising. I strongly refute that this reflects the attitude of my Administration towards the Baragwanath Hospital. I wish to emphasise that we are well aware of the problems being experienced at the Baragwanath Hospital. Over the past few years many projects to improve the conditions and uplift the standards were undertaken.

During recent years the following improvements were effected at the site—and I can add—at a cost of many millions of rands: A new maternity hospital, pathology laboratories, a nursing home, a college for nursing, administrative buildings, 70 additional medical ward beds, increase of medical staff (in one particular department) from 59 to 114, boilers, telephone exchange, etc. In addition two wards with 160 beds each will be erected during the coming financial year to upgrade the existing facilities.

I must bring it to the attention of hon members that the Baragwanath Hospital already has almost 2 800 beds. The norm for a hospital, throughout the world, is a maximum of 2 000 beds. We cannot extend the number of beds at this hospital. We have to find other places.

Various other steps were also taken to relieve the burden at the Baragwanath Hospital. Eighthundred beds were commissioned at Hillbrow Hospital. The Sebokeng Hospital was built with 900 beds. An additional 203 beds were provided at the Laratong Hospital. Four new community health centres were erected, each able to serve up to 60 000 inhabitants. These clinics are in addition to the existing eight clinics. Whereas a lack of funds prevented the Administration from upgrading all the facilities at the Baragwanath Hospital and from providing up to 800-bed regional hospitals, the Administration started during 1987 to negotiate alternative measures of finding the capital cost for additional community health centres and for the 800-bed regional hospital for the Soweto area.

In view of these facts relating to the Baragwanath Hospital and this Administration’s attitude and understanding of the medical needs of the people of Soweto, I am of the opinion that the doctors concerned should at least concede that the language used, as well as the incorrect statements made, want withdrawal. This Administration appreciates the contribution of everyone concerned, and I appeal to all to proceed to work together for the good of the patients and the hospital.

The hon member Mr Seedat, as well as some other hon members, made reference to my visits to the hospital and said that they would at times like to accompany me on such visits. I can assure the hon members that there are few, if any, hospitals which I have not yet visited and I am not adverse to the idea that members of Parliament accompany me on such visits, wherever practical and on their request.

The hon member for Parktown also referred to the opening of the Lenasia Hospital and asked for the assurance that the delay in opening of that hospital is not to force the allocation of the hospital as an own affairs hospital. I must add that the hon member must remember that the House of Delegates insists that this hospital be an own affairs hospital for Indians, although not according to the norm of no more than 5% other patients. There will be more than 5% patients of other races in that hospital. I can assure the hon member that, as I said earlier, the only reason why the hospital is not open is the lack of funds.

The hon member also referred to the situation regarding the doctors at Baragwanath hospital, and I think I have replied to that. He also said that exception was taken to the fact that an official of the department said that Black patients were used to sleeping on the floor. I have investigated this matter, and that doctor denies ever using such words. I have already referred to regular visits by myself in addition to inspection by head office staff, and need not elaborate on that any further.

*The hon member for Langlaagte referred to the good service being furnished at Baragwanath and to the need for a hospital in Soweto. I have already replied to that too. I merely want to point out that the present-day operating costs of a hospital are such that two and a half years’ operating costs are equal to the capital costs of establishing a hospital. If one therefore builds a hospital at a cost of R100 million, two and half years after that hospital has come into operation, one’s operating costs would also total that amount.

The hon member is also thanked for the appreciation he expressed to the relevant staff of the Baragwanath Hospital for their treatment of the Siamese twins, and I agree with him, and with other hon members who referred to that aspect, that we really have a dedicated staff who do excellent work.

In spite of other negative statements, this is conclusive proof of the quality of the work and facilities at Baragwanath Hospital and of the quality of its staff. It also proves that they can compete with the best in the world, in spite of the snide remark by the hon member for Parktown who said: “In spite of the authorities, this was done.” It is a pity that such remarks are, in fact, made when what is involved here is an exceptional achievement on the part of these people.

†The hon member for Bezuidenhout referred to budgeting by objectives and the allocation of priorities. We can assure him …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is it correct procedure for someone who is not a member of Parliament to be entitled to refer to a remark by the hon member for Parktown as a “snedige opmerking”?

Order! I do not think that is unparliamentary in the circumstances.

Mr Chairman, has the hon member of the Executive Committee, as a nonparliamentarian, the right to refer to a parliamentarian in that way?

Order! I think he was referring to the hon member’s speech. The hon member may proceed.

But he is not a member of Parliament! [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member of the Executive Committee may continue.

He is an official. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I was dealing with the hon member for Bezuidenhout …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: On the basis of the short debate which has just taken place, I ask for your ruling about whether, in terms of the accepted Rules of Parliament, members of the Executive Committee and the Administrator are not full-fledged members of this Committee for the purposes of this sitting, and secondly, whether the hon member for Sandton was correct in stating that members of the Executive Committee “are officials”. [Interjections.] I ask for your ruling on those two points, Sir.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is a member of the Executive Committee entitled to take a point of order in this committee at all? [Interjections.] He has special rights to be present, but he is not a member of Parliament.

Order! The hon member for Yeoville has put to me most interesting and difficult questions regarding constitutional law, which I find difficult to answer at this stage. However, over a period of approximately 18 years I have developed a feeling for how matters should be conducted, and I shall continue to act accordingly. I think members of the Executive Committee should be accorded due respect. Should anything they say be unparliamentary, I shall certainly ask them to withdraw it, but otherwise they may continue. I shall regard them as far as possible as being on a par with members of Parliament in that regard. I do not intend to go into the question of whether the MECs are officials or not. That is a question possibly requiring legal opinion and, when I practised law, I used to give such opinions only provided I was properly briefed. The hon member may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Chairman. I shall try not to offend hon members, but at the same time let me say that even though I am an official, I will not allow myself to be anyone’s punch-bag. [Interjections.]

Big talk!

I think I am allowed some big talk because I know what is going on here.

The hon member for Bezuidenhout referred to budgeting by objectives and the allocation of priorities. We can assure him that we are doing so and are in the process of changing over to the financial management budgeting system.

He also referred to the possibility of hospital doctors treating private patients and receiving additional income from such practice. This matter has been discussed in the past on numerous occasions, but it is not possible in terms of the directives of the public service staff code. I have a long reply for the hon member but, in order to save time, I would rather give it to him later.

The hon member for Bayview referred to the increase in hospital tariffs for pensioners and those in the lower income groups. There was a growing feeling that all persons should contribute in some way or other towards the cost of their treatment, and therefore these tariffs were introduced. Of course, no patient who does not have the necessary funds will be turned away should treatment be required, and such a patient can discuss his or her particular situation with the hospital superintendent.

*The hon member for Kempton Park referred to the possible employment of unutilised sections of hospitals for the care of the aged and for senile and frail aged. This is a social aspect which, in regard to Whites, is the province of the Department of Health Services and Welfare, Administration: House of Assembly.

I can and shall discuss that aspect with the hon member, because I have had endless pleas about this, but once again, in order to save time, I shall now leave the matter at that and we can discuss it again at a later stage.

†The hon member for Rosettenville made reference to the uncertainty of the future of the South Rand Hospital and the utilisation of unoccupied sections for the frail aged. The hospital has, however, also been identified for transfer to the Administration: House of Assembly and at this stage we are not in a position to take any decisions about it. As far as I am aware, no decision has been taken in this regard.

The hon member for Laudium made a sweeping statement to the effect that people were turned away from hospitals because of the colour of their skin, and mentioned the specific case of Groblersdal. According to my information, the patient referred to was seen and evaluated by a senior nursing sister in collaboration with a private doctor, and referred to the Middelburg hospital after arrangements for admission had been made. In spite of these arrangements, however, the relatives elected to take the patient to Nylstroom, where the patient was seen and treated by another private practitioner. Unfortunately, the patient died at a later stage.

The hon member also referred to another case. I have the information here but, if he is really interested, I will give it to him later.

The hon member also referred to blatant discrimination by Pretoria ambulance services. I would like to point out that the Pretoria City Council renders the ambulance service to the Administration on an agency basis. It is only recently that the uniforms of ambulancemen were standardised on a national basis. The Pretoria City Council is in the process of introducing the new uniforms. It must also be mentioned that the ambulancemen of the Pretoria City Council, Black and White, are of the most highly qualified in the Transvaal, and that they render particularly effective services. Furthermore, it is the policy to send the best team to a case requiring such expertise, irrespective of race, colour or creed of the patient. Best equipped ambulance vehicles are sent to the more critical cases and lesser equipped ambulances to patients who are not that ill. It is therefore not true that the old ambulances are reserved only for the nonWhites. Calls for serious cases receive priority over less serious cases. It is not true that calls from Laudium are delayed until ambulances return from Atteridgeville.

Unfortunately some of the ambulances are old and could not be replaced due to a lack of finances. However, only recently Pretoria received five new ambulances to replace old ones. In general, I just want to mention that of our ambulance fleet of over 450 about 142 has done more than 200 000 km and is in a bad state of repair. Due to a lack of funds we could replace only 50 during the last year.

I must bring to the attention of the hon member for Laudium that the hospital at Laudium, as the hon member would know, has a bed occupancy rate of approximately 30%. Therefore, I wonder whether it can be possible that people are not being attended to. Instead of criticising the Administration, maybe the hon member should try to motivate doctors, living in the Laudium community, to render a service at the hospital on their doorsteps.

The hon member mentioned that I was not available to discuss conditions at the hospital with the hospital board. I am not aware of any such instances. In fact, I have always tried to assist wherever I can. I know of no appointment that had been made with me, nobody asked me to see them and if they should do that, I shall always be available.

The hon member also stated that whenever an Indian patient arrived at the casualty section of H F Verwoerd Hospital he had to wait for unduly long periods. However, I get the same complaint from White patients about that hospital due to the shortage of staff and funds.

*I must tell the hon member for Laudium that I am sorry that I am possibly going to disappoint him, but I am also here for as long as it pleases the hon the State President. That hon member may know better than I do what that means, but I therefore intend to stay until it pleases the hon the State President not to have me here any longer.

I want to reply to other hon members’ speeches. I merely want to tell the hon member for Gezina that things are going according to plan at the new academic hospital in Pretoria. This hospital is scheduled to be built over a period of 10 years. During this period we shall definitely make provision for parking. Certain buildings are being demolished, but that will only be done at some time in the future, when new facilities have become available. We are going to have problems, but when we are ultimately able to utilise the hospital and other facilities, we shall very definitely be making better facilities available there.

The hon member for Northern Transvaal advocated the furnishing of medical services and the dispensing of medicines, particularly to Coloured pensioners in Brits and Buysdorp. I merely want to tell the hon member that there is a part-time doctor serving Brits. He also furnishes a service to Coloureds on precisely the same basis as the service he furnishes to other race groups. He is available, and use can be made of him. The hon member also spoke about pills or tablets which were not available, saying that one had to go elsewhere to get them. That is not necessary. He should do himself a favour and make use of the district surgeon.

The full-time district surgeon for Louis Trichardt furnishes a comprehensive clinical service in Buysdorp and refers cases to hospitals if and when this is necessary. Where patients have to be referred for hospitalisation, they are referred to Louis Trichardt Hospital. The Louis Trichardt ambulance service transports such patients. At Louis Trichardt there are four beds for Coloured and Indian patients and at Brits there are three beds. I do want to mention that the norm for the provision of beds is that two beds are provided per thousand members of the population. That is the norm accepted throughout the world, and we try to comply with that.

Let me tell hon members that as far as hospital services are concerned, we are not having a very easy time of it at this stage. There is a shortage of funds. As we see it, in the present financial year we are facing a deficit of R125 million if the amount which has been made available to us is all we are going to get. Certain plans will have to be made, but as yet we do not know precisely what. We are working on it, and we even have outside consultants helping us to examine ways in which we can do the job with the money at our disposal. We want to furnish the best possible hospital services to all people. With my two hon colleagues, Dr Willie Hoods and Mr Arbee, who serve with me on the Health Services Committee, let me tell hon members that at all times we are doing the best we can with the means at our disposal. There is good co-operation amongst all our colleagues. Mr Schoeman says that to hear my old friend John Mavuso and I talking, one would swear that the battle of Blood River was going to break out tomorrow. However, we discuss our differences with the utmost affability, and we are grateful for the co-operation. We can jointly govern this country. We have no doubt about that, because we have proved this in the Transvaal.

One tiny matter that I simply must reply to is that relating to resort facilities. A Cabinet decision has been taken—it is recorded in Hansard—to the effect that, where applicable, resorts are transferred to own affairs. For that reason the Government is transferring all public resorts to own affairs administrations at the moment.

Scandalous!

This relates to all resorts except Roodeplaat which, as hon members rightly remarked, is being transferred to the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates because it is being run as two resorts for Coloureds and Indians. The other resorts are being transferred to own affairs administrations and are being run by an autonomous board at present. At the moment members of this board are in the process of being appointed by the Administrator, but shortly they will be appointed by the respective boards. That is the situation there. I merely want to state that no State funds are being utilised for these resorts, of course. They are self-sufficient and are showing a profit. Any improvements introduced there are financed from the profits they make.

Mr Chairman, thank you very much for the opportunity I have had to speak here. It was a privilege to have learned of hon members’ problems and their interest in hospital services. I ask hon members to return to the Houses of which they are members and to make every effort they can to help us obtain the necessary funds. Without funds we cannot furnish the standard of hospital services that we would like to furnish. Help us, as an Executive Committee, together with our hon Administrator, with our plea, because as far as this matter is concerned, we try to do our best at all times.

Mr Chairman, I take it the hon MEC, Mr Kirstein, will not hold it against me if I do not speak about his responsibility, since most hon members have discussed this matter with him already.

I want to link up with previous speakers and extend my sincere good wishes, and those of the NDM, to the hon the Administrator on the preparations he is making for his retirement. I hope that he and his wife will have a very enjoyable time. It has been my privilege to have known him for a long time. He is a man of integrity who has been able to occupy his post with distinction. We wish him everything of the best.

Before discussing a few other matters here, I just want to take this opportunity of referring to the speech of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly and his conduct yesterday and today. He referred to Van Wyk Louw whose work is being used too frequently as an Afrikaner Bible these days. In quoting Van Wyk Louw, we frequently neglect to distinguish between the great fruitful periods of nationalism, about which he wrote, ie the period in the late thirties, early forties and then in the late fifties, early sixties. It is almost as if this Afrikaner Bible which is Van Wyk Louw—if hon members will excuse me for making this comparison—has an old and a new testament. We can have recourse to it, no matter what our political standpoints are or what our colour as Afrikaners happens to be. We do not only find White Afrikaners having recourse to those writings. I think it is important for us to read N P van Wyk Louw’s work as a whole and acquaint ourselves with his message before we so conveniently make use of it, as the Leader of the Official Opposition did.

Secondly I am also grateful, to a certain degree, for the Official Opposition’s conduct yesterday when they rightly protested against the present disregard for the opposition in the parliamentary system. I do not want to go into that in detail, but the fact is that the allocation of time was made at the request of hon members in the parties before it was decided that this extended committee would sit in Pretoria. The requests about which the NP argued here cannot be related to the allocation of time which has been made here today. Their protest yesterday was positive. It shows that protest has a rightful place in democratic action and that it is not limited to the so-called left-wing radicals in politics. Protest must again take its rightful place in politics.

I therefore want to associate myself at once with hon members who lodged their objection here. Even if one’s politics were limited to protest, without this becoming part of the political scene as a whole, one can still be organised and positive and simultaneously fulfil one’s obligations. Anyone has every right to do so.

You can probably walk out again!

No, I do not intend to walk out today.

I want to express my antipathy towards this morning’s conduct. I think it was inappropriate, and you, Mr Chairman, gave your ruling on that matter.

I now come to Vote No 7, and here I want to turn to the hon MEC, Mr Olaus van Zyl. He has also been a friend of mine for years. He is a very competent individual, and I am grateful to him, but at the same time sympathetic towards him owing to the task with which he has been entrusted. It is a good man who has been appointed to that post, and it merely goes to prove the old adage: “From Randburg one always gets something good”, even if the politics there are wrong.

I want to refer to the memorandum presented to us here and to a certain statement contained in the memorandum. I take it that the memorandum was tabled here under the direction, or at least the control, of Mr Van Zyl. I want to refer to two concepts discussed in the memorandum. The one is the concept of the broadening of the democratic base, in those instances in which this is linked directly to representation. Elections are given as fundamental to the broadening of the democratic base. That is a straightforward point of view; I want to congratulate the Executive Committee on that and hope that they can convey that concept to the central Government. The other concept involves the devolution of power. This is linked to the removal or diminution of central Government control over lesser authorities. That is also a straightforward point of view, and we are very grateful for that.

†What seems to be developing in our politics is a sort of deracialising of executive control. It has certainly nothing to do with the broadening of democracy or democracy in any way. Deracialising executive control has nothing to do with representation and people representing constituencies.

The second reference to the memorandum is related to the rent boycott—the statement there that rent boycotts seem to be led by intimidation. Regarding people who either refuse or neglect to pay rent, I do not believe that denotes what the position actually is today. Intimidation is certainly no longer the major cause of the neglect to pay rent.

*It seems as if what is happening is not so much an organised boycott, but rather the fact that the tenants are simply not paying rent. It is also disturbing that 70% of the current rent and service fees are being collected. This means that 30% of the monthly account is being added to already accumulated losses. I trust that something will be done about this. The obvious thing is to contact the people concerned—not the authorities, but the community organisations—to negotiate about the payment of the rent. I think that is much easier. I think that the only place where a spirit of boycotting still prevails is in Soweto. To the extent that one can deal with that state of affairs there, I believe—and here I associate myself with what the hon the Administrator said about this—this could also have positive effects in other areas.

I want to come to the next point—that is the actual point I should like to discuss—and that is the question of land. Making land available for housing is a top-priority item. There is a problem, however, with the distinction between an overall policy and so-called executive policy. In this regard let me refer once more to the opening address of the hon the Administrator.

†At a recent conference of Lawyers for Human Rights in Pretoria, sponsored by the Faculty of Law at the University of Pretoria, Professor Richard Tomlinson delivered a paper in which he quoted Development Bank figures as well as figures made available by the SA Institute of Race Relations through Colleen McCaul, and in which he said that 56% of South African Blacks were totally unable to make any contribution towards housing. This figure of 56% refers to households whose monthly income is less than R300. If that is so, the priority is certainly not the availability of expensive housing for affluent and wealthy people. That could be dealt with under the Group Areas Act. It is indeed the responsibility of the Government and of the State, to see to collective services for the poor, and to the needs of the poor. The real priority is the availability of land for people who cannot afford sites at all.

*Land situated in close proximity to job opportunities should be designated for people living in squatter camps. The authorities will have to accept responsibility for basically making this land available free of charge. For that purpose the Government will have to make land available in a kind of pool, whether it likes the idea or not. Continuing with a policy which is opposed to squatting by simply putting people to flight, like a flock of pigeons are put to flight and kept in the air by shotgun blasts, can never work. The pigeons must come back to roost.

That is not our fault.

That is unfortunately the way things are done, because land is simply not made available.

The hon member for Houghton referred to the Oukasie case. She referred to the change that has taken place—from a town to what is basically an emergency camp, which is the position there at present … [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, yesterday I spoke here on the Group Areas Act. I want to take it a bit further today and discuss the proclamation of so-called “Coloured areas” under the Vote of the Administrator. As I said yesterday, we are pushed away by the Group Areas Act out of the centre of Johannesburg and the neighbouring areas and taken to Coloured areas where we have vast problems with the proclamation of these areas.

Let us take Klipspruit West itself as an example. For the past 10 years it has been waiting for proclamation. Every six months the Johannesburg City Council applies to the hon the Administrator for an extension of six months. This has been going on for 10 years. I am now asking the hon the Administrator to step in and to find out why the Johannesburg City Council is asking for a postponement of the proclamation every six months.

Then there is an area like Noordgesig. This area has been unproclaimed for the past 52 years. The proclamation of an area means a great deal to our people. It means that a person will be able to receive a housing subsidy and a person who wants to obtain a loan from a building society will be able to do so. If an area is not proclaimed, none of this is possible. We cannot even have a church build in the Klipspruit West area because of the proclamation issue. Créches and shopping centres also cannot be built. We cannot tolerate this problem any longer. I would like the hon the Administrator to tell us how far they are with the proclamation of Riverlea Extension 2 which is also a problem to our community.

I now want to move on to Vote 6: Roads and Bridges. The road P186-1 is a very busy road, separating two residential areas from each other as well as an industrial area from a residential area. During the past four months there have been eight deaths on that road and about 16 serious accidents. These were all people who wanted to cross the road to go to work or to visit family on the other side. I have asked the province to investigate the possibility of putting up two footbridges over the road, as well as a security fence to prevent children from throwing stones at the cars. If a car should brake while travelling at a speed of 120km/h one can imagine what will happen. We must serious consider erecting a footbridge to connect the two residential areas, as well as a second footbridge to connect the industrial area and the residential area.

They will drop stones form the bridge!

This may sound like a joke, but I have asked for a safety fence to be erected there.

†There used to be a security fence but province decided to remove it. Now it is necessary to put it back—not only for the safety of the people who want to cross the road but also for the safety of a motorist travelling along the road. The hon the Administrator may even pass along that road while on holiday after his retirement and one of the stones may hit him. That will not be so funny.

Thank you for the warning!

I also want to address Vote 4: Hospital Services. I want refer specifically to the discrimination existing in ambulance services. When one phones for an ambulance, the first question one is asked is whether one is Black or White. If one is Black, one is given another number to call. The ambulance takes three to four hours—and sometimes up to eight hours—to get to a patient.

That cannot be true!

Every time one phones they say that they are busy and that one has to wait.

In Annadale there was an ambulance service that was run by the province but it was taken away and it now falls under the Johannesburg City Council area. For an ambulance to come from Johannesburg is so bad that one has to phone for an ambulance today if one knows that one is going to need it tomorrow. When these ambulances do arrive eventually they are not fully equipped which causes other problems. People die because of the bad situation of the ambulance service. I therefore want to ask the hon the Administrator to take a serious look at that situation. The ambulance services should be the same for everybody because sickness and accidents do not distinguish skin colour. The same applies to doctors. They are not in the first place treating people of different colour but patients who are ill. They treat an illness and they do not notice the colour of the patient’s skin. The ambulance services should not be any different.

I now come to the problem of hospital services. I asked the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning a question on hospital services. The hon the Minister did not want to read out his answer in Parliament but decided to send it to me in writing. He said that there were no White hospitals that fell under the province. I can show the hon the Administrator his answer— I have it on my bench. I do not believe that there are no White hospitals that fall under the Administration of the province of Transvaal. When one tries to ask the hon the Minister a further question on that he says that he received the information from province. It is clear that either the province did not do its work or the hon the Minister is telling a lie. The hon the Administrator must please look into the matter.

The hospital services must be available to all the population groups. Let us take the provincial hospital at Vereeniging as an example. The people from Vereeniging have to travel all the way to Coronation which is a long distance away. It costs R80 per ambulance from Rust Ter Vaal to Coronation. Ninety percent of the people of Rust Ter Vaal who may need an ambulance are from the low-income group. Such persons must now try to get to a hospital that is far out of Johannesburg while there is a provincial hospital within the Vereeniging area but it is only for Whites.

The idea of having a separate ward for Coloureds and Indians is also not acceptable. We must share the available facilities to avoid further costs and to lessen the financial burden of hospital outlays.

Mr Chairman, I want to talk about various subjects, viz the activities of the Department of Works, local government, roads and the administration of this committee. In the first place I want to agree with the hon member for Klipspruit West by saying that there is an urgent need for extra land for the other population groups in our province. I want to add, however, that the problem does not reside with the NP, because recently I myself have done my best to get land for Indian occupation in the area on the East Rand. There were delays because of the disputes in the House of Delegates, and we struggled to get this land made available.

I also agree with the hon member about the question of footbridges, but then I also agree with the hon the Administrator that stone-throwing is a problem. I was a victim in the Cape myself at one stage. We who use the Cape roads know exactly how dangerous it can be.

Before I come to the administration, I want to put certain questions to my colleague with reference to the politics we have heard here since yesterday. I want to ask the two additional Houses, in particular, which party in the House of Assembly should receive the credit for the fact that these two Houses can take part in the debate with us today.

It is our right!

We agree that it is the people’s right, and that is what the NP fought for. It is the NP that ensured that. Had it depended on the PFP, we would have had a system of one man, one vote.

What is wrong with that?

In that case we would have been living in a Marxist state, where we would not have been able to debate the points that were raised today.

The people would have decided on that.

Had one listened to the PFP, one would only have been able to take points of order, as we have seen. That is how we have come to know this party over the years in which we have shared the system with them.

Had it depended on the CP, I wonder what the hon member for Waterberg would have done for the other communities. Where would they have been today? Would the hon members have been able to meet in this Chamber today?

But where did he cut his teeth, politically speaking?

We agree with that too, and that is why the hon member must concede that we have shaken off the racists in the NP.

[Inaudible.]

I want to ask that hon member to give me a chance, because the NP worked hard to get him here. The NP did not work hard for hon members to come here simply to make interjections or take points of order. The hon member must participate in this Committee and its business. That is why we in the NP are grateful to have hon members here today.

Do you expect us to say “Thank you, Master”?

No, we are not telling hon members to say “Thank you Master”. The hon members are in the Committee as equal partners with us today. That is why we are telling hon members that they must be part of the Committee and that they must make proposals and express their standpoints so that we can debate them in a democratic way. The system is not in its final form or as we want it yet, and that is why we want hon members to participate in it to help us to refine and perfect the system.

What have we experienced during the past day or two? The racists, who split away from us, held protest meetings about hon members’ colour. They turned their backs on hon members once again this morning and said that they did not want to acknowledge those hon members as South Africans. The people who do acknowledge those hon members as South Africans are sitting in this Chamber. Since the hon the State President took power in this country, 102 members of Parliament have been elected to the House of Assembly by the Whites.

It took almost 40 years to achieve that.

During the past 10 years, 102 of the 133 hon NP members in the House of Assembly have been elected to the House of Assembly under the leadership of the man who has done the most ever for the other population groups in the country.

We shall say “Thank you, Master”!

The hon members need not say thank you. The White voters who sent us to the House of Assembly gave us a mandate. That mandate is in accordance with what hon members want. They acknowledge the rights of the other groups in this country and they say: “Work at it!” That is why we are asking hon members to co-operate with us.

That is yesterday’s politics, however, and the politicians who walked out of here this morning are yesterday’s politicians. They are conducting the same politics. We ask hon members to come along with us. Let us conduct the politics of today and tomorrow.

When I come to today and tomorrow, I want to say that I have a few matters that I want to debate here. A number of speakers referred to matters that affected a department of which we are not always aware, viz the Department of Works. I think it would be a good thing to say something about the Department of Works.

In the first place I want to congratulate Mr Arbee, MEC, on his election as chairman of that committee. We came to know him, as a member of the standing committee of Parliament, as someone who makes his mark. I want to say that we are proud of him. We are proud of the fact that people like him have joined the Executive Committee of the Transvaal. They are people who work very hard. I want to congratulate him sincerely and to tell him that he is already making his mark in Pretoria.

I now want to take a brief look at what the committee does. The Department of Works has to implement the Budget before us. This department has nine branches and renders services to the remotest areas in the province of the Transvaal. The Budget has, inter alia, R209 million in respect of the Department of Works and approximately R180 million in respect of the Department of Education and Culture which has to be spent. If one compares these two amounts, one sees what an important role the Department of Works plays with regard to finance.

This department is responsible, among other things, for the maintenance of the administration’s buildings. I think that is one of the greatest assets created for the province over many years. The Executive Committee must please keep a close watch on those assets. With the present cost of replacing buildings, it is extremely important for a programme of repairs to take place on a regular basis. I want to request that serious consideration be given to the periods between maintenance visits. Previously these periods were short, but I have been informed by certain sources that at the moment it takes approximately 12 to 14 years between visits, whereas it used to be seven years. I want to appeal to the Executive Committee to take a serious look at this matter. If it is possible, there must be shorter periods between visits. I believe that the older a building gets, the shorter the period between maintenance visits should be. An older building needs more maintenance and supervision.

It is very much like a car or a road. We have heard so much about roads. It reaches its point of flexibility, and once it has passed that point, one cannot return it to its original form. Then it costs much more to maintain such an old building or road than it would have to replace it. That is the only way in which one can protect the existing assets of the province and I request that a very careful watch be kept on this.

†I believe that the replacement costs are too ghastly to contemplate.

*If I can strengthen the cause of the responsible officials with this speech, I also want to tell the Executive Committee that if they need larger amounts for maintenance and repairs, they will have the support of the Committee as it is assembled here today.

We are living in a period of important discussions about privatisation. This automatically leads to the following question: Are there certain activities of the Department of Works which could perhaps be privatised? When I look at my own town, I see that even on the level of local management there are things which could be privatised should the local authority decide to do so. When one sees at what enormous expense people spend weeks on laying pavement bricks, and one realises that this can be done by the private sector within a day or two, one tells oneself that that is one of the things that can be privatised.

I see that an amount of R9,8 million is being budgeted for fuel, electricity, water, etc. I want to ask whether any schemes are in operation to monitor the economical use of these facilities. If not, I want to make an urgent request that this be looked into. Water and electricity are among the authorities’ greatest expenses at the moment.

With regard to salaries and wages, I want to ask whether sufficient money has been budgeted for a stable work force. I also want to ask whether the Advocate-General should not be given an opportunity to investigate corruption which may be taking place in local authorities. I feel that an urgent inquiry is necessary to determine whether or not we should start using the Advocate-General’s powers to investigate potential corruption on the level of local government.

Lastly I want to refer to the road system in the PWV area in the region of the East Rand. Should we not take another look at the PWV-15? Is that road still necessary? That route was designated between 15 and 20 years ago. I believe that if we instituted an enquiry, we would find that as a result of the decentralisation of industries that road was no longer necessary. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to address the Committee on Vote 7: Community Services. Kindly permit me to make a few remarks, by way of introduction, about the events of yesterday and today. Those of us in the House of Assembly have come to know the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition as a man who does not say what he means, and who also does not mean what he says. He tried to assert here yesterday that he had obtained more than 300 000 votes in the Transvaal, but that he had only been given some 40 minutes of the time allocated for speeches. I then sat and thought to myself that I only received 3 500 votes in Hillbrow—and even then people maintain that there are a few phantom votes among them—and I was given 10 minutes. It is either a case of the CPs Whips being unable to negotiate on their behalf or of the independent members being very highly thought of. I naturally believe that the latter is the case.

†Mr Chairman, allow me to address you on a very sensitive and a very serious issue in Hillbrow which has become a major problem in the area, namely the twilight kids—better known as the street kids of Hillbrow. In a paper titled “Street children: Dropouts or survivors?” read by Gill Swart at the Rand Afrikaans University she said that the streetchildren are not only running away from abusive people and situations but they are also searching for people who will empathise with them and for situations where they will be able to reformulate their human dignity.

These street children are mainly male minors with no apparent fixed abode. Their means of support is derived from begging and pilfering and acting as parking attendants. A growing number of these minors are living and sleeping on the streets of Hillbrow and one can imagine that this has created serious problems for the business community in the area as well as for the residents. The business community now complains that these children are pestering pedestrians for money. They also pester motorists who are parking their cars for money to look after the vehicles. The public often interpret this as meaning that their cars will not be safe if no money is produced.

*Some of Hillbrow’s businessmen have already physically removed some of these mainly Black children from in front of their business premises, because it is bad for their business in the area. They say that customers are being put off by it and that visitors are no longer coming to Hillbrow. I have already said umpteen times that if one has not been to Hillbrow, one has not been to South Africa. We cannot allow these young children to pose a threat to law and order in the area.

The sociological influence of these young children is a heart-breaking story, but they are often exploited by the criminal element in Hillbrow. It is even said that a system of “bussing” is taking place whereby these young children are being driven into Hillbrow to beg and the parents come and pick them up again late in the evening or in the early hours of the morning. Hon members can imagine what sociological problems this is creating for us in Hillbrow.

†Sir, without control, education and discipline the children under discussion will have to resort to illegal means in order to survive. It is also being said that if these children were White, this situation would not have been allowed to develop. Disturbing reports have also been received about adults bringing children from Soweto to Hillbrow to make a living on the streets of Hillbrow.

*I have already given hon members an example of this. Those organisations involved in the efforts to uplift these young children and to provide them with accommodation rely mainly on private support when it comes to funds. There are two of them in Hillbrow, namely Process—which has now amalgamated with Boys Town—as well as Twilight Children. Through the Chair I should like to address the hon MEC, Mr J S A Mavuso, whom I should like to tell that I believe we shall also have to take some drastic steps in respect of these young children. Both of these organisations complain that they have already asked for more land. They have the funds. They have two houses in Hillbrow. Boys Town specifically has a house in which they are accommodating the young children and feeding them, as well as providing them with clothes and training them. It is actually ironic that they transport the young children from Hillbrow to Soweto to attend school there and that in the afternoon they are transported back to Hillbrow. I asked a person at Boys Town how such an unheard-of situation worked. The people stay in Hillbrow and they live in Hillbrow, but the young children go to Soweto for their schooling. Then they come back to Hillbrow. The person told me that they had already spoken to literally everyone apart from the hon the State President. However, they have not received any land and they have not received any co-operation from anyone either. I want to ask whether we cannot make an effort to have land made available. I know that Boys Town was told that it could have some land in the Magaliesberg. That land has not been allocated yet. If only we could make land available where it could erect a proper institution with the necessary infrastructure, then I believe we would, for the most part, be able to solve the problem.

Secondly I also want to ask that we render financial assistance to these institutions. I think this is important, because I think it is important that we should prepare our children properly, because the future of South Africa lies in their hands. I therefore want to make an appeal that a small part of the appropriation be earmarked for these children. This is important to everyone, regardless of the colour of his skin. Regardless of cultural background, we cannot afford to allow certain children to be either privileged or deprived. Had it been White children who were faced with the same problem, I can assure hon members that steps would have been taken immediately. As far as these Black children are concerned, they simply remain “twilight kids”. I therefore make an earnest appeal, for the sake of Hillbrow and of South Africa, as well as for the sake of good relations and attitudes in this country. Please take a serious look at this problem and please help us in this regard.

Mr Chairman, following on points made yesterday by the hon member for Germiston and earlier on by the hon member for Boksburg, I must concede that the NP played a meaningful role in getting people of colour into Parliament. However, that does not necessarily mean that those people of colour in Parliament have to give tacit approval to NP policies.

Of course not!

Nobody asked you to do that!

Please allow me to answer some of those hon members who wish to interject. I quote from the Sunday Star of 22 May 1988 in regard to what the hon Leader of the National Party, the hon the State President, has to say about the National Party:

In the same publication the hon the State President goes further, and I quote:

Any party that is in power must accept a certain amount of criticism. Likewise the hon MECs, who are political appointees, must accept a certain amount of criticism. Therefore, when people take umbrage at this, they should realise that these are the structures we use to vent our grievances.

They also have the right to answer.

It works both ways.

That is democracy.

I do not deny that. That is democracy.

Thank you.

This extended sitting is also an artificial, cosmetic and distorted picture of what democracy is all about, because the majority of the inhabitants of this country are not represented here.

We are working on it!

Far too slowly! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I would like to address the Vote on Hospital Services, upon which much has been said. I do not see the hon MEC in charge of hospital services. [Interjections.] I would like to say that the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development is on record in Hansard as having said in the House of Representatives that the Lenasia Hospital is an embarrassment to everyone. Earlier on I heard the hon MEC in charge of hospitals say that a heavy burden is being placed upon the Baragwanath Hospital and that the facilities there are overutilised. That is all the more reason why the Lenasia Hospital ought to be put into operation.

That was yesterday—not today.

Yesterday or the day before. However, he also made the point that the House of Delegates has insisted that the Lenasia Hospital become an own affair. I cannot remember the House of Delegates at any time requesting such a thing. We are aware that medicine and illness do not come in doses of racial connotation. No realistic person in the House of Delegates, including the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare, would ask for the Lenasia Hospital to become an own affair. That would be a further entrenchment of the warped system of apartheid. Perhaps the hon MEC in charge of hospital services ought to look into that and give us a clear answer.

I would also like to comment on the Vote of the hon the Administrator, which was mentioned yesterday by the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture in the House of Delegates as regards the unification of Lenasia. In order to explain this I have to illustrate the problem so that hon members have an idea as to what is happening.

In Lenasia we have Extensions 1 to 7, which fall under the jurisdiction of the Johannesburg City Council. Then there is Lenasia Extension No 8 right up to Lenasia South and Grassmere, falling under the jurisdiction of now defunct peri-urban board. Between Extensions 7 and 8 we have an imaginary line—just one road. Those people living under the jurisdiction of the Johannesburg City Council pay lower tariffs insofar as electricity and water are concerned, as opposed to those living under the jurisdiction of the peri-urban board, who pay higher tariffs.

Allow me to qualify that by saying that there is a street with the Peri-Urban Board on the one side and the Johannesburg City Council on the other. Should a person living under the jurisdiction under the Johannesburg City Council die, R80 will have to be paid at the cemetery for his burial. However, at the death of a person living under the jurisdiction of the Peri-Urban Board, R800 will have to be paid for him to be buried in the same cemetery. These are the discrepancies that exist in Lenasia. It is even expensive for people of colour to die these days. There is talk about negotiations between the Johannesburg City Council and the province regarding the unification of Lenasia. We have been hearing this for the past five to six years, yet to date we have no concrete, clear-cut answer.

The proclamation of townships was also raised and we have the same situation in Lenasia’s Extensions Nos 9, 10, 11 and Lenasia itself. There are no answers. Public servants are living there and losing out on subsidies, yet nobody appears to be able to give us an answer.

The other Vote I would like to address, is Vote 6: Roads and Bridges. I refer in particular to the construction of the Grassmere Tollgate Plaza between Vereeniging and Johannesburg. Tollgates, in effect, are constructed to collect a toll from persons commuting from one municipality to another. The tollgate which is being constructed at Grassmere will not be collecting that kind of toll, because the people living in the affected areas—Lenasia South and all its extensions, Ennerdale and the area south of Johannesburg—are victims of the Group Areas Act. Theirs is not a situation where they can move into a residential area of their choice. They have been put there by the obnoxious Group Areas Act and now they have to be taxed even further as communities which are already overtaxed, in order to travel to and from Johannesburg. Of these people 92,2% work in Johannesburg and its environs.

Is that a way to keep you out of Johannesburg?

That may well be the intention.

The hon member for Klipspruit West and I have held public meetings in this area with organisations and we have a mandate from the organisations that were represented at those meetings. We have used every available forum and every available structure to highlight the injustices that are going to be done to these communities with the erection of the Grassmere Tollgate Plaza. Sensing that we have failed, the communities from that area have requested us to throw aside negotiation politics and to take up protest politics. They have asked the hon member for Klipspruit West and myself to join them in a protest march on that tollgate. We have written a joint letter to the hon the State President and the hon the Minister of Law and Order. I want to state quite clearly that the two of us have decided collectively that we are prepared to face whatever consequences would result from such a protest under the state of emergency. We have exhausted every possible avenue to get a private company which is constructing the tollgate to move that tollgate 250 metres away from its present site.

I do not believe that the province does not have an important role to play. It may be said that it is a national issue, but that road is a provincial road. At some time or other the province must have been consulted about the erection of that tollgate. [Interjections.]

In summing up, all I want to say …

For heaven’s sake, do not blame us for everything! [Interjections.]

You are going to retire—you do not have to worry. [Interjections.]

That is not correct. Find out what the facts are. [Interjections.]

… is that if that tollgate is not moved, there may be very serious political repercussions. [Time expired]

Mr Chairman, I follow gladly on the hon member for Lenasia Central. May I perhaps start on a personal note? Mr Chairman, you and I have known each other for a long time and we have actually been friends for a long time. This is the first occasion upon which I have spoken under your chairmanship in a statutory legislative body. I believe that when I talk about the whole concept of this meeting, I regard it as a curate’s egg; there are good parts and there are bad parts. However, there are many good parts.

You are the bad part.

Well, I will come to the hon member and the rotten part just now. [Interjections.] Sir, I therefore say that that is one of the good parts and I actually think that in this curate’s egg there are more good parts than bad parts. [Interjections.]

Order!

Sir, this is a deliberate attempt by an hon Whip to waste my time.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is it parliamentary to refer to an hon member of this Committee as being “rotten”?

This is your stunt—we know it. It is your stunt. [Interjections.]

Order! Did the hon member refer to that hon member as “rotten”?

Yes, Sir, I did. He referred to me as the bad part. I said that he was rotten. I will withdraw that remark in order to carry on. However, we all know what he is.

Order! The hon member may continue.

We all know what he is. [Interjections.]

After this distraction I would like to continue with what I want to say. I have come to this Committee with considerably mixed feelings. I look back upon 16 years of being in the provincial council. Those 16 years hold many pleasant memories. They include, as the hon MEC for hospital services will perhaps be pleased to hear, many conflicts and debates with the then hon member of the executive committee in charge of hospital services. They include an appeal 20 years ago for another hospital in Soweto. Twenty years ago I made that appeal. These memories include the statements made in regard to the Johannesburg General Hospital when it was on the drawing board and it was being planned. Warnings were then given and today I could say: I told you so.

However they include many happy memories of what a provincial system is all about. When I am critical, it is because I believe that that is my job. I am critical because I believe that is what an opposition’s function is. However, that does not mean that I am not appreciative of the work that the hon the Administrator and the Executive Committee are doing. Therefore I want to join in the good wishes to the hon the Administrator on his retirement. He knows the respect in which I hold him.

However, it should also be understood—and perhaps the hon member for Boksburg should listen—that many of us are very jealous of the privileges of Parliament. Many of us are steeped in the traditions of Parliament and we would like to have them preserved. Where those traditions of Parliament are under threat and where they are being jeopardized, one should expect those of us who are true parliamentarians to endeavour to maintain them right until the end. That is what we believe in.

However, I am unhappy, and I want to tell the hon member for Boksburg and certain of his colleagues that they have sought to turn this into some kind of a debate in which they can attack other political parties on motives which I believe are suspect. Because of this I believe it is necessary to make some comments of a different nature to what, in fact, had been contemplated by me.

One thing which I think is important and which must be said here today is that we are listening to and engaging in debate here with people who actually have suffered and are suffering under discriminatory laws. I happen to believe, because I myself have in my own life suffered under discrimination, that the only people who can really speak with feeling and emotion about discrimination are those people who are subjected to it. That is what is important about this whole meeting. They can speak with authority. They can speak as the people who actually know at first hand what discriminatory legislation means.

One of the things that has to be understood in South Africa is the fact that by changing laws and removing discrimination one is not, in fact, doing anyone a favour but oneself. People are entitled, and have a right not to be discriminated against. It is not asking for favours. [Interjections.]

The tragedy about what is happening here is that there are some people who do not want to debate at all with people of another colour. They want to talk to themselves, and now they are not even here; they have gone. There are other people who reject the pleas which in many cases—I think in every case—are made from the heart in regard to the plight of their people, and there are yet other people who treat them with a degree of paternalism which I do not think is acceptable in this day and age. [Interjections.]

I want to say here and now that there is, in fact, a very simple choice in South Africa. Either we debate with the representatives of all the people of South Africa on an equal footing in the legislative bodies in this country, or the alternative is to meet in the streets and in the bush. Those people who are rejecting the first option and who are unwilling to debate on an equal footing—and I stress the word “equal”—in the legislative bodies of this country, are driving people to the streets and the bush. They have to bear the responsibility for the disastrous consequences that will flow from that situation.

There is one other thing I want to say in this regard. Many people are very precious about who in South Africa is entitled to speak for the people who are being discriminated against. I am not entitled to do so. I represent only the voters of Yeoville, who have elected me. However, there are people present here who are entitled to do so and those precious people outside who believe that they are the only ones who can speak for those people in South Africa who are being discriminated against, are making a mistake because the reality is that there are people here who have the authority, the right and the sincerity to speak for those people. [Interjections.] That is something the people outside this Committee must also take heed of and must understand.

The concept of this Committee in itself, being made up of a group of MPs who meet with the Executive Committee and the Administrator in order to debate for a very short period of time the problems which confront the province, almost as a substitute for the old Provincial Council, is not an acceptable one. It is not acceptable to me and I do not think it is acceptable to the majority of the people in South Africa. I am sorry to have to say so. It may be an interim measure, and I concede that it probably is only an interim step. However, we have to look at where provincial government is, in fact, headed and where it should be headed in South Africa.

We now have a multiplicity of bodies. We not only have Parliament but together with Parliament we have general affairs and own affairs. We have the provinces. We have the regional services councils. We are also going to have regional bodies and regional elections in terms of the National Council Bill, or whatever its name may be. We have expanding local authorities, and I believe that a rethink is required in respect of the whole concept of provincial government because we need a legislative body which is properly elected and which may perhaps not be based on the same geographical boundaries as the present provinces but rather on a regional basis, at which elected representatives may discuss the very things we are discussing today. I do not believe that an MP coming to a Committee for two days is a substitute for a provincial councillor. I do not believe that. I believe we have to move in another direction in order to do this. [Interjections.]

I personally believe that new provinces should logically be afforded maximum powers; that they should have safeguards for the individual and for groups built into their own structures; and that they should be so structured that they may eventually form units in a new federally or even confederally structured South Africa.

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

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

Order! The hon member may proceed.

Thank you. I am indebted to the hon Whip.

The rotten guys are not so bad!

Some of you are not bad, I concede that! [Interjections.]

I should also like to deal with another issue in the time I have left at my disposal, and that is the question of provincial taxation. We are forever hearing that there is a shortage of money. The question of provincial taxation has been a bone of contention for as long as I can remember, and I first went to the province in 1958. The hon MEC in charge of hospital services says he does not have the money to open a hospital. We could argue with him that it is a question of priorities. We could argue with the executive that it is a question of priorities, but the sources of revenue in regard to the province are something that need to be looked at very carefully.

When we take a look at the situation, we find that out of the total budget of some R3,243 billion, only R291 million is derived from own sources, and that represents 9% of the total figure. Moreover, it is remarkable that out of the nine sources of revenue, excluding those odd bits and pieces which only amount to some R60 000, five are related to horse racing in one way or another. Of the other four, one relates to fines and forfeitures and three relate to licences for motor vehicles, dogs, fish and game. This is a ridiculous situation because in fact, all that is happening is that they are waiting annually for a hand-out from the central Government. Moreover, if they do not receive enough money from the central Government they cannot do the things they have to do. Therefore, we can criticise them in regard to priorities and how they spend their money but we should not really criticise them. We should criticise the MPs who sit behind them, and their Government, for not giving them enough money.

Looking at this new provincial structure, I want to ask whether the time has not arrived for us to do away with these sources of revenue, because it really does not make any sense that this province should rely on horse racing in order to conduct its affairs.

Dog licences amount to R120 000. Why do we not privatise this function and entrust the control of dogs to the SPCA? There are so many things we could look at in this regard and I should like to make an appeal that we take another look at the whole structure of finance in this regard.

In the very short space of time I still have at my disposal, I should like to deal briefly with two other matters. The first of these is the question of nurses, hospital services and the announcement by the State that health services posts are all to be abolished if they have not been filled. I think that is a disgrace. I think that anyone who has been to any hospital—and I could take hon members to the Johannesburg Hospital which serves my constituency—will know that there is a shortage of nurses. There is a shortage of personnel. How can anyone freeze the posts that cannot be filled? It is no one’s fault that there are no people to fill those posts. Whatever else one might say about the hon MEC in charge of hospital services, it is not his fault that there are no nurses. However, if those posts are abolished how is one going to fill them? Exceptions are made in respect of other activities but exceptions are not made for essential health services in South Africa. I therefore want to register my strongest protest in respect of the abolition of those posts.

I have very little time at my disposal. Obviously one would like to cover many subjects, but I shall just say a brief word about the question of Black housing. My colleague the hon member for Houghton has dealt with this issue, as has the hon member for Randburg. To my mind it is obvious that something of a dramatic nature needs to be done in regard to housing. It is not only an input of money that is required, but also an input of effort, creativity and job creation in order to be able to build the houses, so that money may be earned and used to stimulate the economy.

With regard to those houses that are owned, I accept that a degree of pride is felt at the fact that 61 000 of the 266 000 houses have been sold. However, what about the rest? I should like to make the suggestion that those houses should actually be handed over to the building society movement in South Africa. They should be marketed by that building society movement and in fact, in the case of houses for Blacks, anyone who has occupied a house in a Black area should have that house given to him. It should be given to him without charge so that he may then obtain money from the building societies for home improvements. I think a person who has paid his rent for 15 years has, in fact, made his contribution and I should like to make the appeal that those houses should be given to the people so that they can improve them and so that we can create stability in South Africa and help to return to the path of negotiation with peace and stability in our country.

Mr Chairman, I think all hon members are aware of the fact that it is quite an experience to stand before hon members of Parliament, firstly to listen to them and then to have an opportunity to say one’s piece. I believe we have really arrived in South Africa.

The best years of my life have been spent in various capacities and in committees, sometimes operating behind the scenes. Why? In an effort to bring about the kind of situation that we are involved in today. I should like to thank Almighty God for having made that possible.

Before I deal with the question of housing and answer some questions on the subject, I should first like to highlight certain issues which have been raised here, one of them being the issue of the identification of the so-called authentic, or the right Black leaders who have to speak on behalf of us Blacks.

I should like to tell hon members a story. It was in 1973 that we in Soweto used to have what was called the “In Club” where some liberal, progressive White academics used to come and drink tea and share their views with us. It was in 1973 that we felt that we had travelled this road long enough. What we really needed to do, was to talk to the hard core Nationalists, those people who controlled the Government and with whom we could debate the fate of us all in the country because it is only when one talks to people who can cause things to happen or not to happen that one can begin to get somewhere. It was as a result of this that I became involved at one time.

This morning I saw my former boss, who at one time acted as secretary of a special sub-committee consisting of White business people from all groups, and us Blacks, which served to advise Black business. As a result of those efforts we now have organisations such as the Small Business Development Corporation.

He was also involved in what used to be called “die dinkskrum” up to 1977, which was presented by Dr Wim de Klerk. Hon members will therefore see that we have come a long way.

Having said that, it should be clear to all hon members that I have not just popped out of the magic bag of the hon the State President to be where I am. I am here simply because I have to be here due to the struggle of us Black people for involvement in the management and in the body politics of this country. I am glad that we are making that progress.

The situation in this country was bedevilled by the fact that there was very little communication. What communication there was, was the kind of communication that is couched in terms that one would call patronising. People really talked down to us because they wanted us to feel that we were lesser people than they were. However, I should like to tell hon members that my experience in the provincial executive has helped me to see things differently.

Speaking as a Black man, I am not bitter. I want to tell hon members that I believe that the present administration of the NP and its leaders are genuine in their endeavours to find solutions to this problem of working together in this country. [Interjections.]

I do not believe that trust is something one drinks like one drinks water or tea. Trust is born out of a community of experiences. We do things together; we work at things together. Now hon members know who John Mavuso is but if one were to listen to people who had never met me, one would think John Mavuso was just a rebel communist. However, I am an honourable businessman and I do not think I could be classified as a proletarian because I do not make my living that way.

I should now like to talk about housing and perhaps answer some questions.

Since the introduction of the 99-year leasehold in 1983, vast changes have taken place in the housing field. Suspicions were aroused, questions were asked and radicals shouted from the rooftops that this was yet another of the Government’s methods to mislead the masses.

Incidentally, the reintroduction of the 99-year leasehold was personally negotiated in Johannesburg in 1978 with the then Minister of Plural Relations, the late Dr Connie Mulder, who was responsible for our affairs. The two Black people who had that heart-to-heart talk with the then Minister were the late Dr Sipho Iambezi, who was then the regional chairman of Inkatha in Soweto, and yours truly, John Mavuso. I therefore came to like Dr Connie Mulder, even though, of course, his party thinks very little of me. [Interjections.]

The point I am making is that when I talk about progress, I am talking about concrete progress. In spite of the very tight economy, as all of us know, the housing business in the Black communities has become bigger and bigger.

The initial trickle of houses being built by employer companies and the never ending stream of private sector developers that have emerged have resulted in chronic shortages of land for development.

The vast majority of developers all prefer, for obvious reasons, to erect housing for the high income group and I am of the opinion that the market for this type of housing is slowly becoming saturated. To keep a proper balance the Government had to take action. Just over a year ago the Transvaal Provincial Administration took over the housing function from the Department of Development and Planning and arrangements were made to co-ordinate action undertaken by the Development Bank of South Africa, the South African Housing Trust and the National Housing Commission.

Although the Development Bank is not playing such a prominent role at present it has already approved the financing of important projects to the amount of R26,7 million during the first half of the 1987-88 financial year. The South African Housing Trust is, as hon members will know, not too modest about its projects and undertakings. It plays an important role in the provision of infrastructure and housing for the lower income group and has already approved the expenditure of some R146,2 million during the 1987-88 financial year.

I must say that several private sector developers have also contributed significantly to the provision of houses to the middle income group. Yet the most important role, in my opinion, was played by National Housing Commission. Hon members will remember that the Housing Act of 1986 was a way of providing the original committee of the National Housing Commission for each of the four provinces. The regional committee for Transvaal held its first meeting during 1987 and has functioned excellently.

The National Housing Commission approved of the spending of the following amounts during 1987-88 financial year in Transvaal: Land purchases R12,1 million; internal services for 64 000 stands, R120,8 million, external services for 7 984 stands, R30,9 million; conventional housing, R12,5 million; 3 924 self-built houses at a cost of R13,1 million; and survey costs, R1,8 million. A further amount of R9,4 million was spent on 90% housing loans.

At this juncture I would like to reply to a point raised by my old friend, the leader of the NDM party, Mr Wynand Malan, that Blacks who earn less than R300 a month cannot afford a roof over their heads. I have an answer for him from the National Housing Commission—yours truly happened also to be the one Black who served on the inter-Cabinet committee on housing consisting of the three Houses. More than half of the Black people live in the Transvaal so my constituency is much larger than perhaps those of all the hon members put together. [Interjections.] My constituency covers the whole province in spite of the fact that I did not stand for election. This is another thing that we still have to try to come to terms with. Black leadership does not consist of people who are elected through the ballot box only. In fact, in my society the majority of leaders are leaders whom one can refer to as traditional leaders. Amongst my people leadership is earned and not bought as Mr Tshabalala once learned when he paid the deposits of every member of the Sofasonke Party in 1983.

What did the Administrator say?

No, nothing is wrong. I am listening to what he is saying. [Interjections.]

African decency does not permit me to react to these remarks.

We have to live with the fact that the majority of Black leaders manage to reach leadership positions as a result of their achievements in whatever the occasion they are involved in. Hon members will have to deal with that an live with that. The First World experience of producing leaders through the ballot box will have to be balanced with that of ours which have served us very well up to this point. That is why in other African countries where the attempts to produce leaders only through the ballot box have resulted in disaster to many of those African countries.

The point I am trying to make is that to complete the picture for the 1987-88 financial year something must be said about the sale action of government-owned houses.

The figures I have here on Black home-ownership in this province indicate that when we talk of housing, the general tendency is to refer to houses—the four walls that have to be constructed—on the basis of regulations designed or determined by officials. These regulations do not take into account that perhaps those norms militate against all Blacks affording a roof over their heads. However, we as the National Housing Commission have decided as a matter of policy that people who earn less than R300 a month can be assisted on a self-help basis and can be given a loan in the form of material to the value of R6 000 as well as R1 000 to help that person to pay for labour. Therefore one will find that in the scheme of things there are practically very few people who move into the established settlements in our townships in the Transvaal who would go without a roof over their heads. This has come about as a result of the fact that we have taken that deliberate policy and it is one of the positive developments as a result of the new dispensation having included housing. It so happens that housing is my executive responsibility and therefore I know what I am talking about. Anybody who doubts my authority to speak on this and who doubts what my constituency is has my friendly invitation to arrange to visit some of the places throughout the Transvaal—starting with Soweto of course—at any hour of the day and any day of the week when I am not busy with my duties.

One of the safest tours that one could have in Soweto is when one is a guest of John Mavuso. This also holds good for any shebeen whether legal or illegal! [Interjections.] One does not have to commission any survey organisation in South Africa to find out about me and my involvement in this administration.

I would like now to give some figures in regard to houses owned by Blacks in the Transvaal. A total of 75 300 houses have been built by individual Blacks throughout the province. These houses are not included in the number of houses erected by the National Housing Commission. The number of houses built under the auspices of the National Housing Commission was 272 707. In addition, the number of houses built by developers was 23 000 and those built by employers, 3 000. In addition to this, a further 23 000 houses were built by the former board, the council or the mines. This gives us a total of 398 300 houses which are at present available in the Transvaal. Hon members are aware that more than 61 000 of the houses built under the auspices of the National Housing Commission have now been sold. I would not accept any suggestion that houses should be made available free of charge. This is once again an indication of a paternalistic approach, namely: Black people have to be given these things because we determine the size of their pay-packet!

Mr Chairman, it gives me great pleasure to follow the hon member of the Executive Committee, Mr Mavuso, and I should like to congratulate him on his first contribution in a committee meeting of this nature. His calm and dignified approach made a very favourable impression upon me.

On the other hand, the hon member for Yeoville expressed his indignation at the fact that he felt that his dignity as a parliamentarian had been impinged upon by the security regulations yesterday morning. This could well be true, Sir, but we should not only look at our personal dignity. We must also specifically bear in mind the dignity of Parliament—of which this Committee is an extension—and this includes the responsibility of every hon member of this Committee to make a constructive contribution regarding any subject or subjects that are on the table for discussion.

We understand the grievances of all of our people in this country—including people of colour—but in the first instance Parliament is not the place in which to voice personal frustrations at length. I think that Mr Mavuso was a classic example in this regard.

*Mr Chairman, in this speech I should like to place the spotlight on Vote 2 of the provincial appropriation. It deals with library and museum services.

Before I come to my speech, I should very much like to extend my hearty congratulations to the hon MEC, Mr Olaus van Zyl, on his appointment. It is a very competent man who has been appointed to this post and I want to wish him a great deal of strength and good fortune on the road ahead.

The objective of the provincial library service is to provide all inhabitants of the province with information, literature and wholesome occupation in their spare time. I maintain that no developed and/or developing person or society, whatever society it may be, can satisfy its information requirements in a meaningful way without the services of a very well-equipped library. The library must be viewed as the heart, the source of knowledge and preparation of every society. For that reason it is only logical that the importance of the province’s library services can never be over-emphasised. Although the provincial library service is doing excellent work—and this fact emerges very clearly from the reports— there are nevertheless some problem areas which in my view require urgent attention.

In the first place the prices of books, and particularly technical publications from abroad, have risen sharply. As a result, due to the availability of fewer funds, only 165 093 new books could be purchased. In 1985 the figure was 240 137 and in 1984, 307 865. This therefore represents a decrease of almost 100% over a period of two years, and that simply cannot be good for the province, which has to meet the information needs of so many people.

I do not want to draw any unnecessary comparisons in this Committee today, but I do want to point out that the Cape Provincial Library Service, which is almost the same size as that of the Transvaal, has a book appropriation which is more than twice that of the Transvaal.

Secondly, in terms of the Executive Committee’s Resolution No 1615 of October 1985, local authorities of all groups qualify for an amount of R12 772 000 by way of a capital grant-in-aid in respect of costs that have been incurred or are still to be incurred in respect of the erection of standard library buildings. During the 1988-89 financial year, however, only R350 000 of this amount was made available, due to cut-backs. This situation will have to be reviewed, because greater demands are being made on the library service today than in the past to meet the information requirements of all our people in South Africa.

Thirdly, in my opinion, an attempt will have to be made to involve the private sector to a greater extent in the financing of libraries in the Transvaal.

A fourth point I want to raise is that local authorities themselves will have to pay more attention to the expansion of their libraries, particularly in so far as technical literature is concerned.

A fifth point is that a good library service can only be maintained by well-trained, specialist staff. At present vacancies stand at 35%. I should like to hear from the hon MEC concerned what is going to be done to supplement the shortages in respect of both funds and specialist staff. In regard to this point, I want to say, for the information of my colleague, the hon member for Rust Ter Vaal, that libraries in their totality have been classified as a general affair. It is simply the prerogative of a local authority to decide for itself whether it wishes to make its library available for use by people outside its municipal boundaries or whether it is only to be accessible to its own inhabitants and ratepayers who make a contribution. I am sure that that hon member will agree with this standpoint of mine.

No, not at all!

Mr Chairman, I should just like to say a word about museum services. A curator of one of the museums in our country once said: “Museums represent the soul of a society because they teach people to have respect for the place where they live.” That, in a nutshell, is the objective of the Transvaal Provincial Museum Service, namely to preserve the country’s culture and its overall history by way of planning, collection, documentation, research and preservation, and also to make it as widely known as possible to all South Africans.

An important point in regard to the development and the running of the museums is that they represent an inhibiting factor in regard to the depopulation of the rural areas. They have, inter alia, given new life to a town such as Pilgrim’s Rest, and an entirely new commercial infrastructure has been established in the town ás a result of the tourism that has been promoted by the museum there. It has also strengthened the local authority infrastructure. The same could be said, to a lesser degree, about the Tsonga Kraal Museum near Tzaneen and the development of the Bakerville Diggers’ Museum at Lichtenburg. For that reason it would be tragic if Middelburg had to close the Botshabelo Museum because it did not receive adequate financial assistance.

These museums can stimulate tourism. A visit to a town such as the one from where I hail, Potgietersrus, is worth the trouble if one pays a visit to the Arend Dieperink Museum, which I regard as one of the gems of rural museums.

The question that may also be asked is whether there should not be closer co-operation between museums and the South African Tourist Board. I want to ask that we give attention to the possibility of having voice recorders at these large museums so that by depositing a coin in a machine people could listen in various languages to the narration about an important museum, historical place or event. Foreign visitors have already expressed the need for this to me.

It is good to know that all the museums in this country, apart from the McHardy House at Cullinan, which is not yet Open to the public, and the Ossewa-Brandwag Museum at Potchefstroom, which may only be visited by appointment, are accessible to all the inhabitants of the country.

In conclusion, I want to pay tribute to the museum service in the Transvaal, which has accomplished a great deal within a short space of time and with limited means. As a result of this good work, the Transvaal has already been able to render assistance with regard to specialised museum services to countries such as Bophuthatswana, Swaziland, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Malawi, South West Africa, Britain and even Australia. This has promoted good relations but has served particularly to broaden museological insights in general. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank you for this opportunity of being able to put my people’s case again. I referred yesterday to the remarks of some members of the governing party. I should like to repeat one of those remarks, namely: “Stop politicising hospital services”. An hon member also said that we made a display of our emotions.

Our presence in this auditorium today is of a political nature. All who are present here belong to one of the various political parties. Even the hon the Administrator belongs to a political party, the NP. That is the party which is responsible for the condition in which we find ourselves today. I made the statement yesterday that the provincial administration had already existed for 75 years and that the NP was responsible for it. Hon members then objected and said that they could not shoulder all the blame for such a long period. I shall give them a discount and say that they are responsible, as regards 40 of those 75 years, for the mess in which we now find ourselves.

Today we have separate hospitals, libraries and resorts, and this is to be extended even further— there is even talk of separate museums. I should like to know in which museum the history of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly and his party will be commemorated.

All these separate facilities make one wonder what the difference is between the CP and the NP. Surely the NP gave birth to this child, the CP. As a result of these separate facilities, we now have to pay fourfold for the same services. There are complaints that there is insufficient money, whereas we could save a great deal by sharing facilities with one another. Apartheid is very expensive and a waste of the taxpayer’s money. Together with this I want to mention that the CP also indicated that these sittings were a waste of the taxpayer’s money. They are not here today, however, but at the end of the month they will be prepared to accept their cheques.

The Executive Committee is multiracial and its members are not democratically elected. Because this Vote [falls under the department of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, I should like the message to be conveyed to him that this must be the last sitting at which the largest population group is not present, and that they should not only be represented by Mr Mavuso next year, but by elected members.

The J G Strijdom Hospital satisfies all the requirements for classification as a general hospital because the occupancy of beds is less than 51%. The remaining 49% are not utilised, but they still have to feature in the budget while the occupancy of beds at the Coronationville Hospital is over 93,28%. This really means that patients are already sleeping on the floor there because a hospital is usually full already when the occupancy of beds reaches 80%.

There is insufficient bedding at the Coronationville Hospital. If a patient receives an injection during the night, for instance, and blood gets onto the bedding, it has to remain like that until the next week when the bedding is removed. I want to add that the budget for food supplies has been cut by more than R200 000. Neither has any provision been made for the purchase or repair of hospital furniture. If there is any such provision, it is so trifling that one does not even notice it.

A further aspect I want to raise is that of the Muslim faith. I am not a Muslim myself, and I believe that the hon member for Toekomsrus will enlarge on this further if he considers it necessary. We all attach great value to our faith and we take offence when someone ridicules it. This applies to Muslims too. According to the Muslim faith, their food has to be cooked in separate utensils from those used for other denominations. They highly appreciate the fact that their meat is purchased at Muslim butcheries. A problem arises, however, when their food is cooked in the same utensils as are used for that of other faiths. The same applies to their crockery and cutlery. I should appreciate it if this matter could receive attention, even if it also meant that a Muslim was made responsible for cooking food for Muslims.

Are they looking for a type of own affairs?

That is not own affairs. [Interjections.] That is a matter of faith! There are various faith groupings among the Whites and hon member should therefore not speak about own affairs.

I thought religion formed part of own affairs.

Why do Whites not divide themselves into separate groups under own affairs in such a case? Where other racial groups are concerned, they talk about own affairs. They should divide themselves up so that they can see how few of them there are in the country! [Interjections.]

Although there is a shortage of medical personnel, excellent work is done under the circumstances. I should like to know when the posts which have already been created are to be filled. At the moment there is a deficit of R1,3 million in personnel salaries. What does the province intend doing to put the matter right?

A further staff matter is that of food supervisors. A White is immediately appointed to a permanent post, whereas a person of colour first has to be appointed to the temporary staff for a year and is only appointed to the permanent staff after that.

How does promotion take place? Whereas a White person may be promoted to the post of senior food supervisor within a year, a person of colour has to wait for four years; one had to wait even six years. In one case two persons were appointed to promotion posts at the same time. Although they had both received increases in March, the White person received back pay from March owing to the adjustments attached to the promotion post. That, then, as far as the hospital is concerned.

I now come to Vote No 7—Community Services—and to pensions for Blacks. I saw in the paper the other day that these people receive so little money; they probably get half of nothing but are permitted to draw their money only every second month. Some of them are so desperate for that money that they spend the night at the place where they have to draw it the day before it is due. Is it possible to arrange that more of these facilities be created so that this type of thing may be avoided because it is winter now and many people suffer exposure and die as a consequence?

In conclusion, I should like to tell the hon Administrator—he is not here now but he will receive the message—that I am sorry I have known him for so short a time, but I should like to wish him a peaceful retirement.

Mr Chairman, I thank you and the hon members for affording me the opportunity of addressing this historic meeting today.

I want to deal with some of the problems that emerged as hon members spoke yesterday and this morning. I think the biggest problem emanating from the discussions as far as my portfolio was concerned was the whole question of township establishment or proclamation. Let me begin by stating that it is not the procedure provided that normally causes delays in township establishment but—I want hon members to listen very carefully—the parties dealing with such applications. Most of the delays can be traced to the person applying for proclamation who does not react to requests from the Community Services Branch to provide certain basic information, to take certain actions such as preparing a general plan or to comply with the provisions of preproclamation conditions. That is what it is all about as far as township proclamation is concerned.

*Nevertheless there is an existing directive of mine, as a member of the Executive Committee entrusted with this matter, that all Coloured and Indian townships should receive preference, and I have instructed our department accordingly. I want to tell hon members that most of these applications for township establishment were submitted at the time by the former Department of Community Development. In most cases the land had not been registered in the name of the Community Development Board. Meanwhile these townships progressed fairly rapidly up to and including the approval of the Administrator.

From this stage on the progress of applications is actually out of the hands of the Community Services Branch. The person establishing the township then has to comply with all preproclamation conditions before the township can be proclaimed. As far as I am concerned, this is where delays always occur.

At present our Community Services Branch has numerous applications which were approved years ago but have not yet been proclaimed. There are also cases of the former Department of Community Development having alienated the land on which the town was to be established and of it subsequently taking years before the land was registered in the name of the Community Development Board.

There are also cases in which the land is registered in the name of the Community Development Board and the town council concerned applies for township establishment. In such a case the application cannot be concluded either before the land is registered in the name of the town council. A good example of this is the very case mentioned by the hon member for Klipspruit West.

Permit me to sketch a few of these extensions which have not yet been proclaimed in order to explain the problem situations there to hon members. I shall take as an example the Coloured township Edenpark Extension 2. I want hon members to listen very carefully. The first application was received on 6 September 1977.

That was 10 years ago!

Yes, 10 years ago.

It was considered by the Townships Board on 17 May 1979. I now want to indicate where the fault lies. The erven numbers were received from the Surveyor-General on 17 September 1979—that is to say, two years later. The Townships Board considered amendments requested by the applicant on 29 November 1979. In the same year the Roads Department approved the layout. The draft conditions of establishment were sent to the applicant on 10 July 1981. The Administrator approved the township on 28 September 1981.

On 3 July 1982 the town council requested amendments to the conditions of establishment. These amendments were approved on 6 December 1982. On 23 November 1982 the general plan was received. On 4 February 1983 the town council again requested amendments, which were approved by the Administrator on 21 April.

Subsequently the applicant requested an extension of time to comply with section 68 of the Townplanning and Townships Ordinance and the extension was granted until 28 February 1985. A further extension was requested to 30 June 1985 and still further until 31 January 1986. In this way I can enumerate a series of extensions requested by the local authority. Problems were experienced with servitudes and similar aspects. The township was then proclaimed on 20 April 1988.

Hon members will understand that we are dealing with an enormous problem here and that we are doing everything in our power to settle this matter as fast as possible.

Let me return to the hon member for Lenasia Central. As far as Extensions 10, 11 and 9 are concerned, I can sketch the problems there very briefly as well. As regards Extension 10, the application was received on 28 March 1979. [Interjections.] I shall make a copy available to the hon member. It was approved by the Administrator on 20 September 1983.

The general plan was approved on 26 January 1988. Arrangements for services are still to be made with the town council before the township register can be opened and the township proclaimed. Here are the details concerning Lenasia, Extension 11: Application received on 8 December 1978; received comment from Roads on 7 May 1980; considered by the town council on 12 June 1980; deed of transfer received on 12 June 1982; erven numbers received from the Surveyor-General on 22 July 1982; draft conditions of establishment sent out on 2 February 1983 and general plan approved on 4 June 1985. Applicant still has to comply—hon members should note this—with pre-proclamation conditions. I could continue sketching problems to members in this way.

I want to conclude, however …

With the solution.

No, do not ask us for the solution. [Interjections.]

I want to tell the hon member for Klipspruit West that unfortunately the solution does not lie with us alone but with all parties concerned.

But the Administrator is at the head; that is the problem.

I should also like to correct a statement regarding group areas. The province is not responsible for the Group Areas Act, but does deal with the issue of permits. I want to assure hon members, however, that every application is considered on merit. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, among all the compliments which the hon the Administrator has been paid, I should also like to open my heart to him. I first made the acquaintance of the hon the Administrator in the late fifties when we gave each other a tough time on the rugby field, but also served together on a history committee where he was my mentor. I retain pleasant memories ones of this. Sir, there may be administrators and other public figures at this level who can measure the achievements of their lives by the number of nameplates which have been attached somewhere on buildings, erected in parks or wherever. Nevertheless I want to say in all sincerity of W A Cruywagen that, although he was preceded by some great men, his name is to be found in more places in the Transvaal, and that is in the hearts of people. I have been involved with many people, but I do not know a single person who bears this administrator a grudge. Everyone has only the utmost praise and appreciation for the way in which he fills this position. I do not know where he figures in the number of administrators since 1910 ….

The tenth.

I want to say to him that one of the greatest administrators is retiring on 31 May 1988. This is a great moment in the history of the province of the Transvaal where the bulk of the spadework for this new dispensation we are working on has been done by him.

In the two days we have spent here together, one fact has stood out as far as I am concerned, and that was when the hon the Administrator told us yesterday that it was not their privilege to shout at one another at Executive Committee level, to insult one another, to hurt one another or even to take their jackets and leave. They are dependent upon one another to find solutions for South Africa. Does the answer lie in the fact that he need not pitch his voice against a sounding board? Does the answer lie in the fact that he need not bargain in petty self-interest? Where else is the answer to be found than in the mandate they received at this level to find answers to the problematical situation of today. We wish to commend and thank the hon the Administrator in person for this model and the final result which he will be handing to us on 31 May. His career is ending on a very high note.

This morning’s Beeld carried banner headlines that ANC members were being forced to fight against Unita. I hope hon members will not hold it against me for putting this point, but over the past two days I have gained the impression that everything which is not pro-NP is being used to get at the NP. The NP is presented as the arch-villain today. I am not oversensitive, and as a member for the Government I am not frightened of taking the blows which I receive. The point I want to make, however, is that this is not the place for such attacks. Let us be direct with one another. This is not the place to try to canvass votes for an election which may come about one day. What we have to discuss here is the way in which second-tier government should take place. It is a pity that we have experienced situations here which do not redound to the credit of the Parliament of South Africa.

I want to get to a trifling matter which grew to maturity in the Transvaal and for which I want to praise the Executive Committee. I am referring to nature conservation. I want to furnish hon members with some statistics which I obtained from an information document. There are 53 provincial nature reserves in the Transvaal.

Fifty nine.

There are 59 already. At the last calculation the surface area was 300 000 ha. Adjacent to them are 750 farms with game-proof fencing comprising an average surface area of 1 500 m2. In addition there are 450 private nature reserves which comprise approximately 1,8 million ha. All this is the final result of years of negotiation by the province of the Transvaal to retain something of the aesthetical, the god-given assets of this beautiful northern province so that succeeding generations may enjoy them too. The initiative was taken in 1979 to try to institute control measures to achieve this objective. In 1981 relevant legislation was promulgated and in this way basic standards were established and very good personnel collected. I am thinking of the 35 dedicated natural scientists, the 40 nature conservationists and the hundreds of other members of staff who are in the service.

South Africa’s revenue from tourism runs to approximately R1 billion per annum at the most conservative estimate. About R40 million alone is earned from trophy-hunters from outside the country. This is in addition to all the other money which they spend in this country. One then realises what an enormous contribution is made by marketing the RSA overseas. The RSA must be that fragment of God’s creation embodying the greatest extremes. On the one hand there are deserts and on the other the rain forests. Its diversity of plants, animals and birds makes it an exceptional part of God’s creation.

It remains the only scrap of land in the world today where the Big Five may still be found on the same patch of earth, and they are the elephant, the buffalo, the lion, the leopard and the rhinoceros. This is the only patch of land in the world where these five big ones are still to be found in the same country and the same area, and this is the result of our involvement over many years. We are speaking of a budget in this region of approximately R18 million. Of this, 68% is devoted to personnel expenses. One cannot do what one likes with the small portion which remains either.

This is the second point I want to make here. I gain the impression that the greatest single achievement of the province here is the marriage which has been effected between conservation and ownership, between the province on the one hand and the private sector on the other, without forced legislation and without any programme aimed at it. The final result has been a splendid harmony between the private sector and the province. This emerges very clearly from the report which appeared in 1988. We have attained a splendid goal in which the owner—the private individual in the Transvaal—is becoming aware of these riches in our country; where excellent training is being given and where heartening co-operation has been obtained in this regard. The private owner erects fences and builds chalets there. This makes it all worthwhile for tourism. One of our other hon members will expand on this later. We have reached a peak in the province from which we can only continue our task of persuasion in an effort to develop the Transvaal, and with it the whole of South Africa, as a beautiful tourist attraction and in an effort to sell our country in this way, something we are struggling to do politically. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I once more thank you for this opportunity to illustrate the frustrations of our people, and not my frustration. I would like to touch on one or two matters with regard to resorts and roads, but before I do that, I would like to address a point raised by the hon member of the Executive Committee, Mr Mavuso. He felt that houses cannot be given to these people, some of them who have lived in them for 40 years. It is like hiring a motor car, and if after using the motor car for 40 years one still wants to use this motor car—even though the engine is falling apart—because you cannot buy a better one anyway, nor does your salary allow you to buy a better one, the company sells that motor car to you. I do not think that is very fair.

Some of these houses have been very poorly built. They have used the cheapest material, the plaster is falling off, the roofs are rotten and the people have to keep on patching up these houses in order to have a proper home. I feel that if the matter can be viewed in the proper perspective, these houses should be given to these people.

Are you propagating socialism?

I do not believe in communism.

What about socialism?

Let me refer to one or two matters that the hon member of the Executive Committee, Dr Hoods, referred to when he spoke about the proclamation of a piece of land. I have a problem in the Northern Transvaal in Louis Trichardt. We have a small Coloured community there, and if they are indeed going to have to wait for 10 years before they get a piece of land, I cannot see how it can be developed. If it is possible, I appeal to the authorities that the machinery of proclamation should be hastened in such a way that we should not come here and decry the frustrations of our communities.

It is not all our fault, and the hon member of the Executive Committee, Dr Hoods, has explained that!

I know that, but if the hon the Administrator can use his influence, we can solve this problem. I am not pointing fingers! I am appealing … [Interjections.]

Bring a specific problem to us and we will do whatever possible. [Interjections.]

Yes, housing!

No, that is not specific enough!

That is specific—housing. I was involved in that, but I am not going to get into that now.

Mr Chairman, I would now like to get back to what I want to speak about, namely resorts in the Northern Transvaal. It is true that we have a very beautiful resort at Roodeplaat. It is developing quite fast, but it is so popular that it is overutilised. If one, for instance, looks at the pool there, especially during festive seasons, one will find that the water is no longer sky blue. One finds that the entire place is full and that everybody is using it. I would appeal that more resorts be built. Take the pool for children, for instance. The water is completely grey. It is over-utilised, every parent would like his child to swim under control and supervision, but this situation is chaotic. I am just appealing that more funds should be made available so that more facilities, especially at Roodeplaat, could be improved and extended.

I am happy that something is being done for the Coloured people in Warmbaths, Overvaal. Something is being done, and I am sure that within a short space of time things will look beautiful. Many years ago, when I was a child, Warmbaths was known as the town of carnations, and I would like to see that tradition is revived. Warmbaths was a very beautiful place until such time as they stopped providing facilities to the Indians and the Coloureds, and the carnations stopped to grow. This matter must be looked into.

At the same time, we would think that the Coloured community is just around Pretoria and Warmbaths. Pietersburg is today the capital of the far Northern Transvaal, and there one finds a large Coloured community, but there are no resorts there. I would like something to be done in the Northern Transvaal. It is indeed a necessity that the people of Pietersburg, those who cannot afford to travel to Roodeplaat, and many do, should have facilities in their own areas. Besides, Pietersburg is very picturesque—the mountains are around Pietersburg as one travels further towards the north. Much can be done there, and I believe that the provincial administration can address that question too.

Let me now come to the roads. The great road to the North has today become a road that is synonymous with death, because of the number of kombis travelling to the north and back. It would appear, however, that most of the accidents which take place there have been between Potgietersrus and Pietersburg, especially in the Ysterberg area. I know that the road is very beautiful there; it is very attractive, especially when one travels from Pietersburg to Potgietersrus, and because of the topography one travels very fast in a way.

If something can be done there I shall indeed be very happy. I also realise that much money is being collected at the tollgate at Kranskop. I shall be very happy if particularly the road between Potgietersrus and Pietersburg can be doubled. If that road is doubled we are going to cut down on the rate of accidents that involve hospitalisation, because all the injured people are taken to hospitals which is where the problem lies. If that can be done, we shall have very few accidents.

Those are national roads.

Those are not our roads; they are national roads.

Are they not provincial roads?

No.

Well, I appeal to the hon the Administrator to use his influence to address the question. [Interjections.]

I shall change the world if it is possible.

Change the world! Change the world!

Yes, I shall do it.

The road between Pietersburg and Louis Trichardt is the same. It is a death trap. The traffic on that narrow road is very heavy. Something must be done about that road as many people have died on it. People travelling to Louis Trichardt, including me, prefer to travel along the Bochum area road because it is wide and then to turn to Louis Trichardt at Vivo.

That is our road!

Is that a provincial road? Congratulations!

Safety comes first and one has to keep that in mind. Therefore I appeal to the people who have the power to attend to that problem to do so. Especially during Easter the great road to the North is very busy and it would help a great deal if it could be doubled between the Middelfontein area and Potgietersrus in good time.

Mr Chairman, permit at the outset to say that I consider it a very great honour to participate in this historic debate. I think we shall realise, only later in our history, just how historic it really was.

This afternoon I want to deal with two very important matters about which I feel very strongly and which I hope can be investigated further. Before doing this, however, I want to state five points as regards the CP’s walk-out this morning. In the first place, I think we should tell the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition that their conduct is childish. In the second place I want to say that I hope their voters take note of how they are squandering the voters’ money. In the third place, for two days they have been refusing to see to the interests of their voters in this Parliament, while receiving full remuneration. I consider it a disgrace that they also accept their daily allowance of R50 per person after having raised a very weak point of order and knowing what Mr Speaker’s ruling was in this regard. I consider this disgraceful.

The fourth point I want to put is that, in the light of this attitude of theirs, the CP may just as well delete the story from their book that they will negotiate with those of colour if they were to come to power one day, because no person of colour would negotiate with them if this is their attitude. The fifth point I want to make is that they have proved officially now that they are an official boycott party. [Interjections.]

I want to touch upon two matters today which I consider extremely important. There has already been discussion on Black housing here, but I want to speak about housing in general. In my maiden speech in Parliament I made the statement that, if we could address the backlog in housing for our less affluent people in the lowerincome groups with vigour, we would immediately solve 60% to 80% of our country’s other problems too.

It is the duty of us all to try to establish continually whether there are no better solutions. As an example I want to mention that the Government launched a self-help scheme a few years ago. I consider the self-help scheme a good one, and I am not opposed to it, but what I have to say this afternoon does not affect the self-help scheme.

This morning an hon member of the Executive Committee said here that almost 400 000 houses had been built since 1983. I want to put forward a suggestion here today which I think will make it possible for us to solve the housing problem in a very much more positive manner.

Hon members know that a Black who is involved in the self-help scheme can obtain building materials to the value of R6 000. I think this was R5 000 until a while ago. He then uses that material to start building a house for himself. I respectfully want to say, however, that the selfhelp scheme will never be able to solve the housing problem because there is such an appalling shortage.

This is why I want to make a suggestion to the hon the Administrator and all the hon members of the Executive Committee, especially those responsible for housing. Has the time not come for us to establish a central fund? We can call it the fund or the collateral fund. The Government can cooperate with the private sector, the Urban Foundation, the National Housing Commission and other private bodies that wish to participate to get at least R1 500 million into that fund. Hon members should bear in mind that the Government made R1 500 million available for housing on its own three years ago.

The amount of R1 500 million is then to be applied as follows: When a person wants to build a house, the State invests R5 000 from that fund with a building society—the Housing Act was amended last year to provide for this—as collateral for a 100% loan. The problems among the lower-income groups is that they cannot afford the deposit on a house. As the fund deposits R5 000 as collateral and leaves it there for two or three years, the builder receives a 100% building loan on behalf of his client and completes the erection of the house properly. After three or four years that R5 000, together with building society interest, is free again to be ploughed back into the central fund. Under the self-help scheme, the amount of R6 000 is paid back over a period of almost 25 years at a far lower interest rate. Now the fund can take the exact amount, invest it with a building society and have it back in the fund, with building society interest, after three years instead of after 25 years.

Let us take R5 000 as the probable amount. We can build 300 000 houses per year with R1 500 million. Hon members can imagine how many employment opportunities this will create. My time is too limited to pay attention to all the benefits this would entail. In three years that fund would have the R1 500 million back, together with building society interest, which is then ploughed back into the fund immediately.

After the same procedure has been followed for the second and third years, money need never again be taken from the taxpayer for further housing because the R1 500 million plus interest would be back in the fund after three years. The same would apply to the following year’s R1 500 million. The amount plus interest on capital would therefore be deposited in the fund again every year. In this way, 300 000 houses per year could be built for the lower-income group, for those who can afford the instalments. Houses which were built from this fund would not include those built for middle-class and higher-income groups.

Hon members can therefore reckon that a million houses could be built within three years on this basis instead of 400 000 houses within five years, which is what we have built since 1983 to the present. It is physically possible. The Government could deposit a large amount, as can the National Housing Commission, as can the Urban Foundation and the private sector. I believe that we would create a large collateral fund on that basis and really address the housing problem in a very short period of three to five years.

As the Act was amended last year, I want to appeal today for the State to invest R5 000 physically per applicant. It must do so physically and not by means of a certificate. Then it would not cost the taxpayer a cent, because all that money would come back just like that as we fulfilled requirements.

I now reach the second point I want to raise today. It is all very well for us to build new houses; we have also seen what our Black cities look like where new houses have been built. Incidentally, this collateral fund may be applied for Indian, Coloured, Black and for White housing. We have seen that beautiful houses are being built in Black areas where residential areas are being extended. There is tranquillity among those people; they have security too because the home owner knows that it is his property. That is why I believe that we could solve a large number of this country’s problems if we created that tranquillity, peace and stability.

But now we are left with a further problem, namely: What about the existing “location houses” which are unattractive? The purchase of those houses by tenants is not proceeding as well as we should like. In this regard I want to put forward a suggestion for serious consideration.

Give them to the people!

No, we must not do that at all! I shall explain what we should do. If the Government decides, for instance, that it wants R1500 per house from the tenant as the purchase price for houses in a specific area, the Government must invest that R1 500 with a building society as collateral for three years. A building society then obtains a loan of up to R15 000 for the tenant to renovate that house. Hon members could well take a look at Vosloorus; I shall ask the company which is involved there to invite hon members along. They build four pillars round the house and then they extend it upwards; eventually it looks like a newly built house which is aesthetically acceptable. It looks really beautiful. Three years later the Government receives its R1 500 which it invested as collateral, plus interest, and it can plough it back again on this basis. In consequence, I really think we could address the problem of housing in this country in this easy and desirable way. It would also eliminate the collection of rent.

Mr Chairman, my time is up. May I thank Oom Willem and Tannie Snow very much for everything. They warmed our hearts and enriched us by the exemplary manner in which they have always conducted themselves. In conclusion, I want to thank Mr Mavuso, in particular, for what he is doing in the sphere of Black housing. This is highly appreciated out there, in spite of certain people who want to besmirch him politically. We have the utmost appreciation for what he is doing.

Mr Chairman, today it is a singular privilege for me to be participating in this historic debate. I want to express a particular word of thanks to my previous hon colleagues for the contribution they made. The principle of accountability is a good one. Solomon in his wisdom said that a nation would fall in the absence of sound council, but that salvation lay in an abundance of council. Unfortunately there is one party which does not want to pay heed to these words of wisdom.

Mr Chairman and hon members, I do not regard this sitting as a confrontation like the Northern Transvaal vs Transvaal Currie Cup match. I prefer to see us as part of one team—a team committed to promoting the interests of its province and its people. [Interjections.]

†That is a common denominator, Sir, and the partnership between Central and Provincial Government is vital for the well-being of our province. The partnership inherently includes the right to differ with dignity, the right to criticise constructively, and sufficient time for all hon members. [Interjections.]

*Sir, every hon member from the various parties paid tribute and conveyed his good wishes to our hon Administrator, and we in the Executive Committee are striving to remain true to the concept of clean administration and accountability.

I want to express a sincere word of thanks to the hon member for Boksburg for his kind words.

†With regard to the question of privatisation, I shall respond to the hon member for Bayview, Mr Palan. The Works Department supports the principles of privatisation. Nearly 95% of the building contracts that were awarded over the past year were awarded to outside contractors, and 80% of the maintenance work was contracted out.

*The hon member Mr Seedat asked about the criteria in terms of which tenders were allocated. Tenders are advertised in the Provincial Gazettes and in local newspapers. On the closing date all tenders which have been received are opened and announced in the tender room of the Provincial Administration, with the public present. Recommendations about whom the tender is to be allocated to are submitted to the Provincial Tender Board which then accepts or rejects the recommendation. The contractor who has submitted the lowest tender is not necessarily successful. Hereafter the decision is conveyed to the successful tenderer and a contract is entered into. From 16 May of this year matters involving tenders fall under the Regional Tender Board of the State Tender Board, except for matters which have beén delegated.

†Turning to the question of road traffic control, I want to respond to the hon member for Bayview. As regards the filling of the post of traffic officer, 572 posts exist in respect of all population groups. No race classification is attached to any post. A total of 430 posts are filled by Whites, 90 by Blacks and there are presently 52 vacancies. I undertake to write to hon members in the House of Delegates and the House of Representatives in an effort to create some interest amongst our people for the filling of the remaining 52 vacancies. Perhaps then we could have an input from our communities.

I should also like to refer to the question of drunken driving which the hon member for Bayview referred to. The Provincial Administration’s Subdirectorate: Provincial Inspection Services constantly applies its manpower amongst other things to the task of charging persons who drive under the influence of liquor under the applicable legal provisions. Taking into account, however, the need “to avoid the carnage on our roads”—those are the hon member’s words—I should like to request hon members to take this debate further in order to address the question of adequate penalties for drunken driving. There is perhaps a need for the introduction of weekend detention. At least in this way the family income will not be disrupted and some of the carnage on our roads over the weekends can be avoided. Moreover, the 642 traffic officers may not be enough in view of the fact that there are some 3,5 million motor vehicles in the Transvaal. The question of road safety has to be addressed very seriously if we want to improve on the figures which seem to increase after every long weekend.

The hon member for Chatsworth Central referred to the cancellation of the Jock of the Bushveld marathon by a chief traffic officer in Nelspruit. I wish to inform hon members that the matter is being thoroughly investigated by senior officers who have also held discussions with the Barberton Town Council. It was revealed that the marathon was cancelled because the rules and provisions under which permission was granted for the staging of the marathon were not complied with and that the continuation of the marathon would jeopardize the safety of other roadusers. The investigation has not yet been completed and any steps to be taken will depend upon the final findings. I wish to inform the hon member that the organisers of the marathon have already been informed that they may stage the marathon again at any time they should wish subject, however, to the applicable rules and provisions.

I also wish to respond to the hon member for Bayview who asked how we are utilising income from licence fees for road safety progress. All income goes into the Provincial Revenue Account. It is the functional branches of the province that ask for their respective requirements and they are then funded according to the available funds. We do not earmark specific income for specific functions.

*The hon member for Newclare asked when the outpatients’ department at Coronation Hospital was going to be built. The provisional sketchplans for this facility have already been completed, but owing to a lack of funds this cannot yet be incorporated in one building programme.

†In connection with the Hindu temple referred to by the hon member for Chatsworth Central and the findings at Nelspruit I wish to draw the hon member’s attention to the reply of the hon Minister of National Education in the House of Delegates in this regard.

Unfortunately time does not permit me to continue with some of the questions raised. I undertake to respond to some of them in writing. In conclusion I wish to state that we in this province have one ambition and goal and that is to communicate and liaise with the hon members of this House in an effort to improve conditions and to extract within the definition of the politics of participation the type of reaction where we can remove the frustrations facing our people. This is a joint venture and instead of pointing fingers at one another I believe within the spirit of consensus we can strive towards promoting the interests of our province and work in the best interests of our province. In spite of its limitations this exercise is a point of departure in the direction of an exercise where we can account to hon members adequately. Out of this exercise I am sure that we will be able to make the politics of participation a viable option.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to follow immediately after the hon MEC, Mr Arbee. It is our loss in Parliament that has been the TPE’s gain.

I want to recount here the words that Mr Arbee uttered to me on his appointment as MEC. He said to me that considering the sensitivity of the appointment and the politics of the day he was satisfied in the knowledge that he was going to the administration of the Transvaal and that he could depend on and be guided by the hon the Administrator and benefit from his expertise. I can see that that expertise has rubbed off on Mr Arbee.

I do not believe that hon members who have spoken here yesterday and today have spoken simply for the sake of speaking. However, as the hon member for Yeoville so rightly said hon members have been speaking from their hearts as a result of frustration.

Parliament and its committees are avenues through which opinions may be expressed and representations made on behalf of those who we represent here. If, however, what has been said is construed as brickbats then I shall be handing out a bouquet or two very shortly.

On behalf of the Muslim community, I wish to place on record our thanks to the Transvaal Provincial Administration for their co-operation and assistance rendered in assuring that persons going on pilgrimage to Mecca receive their inoculation against meningococcal meningitis. Word was received from the World Health Organisation at a very late stage and the Saudi Arabian authorities advised us of the need for pilgrims to be immunised against meningitis. The Departments of National Health and Population Development, Health Services and Welfare of the House of Delegates and the province played their roles to the benefit of those concerned. What emerged from the exercise was the need for the province to appoint doctors of colour to the position of district surgeons, or at least sessional district surgeons. Had these appointments been made the difficulties recently experienced would have been alleviated.

I have before me figures relating to the appointments of district surgeons and I want to read these for the record and for the information of hon members. In the Transvaal we have 18 full-time district surgeons who are all White. There is no person of colour amongst them. With regard to sessional appointees we have 31 Whites, no Coloureds, two Indians and no Blacks. Part-time district surgeons appointed as sessional appointees number 93 Whites, no Coloureds, one Indian and no Blacks. In addition to which we have 57 assistants to the sessional appointees, and these are mainly the partners of the part-time district surgeons. This is shameful.

Whatever the reason for this may be I believe the MEC in charge of Hospital Services should as a matter of urgency call for applications from doctors of colour who wish to apply for these appointments and then application should be made for the appointment of these successful doctors.

I do not believe that the doctors of colour are inferior in any way to doctors who are White.

Nobody does!

Then why, Sir, do we have this disparity? I do not believe that doctors of colour are not prepared to accept appointments even as sessional district surgeons.

I am not here to enter into a debate on this aspect—that can be done at a different forum—I am merely highlighting the inadequacies as they exist.

I do not have much time at my disposal, but I wish to associate myself, in conclusion, with the sentiments expressed in respect of the imminent retirement of the hon the Administrator of the Transvaal, Mr Cruywagen. I believe that after the many years in public office he deserves a quiet moment with his family.

He must come back after 40 years.

Here I am reminded—in lighter vein—of a politician who after his death reaches the gates of heaven. On reaching the gates of heaven he was confronted by St Peter who asked him what his profession on earth was. On replying that he was a politician St Peter beckoned him in saying, “You have had your fair share of hell on earth”.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to speak after the hon member Mr Seedat. In regard to his reference to the matters in respect of hospital services, I merely want to say that one sometimes comes across the view of the ultraliberals that not enough is being done and that there is a great deal of suffering. I must also tell the hon members of the executive committee that there was a time when other colleagues and I, then still in the Provincial Council, did a lot to contribute to the fact that the Hillbrow Hospital can be used precisely for that purpose for which it has now been made available. We exposed ourselves to an even greater extent. There was a time when the previous hon member of the executive committee, who no longer belongs to the same party as I do, went so far as to regard us as implements of outside groups and almost of communism, purely on the grounds of the fact that we appealed for local accommodation to be provided for Black nurses. Without being labelled as liberals, we have already done a lot to achieve a better dispensation for our fellow-man. We did this mainly because we realised that there was a great need for this, and not because of pedantry.

†What we are seeing in this room today, is perhaps now a small step. However, I believe that it will shortly be looked upon as one giant leap in the reform process. It is sad that the hon member for Parktown referred to this meeting as a farce. [Interjections.] Yes, he did. Perhaps, in this process, he has made an enormous farce of himself.

*I want to address hon members on Vote 7: Community Services. RSCs are an important political step on the road towards a new South Africa, in which all South Africans will enjoy equal political participation in all legislative and executive structures on all levels of government. The establishment of joint local government on a regional basis has political, economic and community development as its objective. The establishment of RSCs represents an evolutionary phase in the balanced negotiated process of development in South Africa, because it is also a practical step aimed at the extension of democratic politics in South Africa, the elimination and prevention of domination by any one group over another, the elimination of discrimination on the basis of race, colour and creed, the provision of local government services on an efficient and cost-effective basis, and the development of additional financial resources on local government level in order to promote local autonomy and regional development.

The creation of RSCs is a result of the Government’s policy on the decentralisation of government functions and the greater devolution of functions and tax resources to lower levels of government, for the sake of that community-orientated government that we should like to see extended further in the future. By the establishment of these RSCs on local government level, urban and rural Black, Coloured, Indian and White communities are receiving political power and control over their own communities, as well as participation in the decision-making and administration with regard to shared local matters. The establishment of the RSCs is a mere first step in an evolutionary process of political, economic and social change on the third tier of government in South Africa. RSCs must not be judged in isolation, but must be seen as part of a wide-ranging process to grant all South Africans equal political participation and protection.

Consequently the accommodation of the various communities on the local level must not be seen as an alternative for political participation on the provincial and central levels. The RSCs are not the final answer in giving substance to the principle of equal political participation and devolution of decision-making in a practical sense; the RSCs are only part of the answer.

The Government’s point of departure is that constitutional change must be the result of a negotiation process among those who are striving for a peaceful future. The success of negotiation initiatives is certainly being promoted by the successful functioning of the RSCs. These councils can be regarded as a positive step in the right direction. The specific handling of the franchise, the protection of minorities, as well as the right to appeal resulted in the RSCs breaking away from the mere principle of counting heads in the case of a vote. The emphasis on race and colour no longer plays a part. As a result the successful implementation of the RSCs can perhaps serve as a model for further constitutional change and political power-sharing on all levels of government in future.

†The demands made on local government have deepened and broadened over the years. The increasing and accelerating urbanisation of the Black population will cause even more demands which will have to receive urgent attention. Regardless of the unfair opposition towards the RSCs it has proved to be an excellent success story. Let us look at the adverse climate which the RSCs had to face at its establishment and against which it had to compete. South Africa is experiencing a total onslaught of world opinion accompanied by sanctions, as well as the undermining of its security. Changes or reform in any sphere always create a degree of uncertainty and confusion. Political reforms necessitate adjustment to structures, but where not all the innovations are yet in full swing, they are treated with suspicion and sometimes with contempt.

It is sad that the birth of the RSCs met with an orchestrated attempt to prevent the establishment of structures in which all the population groups may have the opportunity of working together in the promotion of a just and democratic society. How wonderful it is that, against these heavily-loaded odds, 16 RSCs have already been established! We are proud that 12 of these councils are in Transvaal. Our hon Administrator and our hon members of the Executive Committee must be congratulated. I think that they have done an outstanding job in having created such a fantastic basis for reform in Transvaal.

RSCs and the reform process, particularly the strides that where made with the development of the relevant communities, directly addressed the unrest and, consequently, the emergency situation in South Africa. It was pleasing to note that particularly the Black local authorities welcomed the concept and the participation in the RSCs with enthusiasm and almost unanimous support. The RSCs provide the most acceptable vehicle for participation and joint decision-making on local government level. The adjustments to the local government system, which are now being implemented, represent the most exhaustive reforms since the Union in 1910.

RSCs are the result of an evolutionary process of local government reform. Black local authorities played a significant role in the establishment of the RSCs and in negotiating direct membership for their local authorities. The RSCs, as multiracial structures, should activate the development of a system of local government that promotes democracy and provides services effectively and efficiently so as to improve the quality of life of all the people. Participation of the members of the RSCs could act as a catalyst in securing the improvement of quality of life and, once again, to bring peace and tranquility to our beloved country.

Mr Chairman, I am sorry I was late this morning, but it was really the result of what is happening with the tollgate system that is supposed to be implemented.

I live next to the Golden Highway in Eldorado Park, and we face an avalanche of traffic coming from Ennerdale, from the south, all of which uses this particular road. I just fear what is going to happen if a tollgate system is used, because nobody in Eldorado Park or even in Lenasia— Eldorado Park especially—will be able to get into town on time. I can tell hon members that it is going to take something like two solid hours to reach Johannesburg in the morning.

Besides that, I mentioned yesterday that in Eldorado Park we have a population composed mostly of poor people. We have a lot of pensioners, many people that are old and disabled, living in the area. It is going to impose another burden on them if they have to use this tollgate. At the present moment the first gate is going to be in Ennerdale, but we are not sure whether the second tollgate is going to be next to the Vikings on that concrete highway. We are going to be paying again. As poor as we are, we are going to pay again.

I saw a tollgate in America in 1984. That is part of the capitalist system that I do not like. They say that they use the tollgate in order to make money to improve the roads and build new roads. Now, in South Africa we had a system whereby we paid more on petrol—the petrol levy—and if it is still there, why not add just one cent so that we can build the roads and improve our road and bridge system, instead of asking the people, especially the poor people, to pay to use the particular roads they are using now?

What does the hon the Administrator have to say?

If the hon member is already late and the toll-gate does not even exist yet, I would like to see what happens when it does! [Interjections.]

I hope that this will mean that some day—from tomorrow—we will not have a tollgate, because if we are going to have that, it is going to destroy the good relationships that we are trying to build now.

I wish to say that many people do condemn the system of South African government. I only condemn the apartheid side of it. I want to repeat this so that I am not misquoted: I do not like the tollgate idea because it is foreign to South Africa. The only thing I would like in South Africa would be for private initiative to be encouraged, and thereafter the system of social care must be the prerogative of this Government. If we do that, we are going to make South Africa a beautiful place in the world, without apartheid.

I have compared South Africa with many other systems in the world, and our system seems to be the best without apartheid. If we do that, we are going to find ourselves having a beautiful country that everybody would like to live in.

Not even a little apartheid?

No, not even a little apartheid, unless it is the choice of some people; but not legalised.

I now come back to what I said yesterday. When I came home last night, I was able to have a meeting with the people in my constituency, and they told me to make a correction to what I said. We pay R34 to R38 for an ambulance to go to Coronation Hospital, and the pensioners are paying R15. I was told that if people do not produce the money, the ambulance does not move, or else it is prepared to leave that particular patient.

Mr Chairman, thank you for the second chance. I was saying to people that I did not know what to say; they told me to go and sit down. The other things they said were not so nice.

During the lunch period we were able to speak to some members of this administration, and they do understand all our needs. They have identified all of them. However, the problem is obviously that they do not have money to implement them. I am very serious now. We would like to have those things that we have asked for, implemented. If there is some way in which the Treasury can give more money for Transvaal—even the other provinces, but I feel that Transvaal, having the biggest population, should receive more money; and do not say I am defying the Cape—I feel that it should be done.

I would like to end by saying, after listening to everybody here, that the hospital I requested for Eldorado Park should be granted, and the site that is there should be kept for that purpose. If perhaps the province changes its mind in this regard, we are going to ask the people of Eldorado Park to keep that site and to use it as a burial place for all the people that died before reaching the hospital.

Mr Chairman, since yesterday we have had the opportunity to talk to one another and listen to divergent points of view. I think that is a good thing. There is nothing to be gained by not using the opportunity afforded us here to put the interests of our respective voters in this forum. We must, however, be prepared to differ with one another, and always to be constructive and realistic. It is no use regarding own affairs as an absolute, as the CP does, i e thinking that all matters must be own affairs. On the other hand, it is no good taking the view that everything should be general affairs. In a country like the RSA we must accept that there will have to a compromise between own and general affairs. If we do not accept that as a starting point, we are going to find it very difficult to come together in this country. I am convinced of that, and in the course of my speech I shall, from this point of view, be referring to local government in this province.

In the sphere of local government, we have the good work done by the Community Services branch, as well as the important work which is being done in respect of Black local authorities. Those, in fact, are the own affairs of our Black citizens. The administration also deals with the important aspect of joint government in the local management sphere which is given substance in regional services councils. One sees, therefore, that there are own affairs for local authorities and, where necessary, joint structures to consider matters of common concern.

I want to congratulate the Community Services branch, which is mainly concerned with the interests of Black citizens, on the positive progress it has made since October 1986 with the expansion of this section of our constitutional structure. Fortunately over the years the provinces have gained considerable experience in regard to local government. They can now utilise this experience positively in the interests of the Black community.

It is gratifying that the Transvaal Municipal Association was prepared to extend positive cooperation so that co-ordinating committees could be set up and the established local authorities could give advice to their neighbouring Black local authorities. As we have already heard, there are approximately 60 of these Black local authorities involved in the activities of coordinating committees.

The Transvaal Provincial Administration will also be playing a very important role in the municipal elections in October. More than 600 councillors will have to be elected to represent the Black community in the Transvaal. One can just imagine the enormous amount of work the Community Services branch has to do in this connection. I do not want to trouble hon members with the details; we are all involved in the elections and we know what that always calls for. I can only wish them every success.

Local government is the foundation on which we must develop our constitutional set-up. If the foundation is not well laid and sound a house cannot be properly constructed.

I also want to congratulate the administration on the success in the collection of rental and service levies. This has been so successful that, as is apparent from the appropriation, the province has had to request R52 million less for bridging finance. The province is also doing important work with regard to urbanisation and the problem of illegal squatting. That is a subject in itself. But I just want to stress the following point, and that is the administration’s approach to tackling this problem positively and not reactively. The only way that can be done is to make provision for the approximately 170 000 Black squatter families in the Transvaal, so that they can be settled in an orderly fashion. It is necessary therefore that land should be identified. Good progress has already been made in this regard, 12 871 ha already having been identified for this purpose. I am told consideration is being given to a further 15 000 ha.

Orderly urbanisation is in the interests of all the inhabitants of our province. We would gain nothing by adopting a selfish attitude to the identification of land. We would pluck some bitter fruits if we wanted to keep everything for ourselves and not give living space to the other communities.

I have briefly, in the very limited time at my disposal, referred to the good work of the Community Services branch. I also want to focus on the other leg once more. This has already been dealt with effectively by the hon member for Jeppe, but I just want to refer briefly to joint local government on a regional basis which is being given substance in the regional services councils. Actually, regional services councils are something which we must foster. There are many unique qualities linked to this system—constitutional elements which we can employ when we expand further on our constitutional set-up. That has already been mentioned, but I want to say again that provision has been made for proportional franchise, compromises, consensus and the settlement of disputes by appeal to the hon the Administrator. I could go on in a similar vein referring to this institution and mentioning very important components which we have yet to develop in the new constitutional set-up. The establishment of these 12 regional services councils calls for a tremendous amount of work in a short period on the part of the Administration. We have been told that the establishment of one regional services council involved approximately 60 transactions. There are 12 regional services councils in the Transvaal. Hon members will appreciate, therefore, the amount of work successfully handled by this Administration in this short period.

The importance of these bodies cannot be overemphasised. I want to advocate that we do not allow the new dispensation to be destroyed by people who are not prepared to co-operate, with those of us who are here, in building it up. It is no use allowing this unique foundation which has been laid to crumble into dust. If we stand together, adopt a positive approach and assist in its evolutionary development, this could prove a great asset.

In conclusion I want to express my sincere thanks to the Administrator and Mrs Cruywagen who will always have a special place in the hearts of Transvalers. I also want to thank the officials in the Transvaal, as well as all the members of the Executive Committee who, through their conduct here, have proved how successful the joint extended committees are. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I would like to address myself to Vote 7, Community Services. Before I do that, however, allow me to congratulate the MEC who has recently been nominated to this particular post. We are all familiar with him and we certainly are aware of his abilities. We realise that, with his dynamic personality and his ability of making input, there is hope—at least at that particular level.

Suddenly local government is the most important form of government to me. Without any fear of contradiction I want to say that there is no chance that it will work anywhere else if it does not work at local government level. If we are going to fail at local government level, we are going to fail this country.

Therefore, I have to disagree with the memorandum of my friend, the MEC. On page 2 of the memorandum he expresses the opinion that, while the ordinances make provision for delegated power, we should delegate as much as possible. The system of management committees and local affairs committees is a totally unacceptable system. It has been, and will always be unacceptable to those who are forced to operate within these systems. The only reasons why they have been used is because people are so fond of this country. Because of their great love for this country they will rather use a strategy of negotiation than one of confrontation outside. This must not be misinterpreted as an acceptance of the system. It must be seen as the use of the system to reach an objective.

There is only one system of local government which is acceptable to all people of this country. That is a system which is completely integrated and completely democratic.

Direct representation!

The hon member can call it what he wants to, but the future of this country is certainly that of an integrated government. One must believe, and we must convince ourselves first, that we are all South Africans.

Secondly, we must depoliticise local government. Too much politics has been played at local government level. The great fear of my friends in the NP benches that the CP is going to win some of these local authority elections, must be dispelled immediately. To my mind that does not constitute a fear. The uneven distribution of power constitutes a fear. The sooner we get to normality, the better for this country.

*If the CPs hold any danger for us, I want to tell the other hon members: “Take us along!”

†We will resolve the problem of the so-called fear of the CP that are harboured by most people in this country. Local government must succeed. The hon members and myself have the responsibility to see that local government succeeds. However, hon members and I have the same responsibility of normalising local government. I leave that message with the hon members.

I want to return to the realities of the situation. Why do we not have a normal system of government? We are going to be forced to contest management committee elections on 26 October Those elections should at least be made possible.

We ourselves—the hon members and I—are responsible for giving the hon the Leader of the Opposition (House of Assembly) and his group the ammunition which they use so ably. The hon Leader of the Official Opposition used the low percentage polls as one of his arguments. The hon members and I are not making it possible to improve those percentages. It has become absolutely ridiculous and, in most cases, impossible to exercise the right to vote.

*The majority of local governments embody a system that most of the people do not understand.

†We have not demarcated wards in the areas and yet we expect an unsophisticated person to go to the polls and vote. In some instances there are possibly going to be six candidates per organisation or political formation. The possibility is that one will find 36 names on a single ballot paper.

* Aunt Sophie is simply going to find it as impossible as Uncle Piet to make a cross opposite the name of the person whom they elect to represent them.

†Are we not responsible for creating absolute chaos?

*It still is not too late to put things right. The Administrator and his Executive Committee are very competent people.

†The ball is in their court. There is still time to remedy this particular form. The percentage is important to give credence to the system. It is important that we get people to vote. It should at least not be made impossible. The impression which is created to the outside world is that people do not know how to exercise the democratic right of vote. It is not the case. The fault lies with us.

*As you know it is easy to do that in this era of computers. We are not living in the time of the Leader of the Official Opposition’s ox-wagon any more! We are living in the time of the computer. As a result everything is possible.

†It must be understood that the old system of management committees is not a creation of mine. I would love to serve on the city council of Johannesburg or the city councils of South Africa. It is the Government’s creation. Give it some sophistication!

*The hon member for Boksburg is trying to create the impression that people here are talking about socialism and probably about communism as well.

Do not put words into my mouth.

Home ownership is a right. As soon as we create home owners in this country, the majority of our problems will also fall by the wayside. Those of us who come from the townships and have experienced the disturbances, the demonstrations and stone throwing can tell the hon members that it only happened in areas where homes did not belong to people.

*If a house belongs to one, one does not allow somebody to simply walk past it and make a noise. If it is one’s own property, one does not allow somebody to throw stones there. Then nobody makes a noise there.

†Even if it means giving those homes away to create proud homeowners, it will be cheap at the price. If we are sincere in our beliefs in getting South Africa in a state of absolute normality, we will have to pay the price. Giving away homes will not be a high price to pay in the interest of South Africa at large—not the interest of a few people and their ideology. I do not want to waste my time on this issue any further; I think the message has been received that we have a right to create home ownership and we have a right to create proud people who will be proud to improve on what they own. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member talked so well that it is really a pity that his time has expired. He must forgive me for not following up on his arguments.

Before going any further, I want to say that it is my privilege today to be able to participate in this historic debate in the capital city of my province. I also want to refer to the hon the Administrator, and thank him on behalf of my constituency with which he has had a close association—it is one of the three Germiston constituencies—and associate myself with all the fine sentiments which have been expressed in regard to him.

Before I speak on nature conservation, I should like to refer to a few aspects. While the hon member for Boksburg was speaking, I heard one, two, three or four remarks from that side: “Must we say thank you, Master’.” That is shocking. I want to say that this is no longer necessary. I think we must forget those obsessions once and for all. The converse could also apply to that question. Every time those hon members participate in what is being done for South Africa, must we say “Thank you, Sir”? [Interjections.]

I think we should dispense with this sort of thing and join together in building up this country which is ours by right. We all have a right to be here and to do things in the right way.

Yes, “Sir” is better than “Baas.”

I agree with the hon member. “Sir” is better than “Baas”, but he can just call me “Sir” and I shall call him “Baas” if he wants me to. [Interjections.]

I also want to deal with certain remarks made by the hon member Mr Seedat. He devoted his entire speech to the shortage, or the small number, of Coloured and Indian doctors serving in the Directorate: Hospital Services. I do not think that was a fair remark to make, because I have noticed over the past six years that every vacant post for a district surgeon was advertised, and in that period of six years there were only two applicants from people of a coloured group, and they were Indians.

I think the hon member should go and chat to the doctors and ask them to apply, because I do not think the Directorate: Hospital Services can drag them in to do the work. I do not think we should turn matters like this into political issues. I say this to him because he is a good friend of mine, and I say it to him in all seriousness.

Divergent views have been a feature of the debate over the past two days, which proves that reform in South Africa has become a reality. We can talk to one another and listen to one another on various aspects of the management of this great province of ours. We can also differ with one another, and I think that is the greatest privilege we have, to be able to differ and yet to talk to one another.

I want to refer now to this calculated—please note, I say calculated—publicity stunt of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition (Assembly), who held demonstrations here yesterday and this morning, which my Afrikaans-speaking colleagues and I on this side of the Committee are ashamed of, and we tender our apologies to everybody here.

This is the kind of behaviour which is found in underdeveloped countries and not in South Africa. In his lecture on statistics yesterday, it was illuminating that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition actually pleaded for proportional representation, no less, and rejected the democracy which has applied up to now in South Africa. Theoretically it is possible that a political party with less than half the registered votes can win all the seats in an election, while a party with more than 40% of the votes is unable to win a single seat.

I could argue on the same level that speakers on the Government side did not get the amount of speaking time they were entitled to in the debates, because that is so, and if I have worked it our correctly, they had 40 or 45 minutes’ speaking time in this debate, while we had 190 minutes, which is not six times as much as they had. [Interjections.] I am not saying it is correct; I accept the system. The point is, nevertheless, that they got more than they were entitled to according to their representation.

The CP has now become an active participant in destructive protest politics in this country. Their placards spelt out one word: “Protest”, and I am sorry that the hon member for Randburg condoned the politics of protest yesterday. I do not think I should dwell on this any longer, but turn instead to the Nature Conservation Vote.

Nature conservation is a subject which has been of great concern to me since I was a child. In the time at my disposal I shall try to refer to the co-operation between the Directorate: Nature Conservation and the private sector and the economic value of game-farming.

My colleague, the hon member for Brentwood, singled out statistics on the exceptional contribution this directorate is making, while the hon member of the Executive Committee referred yesterday to the success achieved in the protection of certain threatened wild-life species. I do not want to dwell on any of these statistics, but rather link this to tourism and the economic value of our natural resources.

It is estimated that tourists visiting the reserves spend more than R500 million annually, which means that the general sales tax on this alone amounts to five times more than the appropriation of R18 million. Over and above this, the total surface area covered by game farms and private reserves is six times the size of the provincially-owned surface area where nature conservation officers play a really prominent role.

Although no comparable figures are available, I venture to say that the number of wild animals has probably doubled in this province over the past three decades, and that wild life has today become an integral part today of the farming activities of the province.

This brings me to another very important facet of the work of the Directorate: Nature Conservation, and that is the hunting industry in the Transvaal. The province must also be congratulated on the manner in which its game production is used scientifically in the promotion of hunting as a sport. Unfortunately I do not have sufficient time to spend on this subject, and I can only make these few remarks.

Hunting safaris are an important source of foreign exchange, and at this stage earn an annual amount of approximately R40 million, as my colleague, the hon member for Brentwood, also pointed out. However, there is talk that this year this source could yield as much as R100 million.

This potential is perhaps not clearly illustrated in a recent advertisement, in which the prices of certain trophy animals are indicated as follows: A giraffe for R5 000, a leopard for R4 000, a lion for R8 000, and an elephant for R30 000.

And a CP?

A CP is not worth anything. [Interjections.] And a buffalo for R20 000 or more.

However, these prices have a negative result in that the average member of the SA Amateur Hunters’ Federation is being priced out of the market completely. It is therefore ironic that although South Africa is one of the richest wildlife countries in the world, South African hunters can hardly afford to go hunting themselves.

Perhaps—if I might make one small request in the few seconds left to me—the hon member of the Executive Committee would consider whether attention could not be given to this problem in the game-culling program which the province undertakes in its own reserves and perhaps accommodate the organised societies in some way or other. I see my time has expired.

Mr Chairman, it is a privilege to be able to participate in this debate. I also want to say that one is proud of one’s Administrator when one sees the esteem in which he is held and the good wishes that come to him from all quarters. I am very glad for the privilege of having served under him, even if only for a period of three months. *

I can also say that it was an honour to have succeeded Mr John Griffiths as a member of the Executive Committee entrusted with Local Government. He made an indelible mark in the sphere of local government, and in recent years as MEC, in particular, he has done a great deal to place the system on a sound footing. I should like to pay tribute to him.

Sincere thanks, too, for the good wishes I received from many quarters on my appointment, and for the good wishes I received during this debate from the hon member for Laudium. I also extend my thanks for the kind words of the hon member for Randburg, the hon member dr Golden and the hon member for Toekomsrus.

I thank those hon members who participated in the discussion of Vote No 2—Library and Museum Services—and to those who participated in the discussion of that portion of Vote 7 which deals with local government.

†I appreciate the interests and I want to give the assurance that I follow an open door policy and all interested parties are welcome to come and discuss any related problems or other relevant aspects with me.

*Before reacting to the specific matters raised, I should like to make a few general remarks. Listening to many of the overall aspirations and objectives which found expression here, one sees that most people are in agreement, although there are political differences. It is therefore very clear that more communication must take place, that we should get to know one another better, that we should rather concentrate on the points of agreement than on the points of difference and that we should build up the confidence, understanding and respect which is essential for shaping our future.

One of the things that specifically struck me, in the short time in which I have had the privilege of serving on the Executive Committee, was the loyal co-operation and the success with which consensus decision-making took place, and also the respect for one another’s standpoints and political differences. As my colleague, Mr S J Schoeman, MEC, said yesterday, this is indeed and outstanding example. Let me tell the hon member for Waterberg that in the process I did not lose my identity as an Afrikaner; in fact, as a person I was enriched.

†Thirdly, I would again like to express my faith in our local authorities and emphasise the importance of our local government as the cornerstone of any country’s constitutional system, as also stated by the hon member for Roodeplaat. I also wish to stress its role with regard to order and peace and the fact that the local authority is there for the benefit of the ratepayer and the resident and nobody else. We will do our best to build out good and effective local government in Transvaal.

*I now come to a few of the standpoints and questions raised by hon members. Firstly the hon member for Rust-Ter-Vaal spoke about libraries and museums being open to all races. To a certain degree the hon member Dr Golden has already stated his views on this aspect. I am merely confirming that in conjunction with local authorities the TPA library service, which is a general affair, renders a service to all the inhabitants of the Transvaal. The decision to open public libraries to all races, however, rests solely with each individual local authority. It is true that some local authorities have decided not to open their libraries to all races. There are others, however, for example Randburg—where I myself come from—Johannesburg, Sandton, Edenvale, Bedfordview and many others which have opened their libraries to all races. I also want to say that one should make an effort to establish more and better libraries in all the residential areas, preferably within walking distance and within reach of the majority of the inhabitants. We have also found, particularly amongst the Black people, a very real need for proper library services, because they also make use of libraries for study and research purposes, not always having the proper facilities available to them at home.

†The hon member for Chatsworth Central also asked that there should be more libraries established in Lenasia South. I would like to reply that all local authorities are being encouraged by the Transvaal Provincial Library Service to render library services to all residents. On request library material is supplied to all communities. It is, however, the responsibility of that community through its local authority to supply suitable accommodation and staff. The onus of extending and initiating library services therefore rests with the community.

*The hon member for Rust-Ter-Vaal also referred to opening museums to all races. The hon member Dr Golden has already referred to that, saying that all museums for which we are responsible are basically open to all races. Hon members are probably also aware of the fact that the provincial administration only runs and supports general affairs museums, ie museums which have themes of general interest. Own affairs museums are being run by us at present, until the function can be taken over by the Administration: House of Assembly. Perhaps I could just inform hon members that those museums which are classified as general affairs and which will still fall under the TPA are the provincial museums at Barberton, Tsongakraal and Pilgrim’s Rest. The affiliated museums, which are classified as general affairs museums, are the Botshabelo Museum, the one at Lydenburg, the one at Phalaborwa and then the one at Sabie which focuses on forestry matters.

I also want to extend a sincere word of thanks to the hon member Dr Sampie Golden for the good ideas he raised. I want to associate myself with the appeal he made for more funds, and I want to give him the assurance that we, on the provincial side, will attempt to make the maximum amount of funds available for both museum and library services.

As far as staff are concerned, the problem facing us is that local authorities generally offer higher salaries than we can pay. For that reason we are losing quite a few people to local authorities; this is a problem we shall try to put right. I agree with the hon member that it would be tragic if the Botshabelo Museum had to be closed down, but I have every hope that we shall find an acceptable solution to the problem we are experiencing there.

†The hon the Minister for Local Government and Agriculture (Delegates) referred to the unification of Lenasia South and Lenasia East, and I would like to say that we, from province’s side, agree with this. Many discussions have taken place on this over the last few years. As I understand, there is a willingness amongst all parties concerned for this unification to take place. As I have said, we also believe it is the right thing. I have a copy here of a letter from Johannesburg indicating that they also think it is the right thing. Apparently the problem is that funds are required to improve Lenasia South to upgrade it to the same standards as that of Lenasia. The question is where these funds are going to come from. Unfortunately we cannot provide it and I wonder whether it will not be possible for the House of Delegates to provide some of it.

*I also understand, from the letter, that a liaison committee was recently appointed and that its report on the amalgamation of these two areas is being awaited.

†The hon the Minister also asked a question about the policy of the TPA on parity of salaries and allowances for councillors and management committee members. Here I would like to refer to a decision made by the Council for the Coordinating of Local Government Affairs.

*Let met refer to the Minutes of a recent meeting at which the following resolution was adopted:

All the problems and strife involve the little word “kan”. There are those who feel it should be “sal”, and this matter is a bone of contention. The matter has been referred back, and we hope that at the next meeting the Co-ordinating Council will report on this matter.

At this stage I should perhaps also quote from a letter we wrote recently to a chairman of a management committee on the Witwatersrand who made inquiries about this matter to the hon the Administrator. The hon the Administrator replied to him as follows:

We are of the opinion—and my predecessor, Mr Griffiths, has said so repeatedly—that the same amount should be paid, and we are trying to encourage local authorities to do so. May I just say that this is no simple matter, there being many different views on this issue.

The hon member for Hercules actually spoke about roads, arguing strongly in favour of more money for roads. In his argument he said that in recent years the budget for roads had only increased by 11% per annum and that that for local government had increased by an average of 29% per annum. I should just like to put matters right by saying that one cannot compare those aspects directly because of the addition of a tremendous number of new functions, particularly in regard to Black local authorities, which have been added to the community services branch and to local government generally. I therefore think that the actual increase in the budget for all the branches was only about 11% to 12%. As a trained engineer, and as one who has worked on roads and has had an interest in that sphere of activity, let me just tell him that I agree with him about wanting more money for roads.

†Mr Chairman, the hon member for Parktown said yesterday that this debate was a historical farce and that that was why so few members of the public were present here. When I look at the public gallery, I would say that the same number of people are present there who would normally be present in Parliament. I am not talking about the Opening of Parliament. I am talking about the number of people who would normally visit a local authority council meeting. I would say that their numbers are quite the usual. [Interjections.]

For a historical event?

I agree with the hon member that it would be nice to have more members of the public present here, and I hope that in future these numbers will grow. This type of meeting holds out great possibilities that more and I hope that more people will attend these meetings in their own interests. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Bayview and the hon member Mr Seedat asked questions about the municipal elections and specifically the closing date for voters’ rolls for the various population groups. They also asked whether the date was the same for all population groups. Let me say that the final date for registration of voters for the various population groups is as follows: For Blacks, it is 12 August; for the Coloureds and Indians, it is 30 June, and for the Whites, also 30 June, except that they also have the facility of registering for supplementary rolls until 30 August, although such applications have to be back with the local authority by that date. Therefore, in fact, they will have to register long before that.

*At this stage let me perhaps just say that we have decided to approach Tamkom—that is the local government body for the Coloureds and the Indians—to hear whether they would be interested in postponing this date, in other words giving the voters of the Coloured and Indian management committees more leeway. There is apparently a regulation that can be amended at this stage. That is the information I have. We are investigating this, in any event, and if it is at all possible, we shall also try to have that date postponed.

†We also had a question about parity. May I say, as I assume most hon members know, that a few years ago—actually in 1986—a uniform Bill on voting was drawn up. That Bill was referred to a standing committee and there it stayed. It was there for more than a year, if I remember correctly, and the whole intention of it was to unify all the ordinances as well as the legislation dealing with Black local authorities so as to make the situation the same for all. Unfortunately, we could not succeed in this regard, and this is the reason why we do not have parity in all cases. I do want to say, however, that we do believe in parity in all these cases and we would like wherever possible to achieve it.

The hon member for Chatsworth Central asked about the provision of services in Lenasia South. He spoke about street lighting and many other facilities. I have been given some information in this regard if he would like to have it. Unfortunately, I do not have the time to go into details. Let me say, however, that I understand that the RSC has also decided in its new budget to allocate money to Lenasia South, and that there are a number of various programmes at the moment with regard to the upgrading of services in Lenasia South. The street lights he mentioned are the responsibility of the local authority and not that of the province.

The hon member for Lenasia Central also referred to the difference in funeral costs in Lenasia itself and in Lenasia South. Let me say that I have the same problem in Randburg where I live. Because we do not have the necessary facilities there, we also have to make use of Johannesburg services, and the difference is exactly the same. I believe that the solution lies in the fact that the RSC should take over that service, in which case, according to the principle of the RSCs, everybody within the area will pay the same for the service that is rendered.

*I want to thank the hon member for Randburg very sincerely for his kind words to me, and I am glad he agrees about the aspects mentioned in regard to the broadening of the democratic base and the devolution of power. It seems to me as if he and the hon member for Toekomsrus do not quite agree on the question of the devolution of power to the various local authorities.

† also want to tell the hon member for Randburg that I agree that the rental boycott is not the only reason for the non-payment of rentals. I realise that there are many other reasons as well.

*I also want to mention here that I am available to any of the other groups involved if they should wish to come along and discuss this matter with us. We shall hold discussions with the relevant people in the community and try to solve this problem about the non-payment of those fees.

Let me just tell the hon member for Boksburg that provision has, in fact, been made for the Advocate-General’s involvement. We have also asked to have the Black Local Authorities Act amended so that commissions of inquiry can be appointed, as in the case of White local authorities, something which is not possible at present.

To the hon member for Newclare let me just say that we are working hard to get Black pensions paid out on a monthly basis and also to provide much better facilities there so that people do not have to suffer the hardships they have to suffer at present.

I also thank the hon member for Roodeplaat for what he said.

I just want to tell the hon member for Toekomsrus that it is his right to register his opposition to separate local authorities from a political point of view. It is government policy— and we believe that this should be the principle involved-that as far as possible every community, regardless of the political system applicable, should be able to decide about its own affairs. That is why we want to devolve as many matters as possible to lower echelons of government. I also agree with him that people should be informed about the election and that we should simplify the system as much as possible. I have asked to have this matter investigated—I am referring to the classification of wards to which he referred—and if it is at all possible, we shall attempt to assist him in his area.

Mr Chairman, allow me to say, in conclusion, that we are very grateful for all the help we received from my two colleagues on the Committee, and I also want to thank all the officials very sincerely for their hard work and their support.

Mr Chairman, I want to take the advice of the hon MEC Mr Arbee who said that I must reach consensus with the MEC in charge of hospital services, and that is just what I want to do.

†I have a few questions to ask, Sir, in the very few minutes allocated to me. The first question I wish to pose is in regard to the Lenasia interchange. When is it expected to be completed and what will the total cost of the project be?

I should now like to refer to community services and the issuing of group areas permits. In this regard I want to appeal to the persons or administration in charge of the processing of group areas permits. I want to ask why there are such long delays. Of course, we do not agree with the Group Areas Act, but the situation is aggravated by the long delays that take place when application for a permit is made. In the olden days, when the system was centrally administered, the time taken in the issuing and processing of such permits was exactly one quarter of the time that is now being taken in the processing of these permits.

While I am referring to the question of group areas, I want to say that we know that this beautiful structure in which we are sitting here today was part of a group area that belonged to the Indians. Indians occupied this piece of ground long before the Union of South Africa came into being. I am referring to the time of the Transvaal Republic. It breaks one’s heart to see that this sort of thing has resulted from the Group Areas Act. I appeal, therefore, to the administration or the people who have been delegated powers as far as permits under the Group Areas Act are concerned, please to expedite the issuing or refusal of such permits so that when people apply for such permits, their options to occupy the premises whether business or residential will fall away.

I want to touch on the subject of hospital services, but this time I want to tell the MEC in charge of hospital services that there are negative as well as positive points regarding this aspect.

I am very proud of the hospital services we have at the H F Verwoerd Hospital as far as the spinal unit is concerned. It is a fully integrated unit and one of the only two or three units we have in the country. The good work that is being done in this specialised service is appreciated by us. I am not here to criticise where good is being done. I want to tell the MEC in charge of hospital services that the community is grateful for these specialised units of the H F Verwoerd Hospital. Although we feel it is our right to utilise these services, we are nevertheless proud of them.

We also want to make an appeal to the MEC in charge of hospital services regarding the academic H F Verwoerd Hospital. We know that it is also a training hospital for our doctors. However, our doctors are not allowed to practise even among the Indian, Coloured of Black specialised patients in the H F Verwoerd Hospital. They are referred to as registrars in die Kalafong Hospital, which is part of it. We have the Laudium Hospital. The MEC mentioned this morning in his reply that only 30% of the hospital is utilised. What is the reason for this? He made an appeal that I should speak to the Indian doctors to come to that hospital and give assistance. How can one expect a fully qualified doctor who wants to better himself to register in a non-academic or non-training hospital?

Why cannot we take a wing of the Laudium hospital and give it to the H F Verwoerd Hospital as part of the training centre, which is between the Kalafong Hospital and the H F Verwoerd Hospital? Cannot we not reach consensus on this? I feel that this hospital can then be utilised to its full capacity. The fault as to why it is not fully utilised does not lie with the community or the doctors; it lies with the system. A doctor cannot register in that hospital as a registrar to further his practical experience in a hospital.

In the little time left to me, I want to say that I hope that I can reach consensus with the hospital authorities at a later stage. The criticism which I expressed yesterday can be resolved around a table. With these few words, I resume my seat.

Mr Chairman …

The hon member for Rust Ter Vrede.

He is a man who is satisfied.

Mr Chairman, I shall never be satisfied, because I cannot be satisfied.

At the outset let me refer to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. It is a pity that he is not here now. Yesterday he launched an attack on me because I had spoken of N P van Wyk Louw. It seems to me as if N P van Wyk Louw is the one who is wide awake, while the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is talking in his sleep. I want to tell him that his party has the box of matches that Winnie Mandela spoke about. I am afraid that the security police would not be able to maintain law and order if Desmond Tutu instructed the people to put a torch to the country.

I would be neglecting my duty if I did not react to the representations of the hon members for Germiston and Boksburg who do not want to accept apartheid as the NP’s lord and master. I want to refer them to the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act, the Group Areas Act and the Population Registration Act. The fact that we are here today, able to put our voters’ case, can in no way be seen as a reason to say thank you, but should rather be seen as our legitimate right as citizens of this country. [Interjections.] Those hon members must just remember that the Coloureds were on the voters’ roll and were removed from that voters’ roll by this very Government.

I want to associate myself with the hon members for Randburg and Houghton, and in the course of my argument I shall be touching upon the important matters.

I want to ask at once how many squatter camps there are throughout the Transvaal at present. What is the cause of squatting? Very definitely the housing crisis. I should like to tell Dr Hoods, the MEC, that the unnecessarily cumbersome channels of communication should quickly be eliminated to make the necessary land for development available in our areas. It is easy to solve this problem. I should like to make a suggestion to the province that an ombudsman be appointed to go from office to office, from place to place, highlighting problems so that they can be solved more quickly. The province’s assistance to squatter camps is conspicuous by its absence. Dynamic action on the part of the province would mean that we could attack this squatting problem and also make purposeful efforts to create hygienic living conditions for the people.

Bearing in mind the strict initial selection requirements as far as our people are concerned, we cannot but blame bureaucracy for that. Incorrect planning and congestion are largely the causes of tuberculosis, that fatal epidemic. A total of 73% of South Africa’s inhabitants are compelled by law to own and occupy only 13% of the land.

That is not true.

That is why this is a health hazard today. The private sector should take the lead and make a radical break in solving the squatting problem. A plan of action and the upgrading of our rural areas would eliminate the lamentable conditions. I believe that the province will indicate, in all seriousness, that it cares something for us and do everything in its power to combat the social decline.

I do want to mention to hon members the proclamation problems of the Transvaal. How many White areas are there and how many Black areas have already been proclaimed in the Transvaal? Hon members must realise that although the Influx Control Act has been abolished, we also have a tremendous influx from the Northern Cape, from which people have inevitably had to move in order to obtain better job opportunities. I want to make a serious appeal to the provincial authorities to give us quick, positive answers. Local authorities are bogged down and cannot develop any further at all, because land is under the control of the provincial authorities.

Here I want to lodge a serious plea that we do not support the Group Areas Act, but because drastic relief measures are the solution, we must also ensure that our point of departure lies in speedily addressing the problems of the Transvaal and obtaining much more land for our people. It is our duty to ensure that apartheid measures are speedily dismantled. We must seriously tackle the reform agenda, not only from the point of view of political and economic reform, but also from the point of view of social reform.

That is why our prime duty lies in eliminating, once and for all, the primitive conditions in the overcrowded residential areas. This can only be done by the provision of decent housing. In its totality housing must be used as a weapon in the struggle against tuberculosis. The provincial administration and local authorities must really get cracking and leave no stone unturned in eliminating this iniquity completely. The scales of social reform must drastically and seriously be tipped in the other direction. I trust that the provincial authorities will approach the Department of National Health and Welfare in an effort to solve the problems.

Provincial resorts also pose a very serious problem. The hon member for Newclare also mentioned this, but I should like to address the actual situation and ask the Administrator to join MECs of colour in a quick, non-official visit to the Rob Ferreira Resort at Christiana. Members will brief me on that visit upon their return, but an explanation must be given to indicate why resorts must suddenly be own affairs. This issue really is a hot potato, because it is a crying shame to have one’s colleague turned away because of the colour of his skin. An effort should be made to eliminate all such discrimination. One should not introduce unnecessary duplication. One should preferably examine how one can effect savings and make joint use of such facilities.

The general election of management committee members in October is indeed a sign that the block of granite is starting to crack. That is a serious effort which everyone can regard as a step in the direction of local reform until such time as one local election can be held for all race groups. I want to ask the Administrator to build on that foundation. Build up a South Africa in which people will try to join forces and there is no question of violence as a solution.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to be able to participate in this debate here today in our home province, the Transvaal.

I should like to speak about nature conservation and refer, in particular, to natural disasters, dividing them up into two groups: Natural disasters caused by the elements and natural disasters caused by man himself. Nature is not something we own, but something which we have been given or have inherited and which, in many respects, we do not even deserve. We have been given this heritage and we must look after it.

Nature takes its course, and we cannot change that, particularly as far as the seasons are concerned. We have our cold winters and our mild winters, hot or mild summers and periods of good rainfall or low rainfall. There are temperature variations and, as the temperature varies, we learn to adapt. We cannot order the seasonal conditions we want; that is why we have to come to know the natural conditions that prevail, live with the conditions we experience each and every day and learn how to deal with them. So much for natural disasters.

Then there are those disasters caused by man himself. How does this happen? The worst disaster caused by man himself is that of pollution— pollution of our beautiful surroundings. Nature is the first to suffer as a result of pollution. Anything one does to disrupt the natural course of events must be stopped. One must ensure that matters are put right, or there will be fatal consequences for succeeding generations.

I want to refer to four causes of pollution. Here I am thinking of acid rain which is becoming an increasing threat; smoke and smog; waste products and rubbish dumps and littering. As our industries have increased in size and number, increasingly more dangerous gases have been released into the atmosphere. Add to this the exhaust gases of myriads of vehicles on our roads, and in particular gases emitted by coal-mines which cause acid rain which seriously affects natural vegetation.

The damage done by this pollution is clearly discernible in the Eastern Transvaal and in Transvaal towns—particularly here in the PWV area. Everywhere one sees how many cedars and certain pine trees are dying out. They are just vanishing. Many of the local councils have had to remove trees from one street after another and, in their stead, plant trees which are more resistant to this acid rain.

Secondly, smoke and smog are phenomena that everyone is familiar with. When one approaches certain towns in the mornings, one finds them shrouded in a dirty, black blanket of smoke. Those are all substances which accumulate and, in conjunction with the acid rain, have such an adverse effect, because it seems as if the two combine in an effort to destroy the ecology of the province. Fortunately many present-day industries are very conscious of this problem and are designing expensive processes to combat it. We are very grateful for that fact.

Yesterday morning it was my privilege to attend the official inauguration of such a process in my own constituency. Hon members are probably familiar with the place where this was done— Semankor. It is that large steel industry adjacent to Meyerton, and hon members have seen the clouds of smoke billowing out over the roofs and casting a dark shadow over the whole area. Those clouds of smoke have now been eradicated. It was, however, no easy task. It took the firm six years of research to bring matters to the present stage of development, and the enormous amount of R20 million has already been spent to control the dust and smoke. In addition an annual amount of R4,5 million must be budgeted to maintain the system.

The third iniquity in regard to pollution involves those waste products which are so freely released into our rivers and streams. Fortunately the Rand Water Board is there to keep a weather eye on the situation and ensure that this does not happen. They cannot, however, cover all bases. The threat of these poisonous waste products to our water-life staggers the imagination.

The fourth threat involves the injudicious location of rubbish-dumps by some towns. One knows that there are measures that have to be applied. This can only be done in certain ways. One also knows that there is proper supervision, but littering is generally a situation that really causes problems. It does not seem as if the appeals that have been made over a number of years have really achieved much success. As the number of industries increase and they develop, we are faced by the threat of pollution. This is something one will have to learn to live with, but one must make the best of the situation and try to control it.

I do, however, have every confidence in our Administrator, his Executive Committee and their officials, and I am sure that they will see to it that this iniquity of pollution is combated. We depend on them, we know that they can do it, and for what they have already done, we can only say: “Thank you very, very much.”

To Mr Willem Cruywagen, who will shortly be relinquishing his post after 10 years, let me say that this is a great loss to us. It is a great pity that we are losing him. [Interjections.] It was a pleasure for me to work with him; it was very nice to play in the team of which he was the captain. We hope that he and Mrs Cruywagen will have a pleasant rest when he relinquishes his duties shortly. We wish them everything of the best— may things go very well for them.

Mr Chairman, at the very outset let me just correct one misconception. The impression has been created that some of us are malcontents who have come here to do nothing but complain.

Not malcontents, but negative in your attitude.

Let me tell the hon member for Benoni that we are not negative in our attitude, but today, for the first time, we have brought those hon members face to face with the realities in South Africa. I want hon members to understand clearly that we greatly appreciate the service furnished by the province. There is great appreciation for selfless service on the part of the officials, and we would never reject them.

When the hon member for Benoni walks into a hospital, he knows that he will be treated, but I cannot say the same. It is therefore essential for me to react, amongst other things, to what the hon members for Germiston, Boksburg and Edenvale and the hon member Dr Golden mentioned. There must first be justice before there can be peace.

It is a phenomenon of the Western World that people in the higher income groups make a larger tax contribution than those in the lower income groups. It is also true that in Western countries government spending is considerably higher for the lower income groups since their needs are greater. Yesterday I referred to the apartheid policy which does not make provision for equal opportunities enabling people of colour to furnish a quid pro quo. It is an historico-political fact that South African traditions have dictated that people of colour should earn less, and it therefore goes without saying that the needs of people of colour would be greater. In contrast to the position in Western countries, legislation has structurally established our position of subservience. I want to tell the hon member for Edenvale that we are not being emotional when we refer to shortcomings and discrimination in collective services.

No, we are not trying to be malicious or trying to blame any particular member for that. There is a shortage of facilities and services for Black people—and I count myself among them—specifically because Government spending on health, community and welfare services, education—I could extend the list—has in many ways benefited the Whites.

We are all South Africans, and I seriously want to issue the warning that apartheid is being implemented to promote sectional privilege.

I now want to confine myself to Vote No 2 and firstly quote from page 2 of the report of the hon MEC entrusted with library and museum services—

According to the Appropriation their allowance for municipal libraries evidences a decrease of R120 000, and I lament that fact, because the 278 branch libraries, or library depots, which function in our areas, are going to suffer. I again want to appeal to the province to instruct all city and town councils in the Transvaal to open libraries to all races.

Throughout the Western Transvaal rural areas there is not a single full-fledged library for Coloureds and Indians. [Interjections.] It is true that there is a reasonably equipped library at Jouberton in Klerksdorp, but I believe that successful reform measures presuppose a change in attitude. Open up all services which have been established with public funds to all races. Should the Government refuse to do that, reform would continue to be formalistic and superficial. I therefore want to ask the hon member Dr Golden: How freely accessible is the library, or as he so beautifully put it, that “source of knowledge”, to the people of Potgietersrus? [Interjections.]

As did the hon member for Rust Ter Vaal, I want to reject the resolution to divide museums up into “own” and “general” affairs with the contempt it deserves. The pigmentation of my skin may differ from that of hon members of the House of Assembly, but culturally I am very much closer to them than the immigrants who are assimilated into the White population group.

You are a very good person.

Our history is very much the same as theirs, and it is therefore unacceptable to me that museums should be classified on a racial basis. The hon member Dr Golden mentioned that a museum or a national monument embodied the soul of a nation, and I therefore believe that recognising every South African’s right to exist could largely contribute to defusing tense intergroup relations and serve as the building blocks for a new South Africa.

Under Vote No 4 I should like to refer the hon MEC entrusted with hospital services to my speech in the House of Representatives on 26 August 1987, specifically cols 2486 and 2487. Time does not permit me to repeat all that information.

The exception to the rule is Christiana where expansion is now taking place to make provision for 30 beds. Only 30 bed’s for a Black community which includes Bloemhof, Christiana and all the surrounding farms, while conditions in Western Transvaal rural areas are still appalling. The Coloured wing of the Klerksdorp Hospital makes provision for only 22 patients—this includes men, women and children. This hospital, however, must serve all the Coloured people in the Western Transvaal. This includes Potchefstroom, Rustenburg, Ventersdorp, Lichtenburg and the area up to Christiana. That is the only hospital where these people can receive specialised treatment. Therefore the two wards which are available at present are completely inadequate. Additional space must be found and the concomitant equipment must be provided.

This morning the hon MEC spelled it out here unequivocally that there would no longer be any free hospitalisation. My hon colleagues and I agree wholeheartedly, but equal payment for services surely implies at least equal treatment. That is not the case in the Western Transvaal, however, and I think that applies to the Western Transvaal as a whole. Let me refer, in particular, to the casualty ward where a Coloured or Asian patient has to wait until all the White patients on the other side have been treated.

The struggle for social justice is also a health struggle, and that is why it is essential to break down the artificial barriers between health services and politics if we want to have a healthy community. Low salaries, high rental and travel costs to one’s place of work have an effect on one’s health, since this has a definite effect on the quality of the food one can purchase and therefore the ability of parents to look after their children properly.

I do not want to go into that in detail, but I want to ask the Community Services Branch to look after the homeless in the Black areas, in particular, and to introduce essential services into the Black areas. The services which are rendered are, in fact, greatly appreciated, but I want to support other hon members in their request that dwellings which were erected 30 or more years ago should be given to the present inhabitants free of charge. This would engender pride of ownership and, what is very important, ensure stable communities in our Black areas.

In conclusion just the following. I heard Mr Olaus van Zyl referring to the question of allowances to the members of management committees. I hope these matters will now be finalised as quickly as possible. As equals in the first tier of government, it is imperative that there should be equal allowances.

The question that now arises is whether they are really equal to city councillors. If I could take, as an example, the letter written by an ex-MEC entrusted with local government, it is clear that an Indian management committee is not permitted to take decisions. Those decisions are still subject to approval by the White city council. (Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I have only been allocated a limited time to speak. I shall therefore try to abide by the arrangements made by the hon Whips. I merely want to say …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is it the intention that the hon the Administrator will conclude the debate?

Order! No, that is not the intention.

In other words, Sir, the debate will still remain open?

Order! Yes, that is correct. The hon the Administrator may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I am grateful to have been able to participate in the proceedings that have taken place here during the past two days—the proceedings of this extended public committee. As you know, Mr Chairman, I myself was a member of Parliament for 18 years. Subsequently I was also involved in the activities of the old provincial council for a further seven years. I participated in debates, discussions, meetings of this kind and so on for a period of 25 years, and it has almost become a part of me. It is something that gets into one’s blood, and now, on the eve of my retirement, it is pleasant for me to be involved in this way for the last time.

I must nevertheless say that my desire to participate has dissipated somewhat. It has declined considerably. I shall tell hon members why. It is because it seems to me as if my Executive Committee and I are regarded by certain hon members as something the cat dragged in. It seems to us as if we can simply be treated with contempt and as if we are not regarded as full participants in this meeting. Mr Chairman, I therefore very clearly and unequivocally want to ask you to clarify, with Mr Speaker and others, the future status, position and rights of the Administrators and the members of their Executive Committees in these extended joint committees.

I am not one given to protest—I never have been—but when certain points of order were raised this morning I was also on the point of getting up and leaving the Chamber. After all, we have every right to fight for the status and the position of the Administrator and members of the Executive Committee, not because we are important as individuals, but because we base this right on two specific aspects. In view of the volume of work that we do in South Africa, and the importance of the work we do, we fight for that status.

I said it yesterday. We are laying the foundation-stones on which other structures must ultimately be built. If that is the way in which we are regarded, however, let me say that I am very glad that this is my last meeting here. Mr Chairman, I should therefore like to ask you to clarify the situation for us, because when other people air certain opinions out of feelings of frustration and so on, let me say that we also have our frustrations. We are also ordinary people, who have to do our work under the pressure of circumstances and under attacks launched against us. In this debate, therefore, we ought to have the same rights as far as our choice of words is concerned, as long as our words are not unparliamentary, and we should also be able to put our views in our own right, and in all honesty, in an attempt to clarify matters which are being debated in this Committee.

Mr Chairman, unfortunately you and hon members realise that there is insufficient time to react to all the matters touched upon in the debate. I intend to ensure—in fact, the provincial secretary has already been instructed to do so and has also made arrangements with all the branches—that matters which have not specifically been replied to here will be dealt with by the relevant branches. All hon members will therefore be given answers to their arguments in writing. I also want to make a friendly request, Sir.

†Once we have furnished hon members with information in relation to those matters raised by them, if they are still not satisfied or desire further clarification, they should please contact me or one of my MECs or senior officials in order that all outstanding matters can be dealt with to the satisfaction of all involved. This is an open invitation. We do have problems with certain matters raised here in relation to things that occurred some time ago and about which we do not have all the relevant information readily available. If we had been in a position to obtain that information timeously we could have been able to attend to such matters and rectify certain situations without further ado. This is therefore an open invitation to all hon members.

*Whether this is an interim measure or not, the fact remains that hon members of Parliament are also responsible to their voters for the matters we are dealing with. We therefore want to have them as well-informed as possible. Specifically for that reason there should be continual communication and contact between this level of government and the representatives of the higher echelons of government.

Mr Chairman, once more I am asking that we should please keep in touch with one another. As my hon colleague, Mr Van Zyl, said, this is an “open-door approach”. This has been the case throughout. We shall treat hon members with kindness. We shall help them wherever they need help. We shall give hon members information whenever they require it of us.

I should just like to tell the hon member for Nelspruit that it is really a great pity that the 1986-87 annual report is not yet available. I think it is being printed at the moment. It will be tabled in Parliament shortly. We expect—we shall make the necessary arrangements too—the 1987-88 annual report to be tabled no later than the beginning of the parliamentary session next year so that hon members can also use it as a reference document from which to obtain information.

The hon member for Nelspruit also asked the question about a meeting of members of Parliament and members of the Transvaal Provincial Administration. I should like to mention that 14 to 16 September this year is still being set aside for that purpose. At a later stage we shall again be informing hon members of the particulars. We nevertheless also want to ask hon members to make use of that opportunity to achieve precisely what I asked for a moment ago.

†Mr Chairman, I want to refer to just one matter as far as finances are concerned, and that in reply to a question by the hon member for Bayview. He asked a question about a certain grant-in-aid to Pact, which was doubled. The reason for that was that all subsidies, all grants-in-aid to Pact previously came from the province as well as from the Department of National Education. Only the part contributed by the province, however, used to be reflected in our appropriation estimates. Both those amounts are now reflected in the province’s estimates. That is the only reason why it appears as though that amount has been doubled.

Furthermore, the hon member asked a question about the programmes and the position of Pact. I can tell the hon member that all programmes are designed and destined for all race groups. In fact, artists and performers of all races participate in those programmes. The State Theatre is open to all races, and Pact is administered as a general affair.

I also want to refer to remarks made by the hon member for Yeoville about the provincial income and moneys allocated to the province. I have indicated that we generate about 70% of our own income. The rest is derived from subsidies. With that we do have great problems from time to time. That is why we have asked for many years that some scientifically devised and proper formula be evolved so that the available moneys can be distributed in such a way that the Transvaal, for instance, with about 46% of the total population of the country, can receive its fair share. It is a pity that I cannot elaborate any further on that issue.

I was asked by the hon member for Northern Transvaal at least to try to use our influence in connection with certain roads in the province although we were not responsible for them. We are prepared even to use our influence, but then again particular matters should be brought to our attention—we are allies and we are parties to this—so that both the hon members and we can tackle that matter simultaneously. This applies to all matters which hon members are handling in their constituencies. I do not see the hon members as opponents; I see them as allies, but then we must come closer together.

*As far as my retirement is concerned—I see I have about a minute left—unfortunately I cannot mention names of all the hon members who wished my wife and I well. Those who did not do so verbally, did so in little notes they sent me.

†This is really appreciated. I have spent many years in this kind of institution, and if there is this kind of relationship, I personally have nothing but the highest regard therefor. I say thank you very much to all hon members.

*When I retire, I shall leave the work I have thus far done in the hands of the team of MECs. They shall continue with the work. Hon members have seen them in action here today. What we have done, we have not done merely by way of the physical structures we have established, but also by way of the attitudes and feelings we have inculcated in the hearts of people. Perhaps that was our major contribution. I know that the hon gentlemen will proceed with that work.

Mr Chairman, let me extend a word of thanks to you and to all the officials. We know that for you and for them it was a great deal of trouble. I am sorry I cannot elaborate on that.

In conclusion a word of thanks, too, to Dr De Kock and the Reserve Bank for having accommodated us here under such exceptional conditions.

I hand the Transvaal back to the Transvalers. They will have to assess in what condition it is being handed back to them. I shall merely sit back and let them pass judgement.

Mr Chairman, before time catches up with me I should like to thank the hon the Administrator and members of the Executive Committee for their clear and unequivocal replies to the debate.

I want to assure the hon the Administrator that the Rules make provision for his full-fledged participation. The only exception is the question of voting. I lament the fact, Mr Chairman, that your ruling on this matter was necessary.

It is clear that this debate is going to lead to better liaison between hon members of Parliament on the one hand and the hon the Administrator, members of the Executive Committee and the officials on the other. I believe that a different climate of liaison and co-operation will be established between us, as the hon member for Eldorado Park also indicated here.

The Administrator and members of the Executive Committee have their seat in the Transvaal. They have many regional offices and can be contacted where the voters happen to need them. Knowing them as we do, we know that they will be approachable and helpful, and if not, all hon members have the right to call the Administrator and the members of the Executive Committee to account in this debate each year, but I know that that will not be necessary. [Interjections.]

In this debate we have listened to many divergent standpoints. I am going to refer to a few. The hon member for Parktown called this debate a “farce”.

Order! The hon member for Parktown withdrew that.

Sir, I am sorry I referred to that.

Parliamentary control can never be a farce. It is very important, and it all depends on what the participants make of it. If parliamentary procedure permitted me to do so, I could indicate what was indeed a farce.

I want to come to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition (House of Assembly). Even in his absence it is necessary for us to place these allegations on record in Hansard. His walkout yesterday was a demonstration that did not impress us. Then he returned this morning, only to walk out once again. That is a gimmick.

He complained about the allocation of time, even in the Free State, the Cape and Natal where his party does not have a single seat. He added the time allocated to the hon the Administrator and members of the Executive Committee to that of the governing party (House of Assembly) and then said that was all time allocated to the governing party. Other hon members have already indicated the mistakes one can make in arithmetic.

We are used to boycotts by the Official Opposition. The present Official Opposition (House of Assembly) will not be the first Official Opposition to make use of boycotts, but the consequences of their boycotting will prove as disastrous as those of their predecessor.

The CP is protesting against a system which takes into consideration present-day realities, particularly in the Transvaal. The numerical configuration in the Transvaal makes us very important in regard to the general affairs with which the Provincial Administration has to deal. Their demonstration and their boycotts are a transparent attempt to detract from the importance of this problem.

I now want to come to their walkout today. It is very clear to all hon members present here that one cannot blame the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition (House of Assembly) himself, but rather his lieutenant, the hon member for Pietersburg. Be that as it may, boycotting because one does not accept a chairman’s ruling is a very new political trend. I therefore want to appeal to the Official Opposition (House of Assembly) to take the first available opportunity to spell out very clearly their attitude to future participation.

†The word “democracy” was used by many hon members in this debate. It was alleged that the provincial system was not an extension of democracy. In this system all groups become part of the executive, an executive which is very important in all four provinces. [Interjections.] The provincial administrations in all four provinces receive R6 833 million from the total budget, and compared with the balance that amount is approximately 14,81%. If one adds to that amount the provinces’ own funds, the percentage increases. In view of this important aspect all parties were afforded every opportunity on the standing committee to take the hon the Administrator and the members of the Executive Committee to task. Not one question from even the smallest party was disallowed. There was time to spare at the end of the day.

When?

This year.

Not today!

Last year, when this debate formed part of the discussion of the Development Planning Vote, the PFP was unwilling to use more than one speaker and to devote more than 10 minutes to the debate, and that also applied to the Official Opposition (House of Assembly).

The hon member for Waterberg now bases his demonstration on two aspects, the first being that the parliamentary programme was coming to a standstill as a result of these sittings. Surely that does not do justice to this Committee and its function as part of the parliamentary set-up.

The second aspect relates to costs. If these Committees had not sat in the various provinces, the parliamentary session would have been extended by six days, or otherwise the time allocated to this debate would have been much shorter.

In this debate it would appear as if the amount provided is insufficient to provide the standards of service required by members. If that is so, on behalf of the provincial administration we ask for your assistance in finding those sources.

We shall have to discuss this in another forum. I do, however, want to caution against standards such as those being recommended by the National Building Research Institute—I heard over the news that they were going to institute investigations, etc—standards which would completely deprive people of housing. A compromise will have to be reached. In finding additional sources of revenue, regional services councils will have to play an important role—as many hon members have pointed out—in generating funds and ensuring co-operation.

†I want to agree with the hon member for Yeoville—this does not happen very often—that there are certain good points in this debate and that there are certain bad points. We agree that there should be elected structures, as he put it. We also agree with him that they should have the necessary safeguards for groups and individuals. Furthermore, we agree with him that there is no room for discrimination.

*These structures must be accepted on a broad level, however, and this can only be achieved by negotiation. Negotiation alone is not enough, however. That attitude must be inculcated, and I see Parliament itself as the best vehicle for doing so. [Time expired.]

Order! This brings us to the end of the proceedings.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I want to put it to you that the time allocated to the House of Assembly for this debate has not been utilised fully. The time allocated to the House of Assembly was 280 minutes and we have used approximately 224 minutes. I want to put it to you, Sir, that there is almost an hour of time for debate left and that, in addition to that, there was time allocated to the CP—40 minutes—of which they used approximately five minutes. I want to ask you, Sir, whether you would allow hon members of the opposition in the House of Assembly to use the time not used by the CP. In putting that to you, Sir, I want to mention that we made representations to the Whips of the governing party in the House of Assembly to be allowed to use that time. They made five minutes available to us, and it was their intention to allow us a little more time. However, they apparently contacted the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament in Cape Town, who ruled that we could not use this extra time in the Transvaal.

Sir, as this time is available and as my colleague, the hon member for Houghton, is ready, willing and able to debate the issues that are important to the Transvaal Province, I ask you to recognise the hon member for Houghton.

Mr Chairman, on a further point of order: According to the time we allocated to this debate, the remaining time allocated to the House of Assembly is time that was allocated to the NP. The CP is not present and the Whips of Parliament could not therefore reach unanimity about how this time would be divided up. What is more, it is worth noting that when the hon the Administrator addressed them, members of the PFP had not the slightest interest in his standpoint.

That is not true!

Sir, they simply wanted to be the alpha and the omega of this debate …

Order! The hon member may address me on a point of order.

Very well, Sir, I shall conclude the point of order. According to our timekeeping, there is no further time left for the PFP, and we can therefore not proceed with this debate.

Order! This matter was discussed with the hon member for Sandton, who came to my chambers together with the hon member for Alberton. I put my views to them. I thought there was an agreement. The hon member for Alberton then made a phone call to make doubly certain of the procedural position. As hon members are aware, the time allocation lies in the hands of the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament. In any event at this stage I have no speakers’ list in front of me. The speakers’ list has been completed and therefore, in terms of Rule 12, as far as I am concerned that takes care of the matter and the point of order is not accepted.

This then brings us to the end of these proceedings. I have been asked by hon members to announce that the memorial service for the late Mr Peter Jacobs will be held on Wednesday, 25 May at 19h00 in the community hall at Eden Park, whilst the funeral service will be held on Saturday, 28 May at 16h00 at the Allanridge Community Centre, Uitenhage.

*I am sure hon members will permit me to thank the president of the Reserve Bank, on the one hand, for making these wonderful facilities available to us and, on the other, for the cordiality with which we have been treated. I should like to thank him for that.

†On behalf of all hon members I also want to thank the hon the Administrator and his executive committee for the sumptuous buffet lunch we enjoyed yesterday. It was much appreciated and we wish him well on his retirement.

*I want to thank the parliamentary officials at the Table, the officials of Hansard and others very sincerely for their helpfulness. In particular, I also want to thank the officials of the Reserve Bank who have given us such competent service throughout.

†It remains for me to wish all hon members a safe journey home to their respective venues. I hope to see them soon in Cape Town.

Debate concluded.