Mr Speaker, this is my first opportunity of addressing this House in my new capacity as Minister of the Budget and Works of the Ministers’ Council, and I should like to take the opportunity of placing on record my gratitude to the hon the State President for the confidence he has displayed in me by promoting me to this position.

At the outset I should also like to pay tribute to and to express my admiration for my predecessor for his capable and efficient handling of this administration during his period of office in his previous capacity. I wish him a successful term of office in his new position in the hon the State President’s Office.

I also wish to place on record my appreciation for the distinguished Director-General of this ministry, and also of his staff. They have really given me a warm and kind reception. Mr Meyer, the Director-General, is a public servant who served with great distinction also in the erstwhile office of the Prime Minister, and it is a great pleasure for me to be able to work with him. This is a service ministry, and I intend to serve. The Ministers’ Council consists of a very closely-knit team, I have found, and I propose to play not only in but also with that team.

This administration is a very large one. I have a very huge responsibility. If one ignores statutory transfers from the appropriations of the various departments comprising the central Government it becomes clear that we are handling in this administration the second largest administration in the Government. People often do not realise that that is indeed the case, but it is so. With the exception of the Department of Defence this one is the largest administration. It is not a linefunction department.

*I deal with personnel, special services, efficiency services, financial services, auxiliary and civil services, supply administration, legal services, our own Treasury, the secretariat of the Ministers’ Council and many other functions. It is therefore a very interesting ministry in which to serve.

At the outset I just want to make a few remarks. Firstly I want to refer to flood relief. Hon members will note that R100 million for flood damage has been included in the administration’s supplementary appropriation. This will be used to alleviate the problems of the victims of the recent flood damage in Natal, the Free State and Northern Cape.

It is probably not generally known that this department of the Administration: House of Assembly rendered valuable service and helped the unfortunate people in distress in an excellent and extremely competent manner during the flood disasters. The department is still helping out with the provision of temporary housing, maintenance, education facilities and health and welfare services, the provision of emergency food supplies and agricultural aid.

I should like to pay tribute to all the officials of the department and the Administration: House of Assembly who worked tirelessly and selflessly day and night to render these services during that time of crisis. [Interjections.] I thank them for their sacrifices and also for the fact that they were able to help in such an efficient manner.

†Parliament is about accountability. The Government is called to account, and it is right that this should be so. In this administration we have recently had a report of the Auditor-General which was uncomplimentary and, since it is the function of the Government to give account, I think I should just mention in passing some of the contents of that report.

The report reflects an unfortunate picture regarding the Appropriation and Miscellaneous Accounts in respect of the Administration: House of Assembly. However, I should like to place on record certain circumstantial factors that should be taken into account when reading that report. I think I owe it to Parliament and to hon members in this debate to place these matters on record.

Unlike any normal department where the accounting officer has to deal with only one Vote, the accounting officer in this administration has to deal with eight Votes, and not only eight Votes, but also in respect of five departments. This multiplies by eight the normal exercise in compiling appropriation accounts, financial statements and all other similar returns. Therefore, in order to comply with the requirements of the Auditor-General, whereas a normal general affairs department of State has to produce an average of 50 reports, this department has to produce 350 financial statements each year in comparison, as I have said, with the general affairs ministry of only 50.

This single report of the Auditor-General contains comments on all eight Votes and, if these comments had been contained in eight separate Votes as would happen in the case of a general affairs department, there would be no justification for the impression which has been created. Some of the accounts, statements and returns referred to by the Auditor-General as being unacceptable were returned to the administration purely owing to differences in interpretation. Several of the statements required to be submitted are peculiar to the Administration: House of Assembly and are not required in respect of a general affairs department; for example the Revenue Account: House of Assembly, the revenue and expenditure transactions in respect of the Revenue Account and so forth.

Furthermore, a new computerised clearance system was implemented by the State with effect from 1 April 1986 in respect of the SATS accounts. As a result of technical problems experienced in the implementation of this system, it was impossible for this administration to comply with the prescribed requirements. As a result of this backlog, the amount of R1,6 million could not be cleared against the various programmes. However, this backlog has been very substantially decreased and there is now only an amount of R186 000 outstanding as at April 1988, and this amount in turn is shrinking very fast as the accounts are received. The updating and reconciliation of the debtor system in respect of assistance to farmers, with the financial management system, has for many years proved difficult to achieve, and this has also hampered the finalisation of statements and returns. The new system has been drafted by the Treasury and will be implemented during 1988. It is anticipated that the new system will severely reduce the problems that have been experienced, at least since 1980.

You will note, Sir, that this has been an ongoing problem for seven years and so it is a problem that we in this administration have inherited. The Administration: House of Assembly is to a great extent still dependent on an agency basis on departments from which functions were transferred to this administration; for example, the Department of Education and Culture in respect of which the four provincial administrations still render a service to this administration.

Though the provincial education function was transferred with effect from 1 April 1986, the expenditure in respect of the four provincial components is still being accounted for within the financial systems of the provinces. We therefore have to wait for the provinces to supply us with information to be included in our statements and returns, and that information can only be supplied after the provinces have closed their accounts. This causes unavoidable delays, because the accounts all close at the same time, so we are unavoidably late in that respect.

One of the most important factors, if not the most important one, inhibiting the proper execution of the accounting officer’s function is the fact that we are dealing with inheritances. Not only have functions, finances and staff been transferred to this administration, but also vacancies, inadequacies and some staff without the necessary training and experience, and also problems which already existed in those administrations.

On the positive side, let me say that since January 1988, due to the ingenuity of the officials of this administration, new procedures have been designed in respect of which we trust that we will be able to cope with most of the problems that I have mentioned. I have personally made it my business to interest myself in these activities since my appointment.

In order to circumvent the lack of suitably trained staff, an inspection questionnaire has been designed for completion by officials who are not financial experts but act in a supervisory capacity. The feedback that we have received to date is that a great measure of success has already been achieved.

Happily, our experience to date has overwhelmingly been that of uncovering administrative inadequacies rather than dishonesty, and these inadequacies have been addressed and mainly eliminated.

Thirty-three inspections have already been executed at 86 offices where cash is handled and, as a result of these questionnaires, we are now in a position to send qualified staff to those offices where problems are experienced. In other words, we are employing management by exception, and the problems have diminished very rapidly.

At this stage there are indications that we may already be in a position to comply with all the requirements laid down by the Auditor-General to prevent the recurrence of such a negative report with its unhappy comments on the state of the administration.

I want to emphasise, however, that we welcome criticism and are grateful for the report of the Auditor-General. We do not want to make excuses for the administration, but we do want to place on record the facts so that when the Auditor-General’s report and the comments thereon are tabled, they can be read with the necessary balance. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, allow me at the outset to convey the congratulations of this side of the House to the hon the Minister with regard to the new responsibilities resting on his shoulders.

Since the new dispensation came into force the office furniture for own affairs and general affairs and for different own affairs departments has been moved around so frequently—there is also the attendant shifting of Ministers and their functions—that it is sometimes really difficult to keep abreast of things. One can understand that this places a virtually impossible burden on the officials.

Having congratulated the hon the Minister on his appointment, I also want to sympathise with him, because we can see that he has inherited problems. If we look at the department for which he is responsible, I want to refer in particular to the administration of his department. I see strange things in programme 1. We are ostensibly dealing with an own affairs department, but the following is said inter alia in the description of programme 1 of this department:

From this I must deduce that the appointment of a marriage officer for the Administration: House of Assembly is apparently still an own affair for the Whites. I should like to know whether the appointment of marriage officers is also an own affair for the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates. Is the intention that these marriage officers falling under this hon Minister and to be appointed by him, will only solemnise White weddings? This borders on the ridiculous!

I also came across the item “services to citizens in respect of electoral matters” in the report. I tried to make enquiries. As far as I could ascertain electoral matters in terms of the Electoral Act, Act 45 of 1979, are still a function of the Department of Home Affairs. It would seem that in future, after the necessary legislation has been passed, elections will be own affairs for the respective population groups. At present this would still seem to be a general affair.

I want to come back to the subject I wanted to talk about and link up with the hon the Minister. The hon the Minister referred right at the outset to the report of the Auditor-General on the state of affairs in the Administration: House of Assembly. I want to point out that in his previous annual report the Auditor-General had already expressed his concern about the inadequate control which existed in some cases.

This was also raised in last year’s debate. The hon Minister who was in control of this Vote last year said the following. I am referring to col 2110 in Hansard:

The hon the Minister also told us last year that things could only get better.

Now one gets this year’s report from the Auditor-General. To say the least—one does not want to be too dramatic—in many respects the report reveals a totally unacceptable situation to us. I am referring to the report in which the Auditor-General said the following:

He said that he only received the reports on 21 October and the last returns on 31 December 1987. He went on to say:

This is simply not good enough!

On page 7 of the report the Auditor-General referred to housing subsidies. He said:

This, too, is unacceptable.

However, what I consider to be the absolute limit appears on page 42.1 am referring to the Department of Works. I am quoting what the Auditor-General said:

This was in Pretoria—

As a matter of fact, in his evidence before the standing committee the Auditor-General told us that he found that office in such a state that it was not possible to do a proper audit.

This afternoon the hon the Minister tried to apologise here and said there were interpretation problems between the Auditor-General and the officials involved with some of these matters.

However, if the Auditor-General tells us that the office of a government department is in such a state that it is not possible to do an audit, it is really late in the day.

Lastly the Auditor-General referred to the hon the Minister’s own Vote, namely Budgetary and Auxiliary Services. He said the Department of Finance had made certain recommendations regarding supplementary staff. The Auditor-General reported to us as follows:

However, we are glad to see that in the short explanatory memorandum to Vote No 5 which we received, we are told—

I think it became clear to every member of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts that something drastic had to be done rectify this matter. We received the same reply from one State department after the other, when they had to explain what the problems were and why they were experiencing those problems, namely that there was a shortage of staff. We were told that in spite of efforts which were made to acquire suitable staff in this sphere they could not succeed in rectifying the position.

Things cannot go on like this. I am not blaming the senior officials of the department. To a great extent they inherited the situation. However, we entered the new dispensation untested; not only untested, but also without the entire matter having been thought out properly. Functions were shifted hither and thither from the second tier to the central Government, and back again, so that it was difficult for us to keep abreast of things; in certain respects it was probably even more difficult for the officials. However, I want to make a serious appeal. As regards the proper checking and control of the finances of every department in this own affairs administration, it is late in the day. It is absolutely essential that an adequate solution be found to this problem.

I am not blaming the present hon Minister for this, because he was thrown in at the deep end. However, it is now his administrative responsibility to see to it that this matter is rectified.

Mr Chairman, I should like to follow up on what the previous speaker said by congratulating the hon the Minister on his new post. We on this side of the House wish him everything of the best for the future. We are in no doubt about the fact that he has the competence to perform these functions of his very well.

The hon member who spoke just before I did, the hon member for Barberton, said that there were too many changes being made to the positions of respective Ministers and that these changes were taking place too rapidly. I do not think that is fair criticism, particularly not if one bears in mind that minimal changes have been made in recent times. When we debate matters in this House, it also seems to me as if there are many examples of different hon members of the opposition parties taking the floor as spokesmen during the debates on the various Votes. It therefore seems to me as if there is far more chopping and changing on the opposition side than the minimal changes taking place at Cabinet level.

I want to refer to Vote No 6 which deals with the improvement of conditions of service. At the bottom of the explanatory page the statement is made that an amount of R45,555 million is being provided for the elimination of disparity between the various population groups. This includes an amount of R17,422 million, and also an amount of R28,133 million for the improvement of conditions of service for certain occupational groups.

I should like to make few remarks about the question of equality. I support equality when it comes to the payment of labourers, because I support fairness. I think that any reasonable person will support fairness as a norm when it comes to the payment of the salaries and wages of our labourers and workers in the various population groups. As far as our labour force is concerned, equality is a prerequisite for fairness, fairness is a prerequisite for peace and peace is a prerequisite for White prosperity and survival.

The question, however, is exactly what the Official Opposition’s standpoint is on equality or the elimination of the wage gap. Are they in favour of it or are they opposed to it? In my investigation into what the Official Opposition’s policy is, I could find nothing, because I also discovered that the Official Opposition has no economic policy. I should like to know from the Official Opposition what their attitude is in regard to the elimination of the wage gap and the concept of equality when it comes to labourers and salaried workers who are paid by the Treasury. What is their attitude in regard to this very important aspect? [Interjections.]

It is an historic fact that there has been a wage gap, and in this own affairs debate there is also, of course, the aspect of labourers who have to earn wages and salaried workers who have to be paid from our funds by the own affairs department. It is therefore important, as far as own affairs are concerned, for us also to decide how the salaries and wages should be apportioned amongst the various races and whether there should be a wage gap or not.

The Government’s standpoint on this question is very clear. In 1979 the then Prime Minister, Mr Vorster, announced that a programme had been adopted to eliminate the wage gap and the inequality in salaries and wages.

I think it is also fair to put forward certain conditions in regard to the elimination of this disparity. I think it should be borne in mind that the elimination of the wage gap should be tackled with due regard to what is happening in the free market. The State should not adjust salaries and wages in such a way that they are completely out of step with what is happening in the free market. A reasonable amount which is indicated in this Vote …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I submit that the hon member is not discussing the Vote, but is engaged in a discussion of general affairs.

Order! I am listening to the hon member. At the moment he is discussing conditions of service. I want to point out, however, that we cannot digress too far in regard to general conditions of service in the Public Service as a whole, because we must confine ourselves to the conditions of service as set out in this Vote.

Mr Chairman, may I address you on this point? The conditions of service I am discussing relate to the elimination of the disparity, and I am only speaking about those workers for whom salaries and wages are being appropriated from our own affairs funds. The same applies, of course, in regard to general affairs. I respectfully submit that the fact that it is applicable here and at the general affairs level, Sir, cannot prevent me from discussing it here, because at this level it is equally applicable and equally true.

[Inaudible.]

Order! I can understand the hon member’s standpoint, but it should just be noted that the Public Service as such has already been discussed under the relevant general affairs Vote. We can therefore not allow the disparity in the Public Service or parity in salaries to be discussed as a whole. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, with all due respect to your ruling, we have Black people in the employ of the own affairs administration and we are budgeting here for Black people too. This whole amount of R44,55 million is being budgeted solely for that purpose! I refer you once more to Vote 6 …

Order! I am not arguing with the hon member about his discussion of disparity when this relates to own affairs. He may speak about that. The hon member may proceed.

He is not speaking about your Blacks, but about ours.

He was merely explaining that to Koos, because he did not understand it.

I can understand hon members of the Official Opposition finding it very difficult to understand your ruling.

Koos is a bit slow on the uptake.

A reasonably large portion of the amount being budgeted for here is earmarked for loans for farm labourers who have to be paid by the Treasury. I merely want to the issue a warning that we should not appropriate funds, for the elimination of the disparities, which are so excessive that they can give rise to such drastic salary and wage increases that this is completely out of step with the situation prevailing in the private sector. We know, do we not, that the farming industry at present is having a very lean time of it. In the private sector it is difficult for the farmers, as result of a smaller profit margins, to pay higher wages. It would therefore be an unsound policy, as far as those labourers are concerned, for the State to narrow the wage gap too quickly, thereby precipitating too large a gap between public servants and others.

The second point I want to make relates to the condition that there should be equal payment for equal work, productivity and responsibility. It is encouraging that the narrowing of the wage gap does not simply involve rectifying inequalities. The achievement of higher levels of skill and an increase in productivity have also played a role. I can find no fault with hon members who say that equal payment should be the norm for equal work, productivity and responsibility, because a person who is not as productive and responsible, as another surely cannot receive the same payment. That is specifically what parity means. All aspects must be equal; otherwise it would mean that one group was being benefited at the expense of another.

I repeat the fact that equal payment and the elimination of the wage gap in 1979 was accepted under the then Prime Minister. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition was the responsible Minister at the time and made a major contribution …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: My submission is that the hon member is still not confining himself to the framework of the discussion of this Vote. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Klip River may proceed.

… in his department towards narrowing the wage gap. Hon members on the opposite side of the House agreed with that philosophy and approach.

That is a half-truth!

There can be no doubt about that, unless I am proved to be wrong. Then the Official Opposition must tell me, however, precisely what its standpoint is.

Order! The problem, however, is that in the debate on this Vote the hon member cannot furnish any proof of this being right or wrong. If I have heard the hon member correctly, education and training have nothing to do with this Vote.

Mr Chairman, I am discussing the philosophy that the wage gap that exists in regard to labourers and salaries staff of all race groups for whom we must now make payment should be rectified. If this is approved or accepted at another level by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, surely he must accept it in these circumstances too. I am merely indicating that the two situations are analogous.

Order! The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, is the hon member aware of the fact that when the recommendations in regard to parity were made at various levels, I personally said that at one and the same time one should give attention to equality in regard to subsidies, other allowances, taxation and production?

I think that is a very reasonable request.

But do you know about that?

Although I do not know about it, I cannot fault it, because I think it is in accordance with what I am now asking for and in accordance with what the Government intends to do. [Interjections.] I want to know, however, whether it is still the CP’s standpoint. [Interjections.] It is not the CP’s standpoint, however, and I shall now tell hon members why not. There is gross exploitation of the Government’s favourable attitude and its intention to give substance to equality. I want to mention an example of that to hon members.

On 3 March 1988 the hon member for Carletonville made a speech in this House in which he said …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May I focus your attention on the Chairman of Committee’s ruling last year, on Monday, 22 June 1987? The ruling was given while this Vote was under discussion. I quote (Hansard: House of Assembly, 1987, col 2016):

After having been addressed by the hon member for Yeoville, he gave the following ruling:

Order! I see the hon member for Klip River as the chief spokesman on the NP side, and as such he can therefore cover a wider field. The hon member for Klip River may proceed. [Interjections.]

Thank you, Mr Chairman.

We are faced with the situation that in this House the Official Opposition purposely does not want to adopt a standpoint about its attitude in regard to the wage gap, but I want to repeat what the hon member for Carletonville said on Thursday, 3 March 1988. He referred to the possibility of the CP taking over the reins of government, and I quote (Hansard: House of Assembly, 1988, col 2876):

Mr Chairman, the point I want to make is the following …

Make it and sit down!

What would the Official Opposition do, when it is governing, in regard to this Vote, in which a large amount is being voted to narrow the wage gap? Are they going to say that they will not permit that and then earmark that amount exclusively for the Whites? That is what they are going to tell the voting public. The fact that the cake as a whole is not increasing at the rate we would want it to, and that there is consequently economic stagnation, which is the result of the economic pressure being exerted on South Africa, is the result of the wage gap having to be narrowed because this is government policy. That, however, is an unjust and false presentation of the facts. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, may I just briefly react to the main concept of the hon member for Klip River’s address? Basically, the concept of equal pay for equal work has been accepted in South Africa generally—I think—for a long time now. I think there are only isolated people who today believe that because of the colour of a person’s skin he should in fact be paid less when he does the identical job and has the identical productivity. I think that is a generally accepted concept amongst people in South Africa. Those who do not follow it, I think, are out of step with what the overwhelming number of South Africans believe.

One other thing, however, which arises from the hon member’s speech, I believe, is very important. It is that we are only allowed to look at this administration. It is actually remarkable that there are approximately—I am referring to the published figure—2% of people who are employed by this administration who earn R166 or less a month. I should like to know from the hon the Minister and from hon members of the NP whether they think—irrespective of parity; irrespective of equal pay for equal work—that anybody can be expected to work for R166 or less a month. They should bear in mind it is an amount of R166 a month or less. Talking about that, Sir, allow me to point out that more than half the people employed by this administration earn less than R500 a month. Surely there is something fundamentally wrong when the whole country talks about the tremendous salaries paid to public servants, while we have the situation in this administration that more than half the people are earning R500 a month or less.

I believe we ought to hear some kind of an explanation for this, since my own belief is that one of the problems with productivity is that one actually gets what one pays for. That is what life is about. This, I believe, needs very urgent attention.

Having reacted to the hon member for Klip River, I want to extend my personal congratulations to the newly appointed hon Minister. I think he is going to do a good job. I wish him well in his new job. I think he has the necessary dedication and the necessary ability. I am looking forward to having an interesting debate with him in regard to this portfolio. Perhaps that will not last too long because, no doubt, he will be going to other pastures, like other people do after the passage of time. Nevertheless, Sir, I do think we will have interesting times.

One of the problems this hon Minister has is that—he has used the word himself—he has inherited things. In Roman law there was a concept known as hereditas damnosa. It was an inheritance which hon members who studied law will remember in which one had to take over the liabilities of the deceased. Sir, I am not suggesting that the hon the Minister of Administration and Privatisation is deceased, but he certainly left this hon Minister a hereditas damnosa. The reason why that is so is demonstrated by the necessity this hon Minister felt, firstly, to speak right at the beginning of this debate, and secondly, to talk about the Auditor-General’s report. In the process he had to try to extricate himself—he is entitled to do so—from a very unsatisfactory situation.

I think that is sad, and I should like to deal with it in some detail. There is a rather difficult problem in this regard. You, Sir, are aware of the fact that the Select Committee on Public Accounts of this House completed this report some considerable time ago, and for reasons unknown to me that report has not yet been tabled. Everybody has discussed the Auditor-General’s report, which has been tabled and which is therefore public property. It is perfectly proper that they have done so. We have, however, done it in a situation in which the Select Committee on Public Accounts, which has considered many of these things in detail—and much worse things than have been mentioned until now have become apparent—has not yet tabled its report, with the result that we are, in terms of the Rules, not entitled to refer to it.

So, Sir, to some extent I am debating here as it were with one hand tied behind my back. That, I believe, is an unfair situation. We are probably not even going to have an opportunity of debating that report during this session.

Therefore, we are debating the Auditor-General’s report without the Public Accounts Committee’s report and without being able to refer to that evidence. I find that extremely unsatisfactory.

Let me give an example. I want to wish the former hon Minister of this department well in his new portfolio of Administration and Privatisation. However, I should like to discuss the privatisation of Groot Constantia, an issue that has been raised in this report. Well, Sir, I cannot tell you how the committee feels, but I can tell you that we in these benches are utterly opposed to the privatisation of Groot Constantia which is a national asset and which should remain the property of and be owned by the people. As far as its farming activities are concerned, that we can discuss, but to privatise a national heritage is to my mind sacrilegious, and we will certainly not be a party to it.

In talking about Groot Constantia—I think the hon the Minister has some experience in this regard—when we look at these accounts contained in the auditor’s report, I think that they are a joke. They are not in accordance with commercial practice; they give one no picture at all of the activities of that organisation; in fact, they actually create a completely misleading situation because the position of Groot Constantia is as a matter of fact far worse than these accounts on the face of them tend to demonstrate. As far as its farming activities are concerned, Groot Constantia requires extremely urgent attention. The hon the Minister who, I think, is sentimentally attached to Groot Constantia to the same extent that I think I am, together with many of us in this House, must give this matter his very urgent attention.

One of the problems that arise in relation to this whole matter is that this hon Minister is really the Minister of Finance as far as White own affairs are concerned. It is therefore his responsibility to negotiate in order to obtain the funds that are necessary for this administration, to apportion them and then to ensure their control. That is what he is there for. He has already outlined to us the number of reports and the number of Votes for which he is responsible—he has a number of departments under his care—and he compares himself with a general affairs Vote. In doing so, he is actually pointing to the absolute fallacy that exists, namely that this particular own affairs administration seeks to be a completely separate administration of the White community of South Africa as such in respect of a whole variety of matters. It is not a single Vote equivalent to general affairs; it is a complete administration. This is the problem that we encounter—that we have a crazy situation in South Africa. On the one hand we have general affairs which embrace a variety of subjects including many matters which by definition in the Constitution should be own affairs. One also has own affairs which include many matters which are general affairs, and which in turn give matters on an agency basis to general affairs institutions; and then, one has the provincial administrations which are themselves supposed to be general affairs but which are also concerned with many matters which are said to be own affairs. I do not think we could get this situation any more confused if we really tried.

In the newspaper today there appears a report on a girl who can see through her nose. [Interjections.] I am rather surprised that this is newsworthy because in this House there are many hon members who can speak through parts of their anatomy other than those designed by nature for doing so! [Interjections.] There are also those who have ears which do not function, and there are also other skills which are used in a manner which is so confusing that I feel that this report in the newspaper should be on the back page and not on page 3 where it appears. Therefore, when we look at what is happening in regard to the whole issue of general and own affairs, I must say that I have the greatest sympathy for this hon Minister. I want to tell him that as I see the situation at the moment we have the position where there really is inadequate staff to deal with the problem; we have an administration that is not logical; and we are left with incongruities, inconsistencies and illogicalities in trying to deal with a system that simple does not function. Then, when things go wrong, it is the officials who have to carry the can because it is the officials who are told: Look here, the Auditor-General’s report says this, that and the other, and you should have done this job better.

One of the things I find remarkable, looking at what has transpired in relation to the excuses given—the hon the Minister wanted to preempt the debate on this—is evident from the Auditor-General’s report. In every single case, when a problem was noted and an explanation asked for, it was attributed to the staff shortages.

I blame the political heads and not the heads of the departments for that, because it was the political heads who decided that, because it was necessary to cut down on State expenditure—not that they would decide what the State should or should not do—posts should be frozen. They have now decided that certain posts which remain unfilled are going to be abolished, but they have not taken into account the fact that if one does not administer things properly, they will cost far more money in the long run.

With great respect, I wish to refer to a matter which we were told about and not allowed to mention, but which the hon the Minister has referred to here himself. He said he was overcoming some of these problems by means of sending out a circular which people had to fill in. As a control measure, no circular can be a substitute for checks by people. One can mitigate problems that way, but one cannot solve them by doing what the hon the Minister is seeking to do.

Then the hon the Minister said that there was no question—I think I noted his words down correctly—of dishonesty in relation to these problems, and that they were merely the result of administrative inadequacies. I find that remarkable in the light of the Auditor-General’s report. There is apparently no question of dishonesty, and yet, for instance, somebody stole R202 000 worth of cattle. There is apparently no question of dishonesty, but when I look at this report, I find that because of the lack of control measures, people stole more that year than they had stolen in previous years.

The tragedy and the reality that we have to take into account is that inadequate measures of control result in laxity and also, unfortunately, in increasing dishonesty and in people getting away with it.

Let me move on to something which I find hurtful and utterly unacceptable, namely the situation in regard to the housing subsidy. The last time he spoke, the previous Minister took the opportunity of fitting in a statement in respect of housing subsidies and the fact that the matter was being investigated. In reality, however, there are irregularities concerning housing subsidies. This is a very serious problem which may well affect thousands of people and involve a very large amount of money.

I think the hon the Minister therefore owes us an explanation of the exact extent of these irregularities, the number of people involved at the present moment—there are certainly thousands of them—the anticipated amounts and the nature of the abuses which have taken place.

The important factor in this regard is that the very people appointed to ensure that the public obey the law, are honest and do not commit breaches are in many cases themselves guilty of such transgressions. If one appoints a wolf to act as a sheepdog, I do not what is expected to happen. I must ask the hon the Minister now to come clean in this regard.

I also understand that this goes a little further, and concerns not only housing subsidies, but also subsidised transport. I want to know what is involved in this, because we cannot allow it to happen. We cannot allow this kind of thing to creep into the service. I am sure that this hon Minister in his new portfolio will give us the assurance that he will root it out and not cover it up or condone it, and that he will strive to eliminate it every turn.

You can have that assurance now.

I know the hon the Minister will try to do so.

The other matter which the hon the Minister must appreciate concerns one portion of this Auditor-General’s report under the heading “Losses and deficiencies” on page 48 where the Auditor-General states:

I am only pleased that the Transvaal appears to have come out of it quite well this time—

When one gets this kind of situation in regard to an education department, I say to myself this really cannot be tolerated or allowed, it must be put an end to.

Unless something is actually done about this situation and the people are given the qualified staff to exercise the necessary controls, and unless people are paid what they deserve to be paid so as to attract the right kind of people to do the work, one is going to have this long history of one report after another giving us a tale of inefficiency and inadequacy.

It would be inappropriate for me to make any speech on own affairs finance without referring to the formula. I have asked, not once, not twice, but on innumerable occasions what was happening to this legislation. We got the assurance that it was coming this year and then we were told it was no longer coming this year because there were some technical problems with regard to it. I think this hon the Minister must tell us what the technical problems are. What is the difficulty with regard to this formula legislation? Why cannot we get the facts about what is taking place?

The problem is not merely a question of a formula; it goes far deeper than that. One can take social pensions as the classic example. In the House of Representatives one has the dispute between the hon the Minister in charge of pensions there and the Minister of Finance about his requirement of closing the pensions gap quicker this year and that he wanted an increase in pensions. However, I do not want to enter the realms of that dispute.

Until such time as we know what money is really going to be made available to own affairs administration, the reality is that one cannot have one’s house in proper order. At the present moment all that is happening is that one gets ad hoc sums of money which are negotiated and one does not know what one can really spend according to one’s own determination of priorities. This House should have its own determination of priorities. I would like to know what the hon the Minister’s priorities are. If one wants to increase social pensions, one will have to take the money away from somewhere else.

Is there actually any degree of independence of an own affairs administration when the reality is that one is entirely financially dependent on the hon the Minister of Finance and, in fact, the general affairs administration? If that independence does not exist, the whole concept of own affairs in which this Government believes, falls to the ground. One cannot have any degree of independence in the determination of your own destiny if you have no financial independence. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, much of what the hon member for Yeoville said was addressed to the hon the Minister himself and therefore I am not going to deal with it.

You cannot!

It was not I.

That is a good thing!

†I do, however, want to associate myself with one remark that the hon member for Yeoville made, namely in congratulating the hon the Minister on his promotion and expressing the confidence that he will be able to carry out the task allotted to him. Hon members know the old slogan: “Service with a smile”. This hon Minister has promised us the service, and knowing him as the smiling gentleman he always is, I think we are going to see both of these characteristics coming to the fore in his new portfolio.

*I should like to discuss Vote No 4 today, namely Local Government, Housing and Works. In the first place I want to pay attention to a matter which has been bothering local communities for quite some time, and that is the fact that certain buildings are maintained annually on the basis of agencies, which are, for example, run by the provincial administrations. The amounts involved must run into considerable figures annually in several constituencies. The local contractors often ask why their services are not utilised for functions of this kind.

I want to raise the point that these maintenance services will not only be cheaper if they were undertaken by local contractors, but that in these days of unemployment it would provide job opportunities for certain artisans and their labourers. They can then be retained in the home community instead of having to find a livelihood elsewhere. Furthermore it naturally follows that when the local inhabitants perform these functions at a local level, it means a major financial injection for the local community.

As far as the screening of the tenders to perform such repairs are concerned—I even want to include the question of safeguards—there should be no problems. In the case of schools, for example, the school boards or management committees, that ought to have a good knowledge of the abilities of the local contractors and the quality of the work they perform, should be able to do the screening well enough. There can, of course, as in all cases of contracts, be a built-in safeguarding clause in the contract which must ultimately be signed together with the tender, by keeping back a certain amount as a retention fee to prevent the utilisation of weak or inferior material or workmanship.

I should like to advance the same argument with regard to the erection of new structures. While I am in the process of discussing buildings and their maintenance, I also want to refer to the underutilisation of existing buildings in certain cases and the fact that the maintenance remains the same while the entire capacity is underutilised. It has been found that as a result of the depopulation factor in the rural and smaller communities, a tendency has arisen not to utilise hostels to their full extent.

One finds in the case of two hostels, one for boys and the other for girls, that they are both being maintained and that the numbers have dropped to such an extent that all the boys and girls could have been be accommodated under one roof, and even then there would have been an underutilised capacity in such a hostel.

It would then be a mixed hostel.

Yes, it would be a mixed hostel, but not in the sense in which the hon member for Nigel understands it.

The need for an old-age home or accommodation for the aged could exist simultaneously in the same community. Because of the lack of funds with which to erect such a structure, it is not established and we find that the aged of our small communities move to larger centres to be accommodated in old-age homes or other amenities which have been established for the aged.

The fact remains that if the existing buildings were utilised, one could, as in the case I have just mentioned, utilise one of the buildings for an old-age home, while the other would be sufficient for the accommodation of boarders. In this case the costs pertaining to both hostels could be halved and provision could be made for another community service which would satisfy the needs in that specific community.

There are also buildings in a number of our towns that for some reason or other are not being used by our departments. I am thinking of residences for officials and other office space that has fallen into disuse for some reason or other. The fact remains that if such buildings could be acquired by the local authorities, they could be converted or used in their present state for community services.

That is not practical!

It is in fact quite practical.

The fact is that the local authorities would like to acquire these buildings. They would then, however, want to develop some of those buildings or properties and erect recreation facilities or use them for other community services, such as caravan parks.

It seems to be the policy that if a local town council or a municipality applies for properties of this nature, they have to pay market-related prices. If one has a knowledge of the smaller communities, one would know that if market-related prices had to be paid and the properties still had to be developed, it would mean that tariffs and rates would have to be increased in those communities in many cases. This makes it very difficult for our older people who have moved to these smaller places because of the lower tariffs and rates there. The tariffs and rates are eventually increased to such an extent that they either have to sell their properties or give up the lease and move to larger centres.

I want to propose that when local authorities and municipalities apply for these properties, the hon the Minister and his department should give consideration to not charging market-related prices but in fact market-related prices less a certain reduction on those properties and buildings. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, as usual the hon member for Kuruman made a very interesting speech. I must say that his proposal for the better utilisation of buildings and premises, and for obtaining school and hostel premises for the accommodation of the aged, is a very good one. I think it has great possibilities, particularly in future when the depopulation of these rural towns increases and there are more vacant premises which can be more profitably utilised. I should therefore like to support him in this proposal.

I should like to discuss Vote 6: Improvement of conditions of service. When we examine what is happening in the department and in other departments, however, I wonder if we should not rather view this Vote as one relating to the deterioration of conditions of service.

The hon the Minister of the Budget and Works announced in his Second Reading speech that in the next financial year there would be no general salary increase. According to him there would be a considerable decrease, ie R152,4 million, in regard to the improvement of conditions of service. Conditions of service, in regard to which problems are already being experienced, will therefore become even worse next year. That is why I am saying that this is a Vote dealing with the deterioration of conditions of service.

For these own affairs departments and for any other government departments it is of the utmost importance to acquire suitable and competitive conditions of service. I want to make it clear that this is of the utmost importance, particularly in our own affairs department, the Department of Health Services and Welfare. It is important to recruit and retain suitable medical staff in this department. When we examine the vacant posts, as set out in the department’s annual report, we see that there is great cause for concern. I am mentioning this own affairs department as an example, but we could also examine the Department of National Health and Population Development, and the department controlling provincial hospitals, and we would see that throughout the medical services there is a shortage of staff, particularly medical staff.

I am concerned about whether these posts will ever be filled if annual salary adjustments are not made. Secondly I wonder whether there are not going to be more resignations, because resignations are on the increase. Thirdly I wonder whether it will be possible to maintain the level of service rendered in this own affairs department, but also in all the various health services. In our medical services a lack of adequate, suitable staff can mean the difference between life and death.

I should like to mention a few examples as they appear on page 39 of the annual report, in Annexure 1. I see the hon the Minister and his hon Deputy Minister are here. This relates to the professional posts in the medical section of their department. I just want to mention a few examples to hon members. For pharmacists there are three posts and all three are vacant. For chief pharmacists there are 30 posts of which 10 are vacant. As far as social workers are concerned—this is extremely important in rendering services in regard to the social problems we are experiencing at present—there are 255 posts of which 26 are vacant. In the medical section there are 47 posts for specialists, 15 of which are vacant; senior specialists, 28 posts with 13 vacant; senior dentists, 68 posts with 21 vacant; nurses, 221 posts with 38 vacant; and senior nurses, 159 posts with 30 vacant. I could go on listing them. This situation prevails not only in own affairs departments, but in all departments dealing with full-time health services. It is a cause for concern, and I find it alarming that conditions of service are not being improved. I think serious steps must be taken to remedy the situation.

This lack of medical personnel is of course not confined to own affairs medical services. One finds it among all senior posts. When it comes to clerks, messengers and so on, we do not have that problem. It is in professional posts that these shortages exist.

This causes great concern, but there are no signs of improvement. To tell the truth, each year it seems as if the situation is growing worse. There are, of course, many reasons for this problem, and in the limited time at my disposal I can only mention a few of them.

The first cause is the political uncertainty in South Africa. We cannot elaborate on that, but we know that this is causing many people, particularly highly qualified professional people, to leave South Africa.

Some universities even help them.

That may be true, but many of them are not only leaving the country because of the political uncertainty, but also because they have obtained overseas posts with much better conditions of service than those in South Africa.

I want to dwell for a few moments on these normal conditions of service that we simply have to mention. In this respect we are specifically encountering major problems in regard to full-time posts. At the moment private hospitals are mushrooming in South Africa, a situation which has important repercussions.

Firstly medical aid schemes are increasingly making it possible for people of all race groups to receive treatment in private hospitals. Secondly it is Government policy to privatise all health services, and it encourages the establishment of private units in this country. Thirdly these private hospitals make excellent facilities available to both patients and medical staff. Fourthly there is no doubt that the attractive fees that doctors and other medical staff in private hospitals can charge, and the concomitant increase in their incomes, make it very attractive for them to move from the public to the private sector. For that reason we find that not only are more patients going to private hospitals, but more doctors, nurses and medical staff are moving from the hon the Minister’s department and other departments to private hospitals. I am not professing for one moment that this privatisation is wrong and that it should be checked, but I am asking that the conditions of service of the medical staff in the public sector receive urgent attention.

Firstly salaries must receive attention. Conditions of service are not solely a matter of salaries, but giving attention to salaries would nevertheless help, and therefore this staff must receive salaries which, although not necessarily equal to those paid by the private sector, are at least competitive. They must be in a position to maintain themselves and their families. We welcome the salary increases which senior medical staff received earlier this year, but we are requesting salary increases specifically for junior doctors, nurses, occupational therapists, physiotherapists, radiographers and all the other staff who make the high standard of our medical services possible. The salary increases must be reasonable ones, because there are also other conditions of service which make full-time posts attractive.

The hon the Deputy Minister knows that the more vacant posts there are for doctors, the greater the work load, the longer the hours, the greater the responsibility and the greater the dissatisfaction. This results in more people leaving the public sector. For that reason we must ensure that the work load does not become excessive. We find this in many hospitals and in many posts.

Should we not train many more doctors?

Secondly it is very important to give full-time doctors an opportunity to continue with their studies whilst they are in full-time employment. They should be encouraged to continue their studies in South Africa, but they should also be encouraged to go overseas to acquire further knowledge and to pursue their studies. This is all in the interests of the profession. This requires time and money, which we must provide.

Lastly they should be encouraged to attend congresses, and again I want to ask the hon the Minister—I did so last time too—to grant medical staff tax rebates for overseas trips. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Parktown referred to an interesting aspect of the medical profession and hospitals but I think the hon member will concede that I am correct when I tell him that the entire problem of a shortage of personnel is not simply related to the question of conditions of service. The hon member referred to the opportunity for training and study and the opportunity for career enrichment. I agree with the hon member, but there is another aspect to be added to this—I think the hon member will concede this point too—which is that the shortage of personnel in the public sector is also a sign of the inherent deficiencies of the overall South African population structure. I think the hon member will concede that we cannot succeed as a White group by means of own affairs alone and by the employment of Whites alone in keeping this country and its public administration going.

In this regard it is extremely important that we as Whites—in fact, the entire population—will have to accept that the standard of the training system in our country, whether it is medical training or other training, is one of the important building blocks of a modern economy. I think we would agree that South Africans of all groups will have to appreciate that our natural resources will not be able to compensate for a lack of adequate training for all groups of the population in the next century.

I wish to return to the hon member for Barberton for a moment. Right at the start of the debate he referred to the movement of own affairs Ministers and portfolios and said that it was difficult to keep track of this. It is interesting that the hon member should make this comment now. It is a fact that the population structure of South Africa and the dynamics of the population of this country make the administration of this country in regard to furnishing population groups with services a difficult task. We do not have the easiest population structure to administer, but if the hon member for Barberton wishes to carry out his party’s policy of separate states in separate geographic entities for different population groups, this hon member and his party will have to account for how they will succeed in administering the needs of these different geographic areas, and the people who live there, more easily than they can be governed under the present dispensation of general and own affairs.

Order! Would the hon member just be careful not to digress too far from own affairs. The hon member may proceed.

The hon member for Barberton referred to the appointment by this administration of officers to solemnise marriage and asked whether these marriage officers would now solemnise only White marriages. Mr Chairman, it is merely logical that a marriage officer appointed by this Minister can solemnise marriages of all population groups.

But then own affairs are an absurdity!

Own marriages are an absurdity!

Are they general marriages?

The hon member does not understand that marriage officers who are appointed by this Minister are White marriage officers—just as other administrations may appoint marriage officers of that particular group but that such a marriage officer is able to solemnise any marriage because he holds an appointment in terms of a general law.

But is this an own affair now?

Surely it is only logical!

Koos will not understand that!

That is correct! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I want to return to the hon member for Yeoville who referred here to the question of Groot Constantia. I want to say at once that I share the hon member for Yeoville’s feelings, which are that Groot Constantia is a national asset of exceptional historical sensitivity to the country and specifically to the Western Cape. In this regard I should therefore like to ask whether the hon the Minister could indicate what the feeling of his department, as well as his own feeling, is in this regard. If Groot Constantia is privatised, in what way will it be possible to build guarantees into conditions of title to prevent this national asset from being lost to coming generations if successive owners’ sentiments about Groot Constantia were to change? I should like to hear from the hon the Minister in this respect.

†The hon member for Yeoville also referred to the independence of this hon Minister, and said this hon Minister was in fact the finance Minister of own affairs. Without independence, the hon member for Yeoville asked, what were the real functions of this hon Minister then?

*Mr Chairman, I want to conclude by saying that I think one of the most important functions of this hon Minister is the contribution he makes on behalf of White own affairs and the White budget. The contributions which he makes on the Cabinet Committee, which takes decisions on the financial priorities of South Africa, are among his most important functions. As the hon the Minister so rightly said, it is a fact that White own affairs in their entirety comprise the second largest component of the entire budget. In conclusion, I say that the hon the Minister’s contribution on behalf of the White population group to the activities of the Cabinet Committee on priorities is probably one of the most important policy contributions which this hon Minister makes.

Mr Chairman, during this session officials’ conditions of service have been discussed on more than one occasion. On these occasions the Government constantly hid behind the excuse that it could not afford salary increases for officials. In contrast to this, the CP continues to advocate the standpoint—we are adopting the same standpoint in this debate—that it is the responsibility of the Government to provide officials with their means of subsistence.

Within the framework of this debate on the Appropriation Bill (House of Assembly) Vote No 6—the improvement of conditions of service of own affairs officers of the Administration: House of Assembly, that is to say White officials—is under discussion now. This own affairs matter is described as follows under Vote No 6 in the Budget: “To make provision for expenditure resulting from improved conditions of service of officers and employees of the Administration: House of Assembly”.

When the budgeted amounts for own affairs officers of the Administration: House of Assembly for the financial year of 1987-88 are compared with those for the financial year of 1988-89, we note a decrease. I wish to draw the hon the Minister’s attention to this. We note a decrease of R159,7 million to R45,5 million.

The question may justifiably be put whether this is what the Government thinks of the importance of White officers of the Administration: House of Assembly. Obviously the answer to this is “no”. The Government thinks nothing of own affairs; the Government thinks nothing of White officers’ conditions of service in this regard. [Interjections.] This undervaluing of the importance of White officers to South Africa has two fundamental consequences which will cost our country dear. Firstly, it will lead to a decline in the quality of existence of public servants in own affairs, particularly if salary increases are not considered as soon as possible in connection with these officers.

Where is the money to come from?

By writing fewer songs! That is where the money will come from! [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Secondly, this decrease for conditions of service of public servants of the Administration: House of Assembly will very definitely result in a so-called brain drain from these sectors of the Public Service to the private sector or even overseas.

Let me mention three examples in this regard. In a recent report in Die Burger Prof John Milne of the Medical Faculty of the University of the Witwatersrand pointed out the following situation. He said that the rate at which doctors and clinical assistants were leaving academic hospitals and either going overseas or into private practice was disturbingly high at present. A survey which was conducted in 1987 indicated that 380 of the 474 specialist posts in the five training hospitals of the University of the Witwatersrand were filled at present and the rest remained vacant. One of the reasons why doctors and specialists were going into private practice—this is what Prof Milne says—was the great disparity between the income of hospital doctors and their colleagues on the one hand and that of medical practitioners in private practice on the other. According to Prof Milne, there have recently been no salary adjustments for clinical assistants, housemen or paramedical personnel.

The situation is even more desperate if we look at education in this regard. Resignations and the scale of resignations of top-ranking teachers, some of whom are irreplaceable, have assumed critical proportions. I ask the hon the Minister across the floor of the House to indicate to the House how many teachers have resigned in the four provinces over the past year. He is to differentiate in his reply between women on the one hand and men on the other. He is also to differentiate between the various age categories.

In this regard I want to mention two specific examples of schools of which we are aware. Over the past few months eight top-ranking teachers have resigned from the staff of the Witbank Technical High School as a result of the salary position of teachers. At the Hoërskool Patriot, also in Witbank, an additional five top-ranking teachers have resigned in consequence of the salary position.

At other schools the shortage of mathematics and science teachers for example is so great that teachers in these disciplines have to give tuition at other schools in the afternoons where such teachers are not available.

This is the disgraceful situation for which the NP is responsible in education and we request the hon the Minister to give his attention to this when he replies to this debate.

The extremely critical circumstances prevailing at universities at present owing to the resignation of numerous faculty members as a result of the salary question requires no further argument in this debate.

I want to bring it to the attention of the hon the Minister today that this position in both the medical world and the world of education is not only attributable to the shortage of funds as the NP makes the country believe, but is actually attributable—perhaps especially attributable—to the fact that the own affairs appropriation for the Administration: House of Assembly has no independent own sources of finance to apply. The hon the Minister simply has to stand with cupped hands in a long queue to beg a favour of the hon the Minister of Finance. There is no question of financial independence, in fact of financial and economic self-determination for White own affairs in the current constitutional dispensation.

It is expressly stated in the Constitution that own affairs are subject to general affairs as regards finance law. One should look at item 11 of Schedule 1 to the Constitution in this regard. When we look at item 11 of Schedule 1, I should very much like to reply to those who are so fond of speaking of own affairs as the right to self-determination of the White population group in the light of what is to be found in the Constitution on this subject.

Let us see how this item defines an own affair:

1. (1) estimates of revenue and expenditure, but excluding the form in which such estimates shall be prepared;
2. (2) the appropriation of moneys for the purposes of such estimates, but excluding such appropriation of moneys for any purpose other than that for which they are by or under any general law made available for appropriation;
3. (3) levies authorized by or under any general law on services rendered over and above payments for such services;
4. (4) the receipt of donations …

Now I want to ask the hon the Minister whether this own affairs budget has ever received donations such as those mentioned in the Constitution. I shall continue quoting:

1. (5) the making of donations not amounting to a supplementation of appropriations contemplated in paragraph (2); and
2. (6) the control over the collection and utilization of revenue, subject to the provisions of the Exchequer and Audit Act, 1975,

When item 11 of Schedule 1 to the Constitution is analysed, it can lead to no other conclusion but that the own affairs budget of the House of Assembly is of no significance whatsoever. There is no question of financial independence; there is no question of the Administration: House of Assembly being able to levy its own taxes; there is no question of the Administration: House of Assembly being able to raise its own loans. As the hon member for Yeoville certainly indicated, there is also no question of independence or the right to economic self-determination in this respect.

When the CP comes to power—I am not saying “if it comes to power”—this side of the House will restore the economic independence of Whites to what it was previously. [Interjections.] We shall restore our own people’s right to self-determination so that they may dispose of their own finances as they see fit and that they do not simply have to queue up and compete with other Houses for the one economic source which is available in the hands of the Minister of Finance. [Interjections.]

Meanwhile we are still waiting to see the fulfilment of the promise of the hon the Leader of the House. He announced during last year’s recess that greater weight and substance would be given to own affairs. He made this announcement particularly in view of the absurdities which are built into the system which differentiates between own and general affairs.

When the absurdities to which I have already referred were specifically pointed out in last year’s debate on the Appropriation of the Administration: House of Assembly, the hon the Leader of the House later announced that attention would be given to giving greater substance to own affairs. This side of the House is waiting for the hon the Leader of the House to do so.

Perhaps we had better ask whether this is yet another of the NP promises which will come to nothing. There is a definite reason why nothing can come of this promise of the hon the Leader of the House to give greater weight and substance to own affairs. He is enmeshed and caught up in the say and co-responsibility that the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates have.

The concept of own affairs has no meaning without financial independence. That is why we say that nothing will come of this promise either because the NP coat-tails are caught up in the spokes of Mr Rajbansi’s and Rev Hendrickse’s wheels.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Losberg will forgive me if I do not follow him, but I will be speaking under Vote 4.

I would like to start by congratulating the hon the Minister on his appointment to this important portfolio and on his good taste as a “Kapenaar” in making his headquarters in Pretoria in the Old Raadsaal on Church Square. As an “old girl” of the Old Raadsaal, I am very glad that this beautiful, historic old building is still being used for Government.

It was completed in 1891 as the seat of Government of the old Transvaal Republic. From Union this was the headquarters of the Transvaal Provincial Council until its dissolution in 1986.

As we are probably all aware, the Raadsaal has become the Pretoria headquarters of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, and it is therefore most appropriate that the man controlling the purse-strings—as the hon member for Yeoville has said—in our Ministers’ Council should move in with him.

I understand that, in addition to his other duties, the hon the Minister has retained his chairmanship of the Foreign Trade Relations Committee of the Cabinet responsible for countering disinvestment and sanctions. This involves receiving visits from and entertaining numbers of foreign businessmen, and the beautifully proportioned and appointed rooms of the Old Raadsaal are certainly an excellent setting for these meetings.

In the past ten years or so, the Transvaal has really come of age as far as preserving its heritage of historic buildings is concerned. All due credit must be given to that small but persistent band of enthusiastic preservers in the Transvaal who fought to save Church Square in Pretoria from the developers, and also numerous other old buildings in Pretoria and Johannesburg. It was not so long ago that they were regarded as a nuisance by most Transvaal developers who felt that the only good thing to do with an old building was to tear it down. May they continue with their good fight. We and future generations owe them a great debt of gratitude.

I can say with confidence to the hon member for Caledon that it is not only the Cape which knows how to preserve its heritage. The Old Raadsaal is not only being preserved but, since the Transvaal Provincial Council was dissolved in November 1986 and the building handed over to the House of Assembly Administration, it has been completely restored to its former splendour at a cost of some R8 million. Because of the great value of the place from a cultural historical point of view, architects and interior designers, who are specialists in restoration, were appointed to take charge of the job.

Experts have also restored the historically important pictures and furniture. Special carpets have been woven according to the old original designs, and the original wallpaper, some of which was painted by no less a painter than Frans Oerder, as well as other painters of high calibre, has also been restored. Besides being a fine example of Victorian Colonial architecture, very similar in style to the Rand Club in Johannesburg, it is also as I say a building of great cultural value. As I have said, it is steeped in our history.

I am sure all hon members of this House who have sat in the Old Raadsaal will agree with me that the spirit of Oom Paul Kruger and the great Boer generals and leaders like De Wet, De La Rey, Joubert and Jan Smuts still dominate the place. Oom Paul may turn in his grave at all this enthusiasm for the Raadsaal from an English-speaking female from Johannesburg “nogal”, but I submit that the cost of restoring the building and its contents is certainly money well spent.

I understand that the idea is to use the Raadsaal as a living museum. I submit that it is very important to allow the public continued access to this building. It is part of our heritage, as I have said. It has preserved our heritage and it belongs to the people. I understand that the excellent museum on the ground floor of the Raadsaal which contains many historical treasures relating to the early days of the Transvaal Republic is being taken over from the Transvaal Provincial Administration by the Department of Education and Culture. I am told that it will also be extended and upgraded and will be reopened to the public some time next year. In my view the whole building is a museum and I hope the public will continue to have access, on a properly supervised basis obviously, to the beautiful chamber of the Raadsaal and all the other memorabilia.

I hope visiting times to the Raadsaal will be properly publicised. It should feature on the programmes of all tourists to Pretoria. Foreign visitors have often said to me that they understand South Africa after they have seen the historical buildings of Stellenbosch. I submit that if they see the Raadsaal, it will help them to understand the Transvaal, which I think is very important.

I should also like to see the chamber of the Raadsaal used to its full extent. I thought, no doubt unlike the hon member for Losberg, that the recent sitting of the extended public committee of Parliament to consider the Transvaal budget was a great success. There was only one disappointment to me, however, namely that we did not sit in the Raadsaal, which in my view would have been very appropriate.

Since its inception, the Raadsaal has always accommodated representatives of the people in the Transvaal. In conclusion, therefore, I should like to urge those who make these decisions to have another look at it to see whether we could not be accommodated in the Raadsaal next time the extended public committee sits in Pretoria.

Mr Chairman, I am sure the hon member for Rosettenville will excuse me if I do not follow her speech on the Raadsaal. As a “Kapenaar” I have not yet had the pleasure of seeing it, but I must say that I look forward to the opportunity of doing so now that she has painted such a glowing picture of it. [Interjections.]

I should like to turn my attention to the Auditor-General’s report concerning the maladministration in this department. At the outset I believe we should recognise that this hon Minister who was appointed to this post only recently cannot be held responsible for what we have before us. [Interjections.] I also believe that he did the right thing in raising it at the outset in his speech earlier this afternoon when he brought the issue out into the open. Possibly, by so doing, he defused the attack.

I, too, do not sit on the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and therefore cannot claim any knowledge relating to the report of the Auditor-General which has not been made public. I do believe, however, that the damning comments made in the Auditor-General’s report are sufficient to draw attention to what is an extremely poor state of affairs.

I believe the issues raised therein are so important that they in fact transcend any party-political view on this matter. Large amounts of money are involved and this impacts on all members of the community. Similarly, I would also echo what was said by the hon member for Yeoville, namely that it would not be fair to lay the blame for this state of affairs at the door of the officials concerned. I believe that the causes for this state of affairs appear to be twofold. The first factor, as raised by the hon the Minister himself, relates to the volume and the nature of the work involved in the Administration; and the second may be related to the political environment in which this department has to function.

The Auditor-General’s report has disclosed areas of gross maladministration and lack of financial control. When we learn that significant sums of money have been wasted, lost or are unaccounted for, it brings into question the ability of the officials concerned to act as true custodians of public funds. By that I do not imply that there is any measure of dishonesty, but I believe that as officials of this department they appear not to be equipped to be able to deal with the problems. This was in fact said by the hon the Minister himself.

I, too, do not wish to detail many of the aspects highlighted in the report; that has been done by both the hon member for Barberton and the hon member for Yeoville. I should, however, like to come back to one aspect of the report which refers to the lack of training and of supervision which has given rise to the situation. This relates to the staff aspect.

We are also told that in some cases certain irregularities and shortcomings in the internal control were brought to the attention of the department. Furthermore, as again mentioned by the hon the Minister, the accounts were submitted late for audit. Although this was not mentioned earlier, this has in fact happened every year since this administration has been established.

I would argue that if this were the report on a private business, the shareholders would be calling for the management’s resignation. The situation is totally unacceptable. The hon the Minister has partly set it out, but I would call for a far more detailed explanation of what can be done to overcome these problems. I believe the key lies in finding and training sufficient numbers of adequately qualified staff. We may well have a situation where the staff shortage is largely of a temporary nature. Much of what the hon the Minister said earlier I believe related to questions of systems development and new computer systems. If this is a temporary requirement, I believe it should be tackled on a temporary basis. In other words, the possibility should be considered of using outside expertise on a contractual basis to develop systems and to do whatever is necessary to enable them to run smoothly. I do not believe there can be any doubt about the fact that this is a matter of grave urgency.

The second aspect that needs to be looked at relates to the political environment in which the officials have to function and under which they have to administer this department. I believe the staff have been unable to keep pace with the constitutional changes resulting in own affairs administrations. We have seen that this has resulted in gross inefficiencies and—I also have no doubt—in a significant increase in the cost of governing. It is part of the cost of the apartheid concept which the NP themselves at their Cape Congress last year indicated they were prepared to accept. However, our party has rejected this and we see great difficulty in differentiating arbitrarily between own and general affairs. This is a point which we have made on numerous occasions.

The fact is that we have given resources available to be spent on all our country’s needs. Although it is this Government’s policy, it is impossible to try to apportion this expenditure fairly on a racial basis. That is in fact what we are considering today. We believe that this is an exercise in futility. Not only does it defy objective calculation—here I want to refer again to what was said earlier by the hon member for Yeoville when he requested details of the formula, because at the moment we do not have any objective calculation—it also perpetuates racial divisions and continues to sow the seeds of unnecessary interracial competition.

In the allocation of funds there will always be winners and losers. I cannot see how such competition can create racial harmony. I can only see the potential for further conflict in which we South Africans will be the losers. Surely we need to allocate our resources on the basis of need across the board, wherever such need arises.

Mr Chairman, I will not react directly to the hon member for Pinelands. He raised matters on the Auditor-General’s report, and I will refer to some of those later in my speech.

Besides the common rights of the individual, the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act acknowledges the rights of our various historical communities to pursue their own traditional way of life. The question of own and general affairs, as prescribed and distinguished by the Constitution Act of 1983, has its critics, and the duplication of functions has been one of those chief criticisms.

Firstly, two thirds of those voting in the referendum of 1983 supported the concept of own affairs.

Secondly, there is no doubt that considerable benefits have emerged with the uplifting of sociopolitical standards of race groups other than Whites through the effective identification of functions and problem areas.

The Administration: House of Assembly has as its executive authority the Ministers’ Council. I would like to congratulate the hon the Minister, as other hon members have done before me, on his appointment as Minister of the Budget and Works. I would also like to congratulate the former secretary of the Commission for Administration, Mr Meyer, on his appointment as Director-General: Administration.

The hon member for Barberton made reference to the Auditor-General’s report for the financial year 1986-87 for the Administration: House of Assembly. Criticism expressed as to matters brought to attention in the Auditor-General’s report were, I believe, warranted in a number of cases, but some have been blown up out of all proportion. The hon the Minister stated that urgent attention was being given to the effective administration of the department.

While there are an excessive number of audit queries raised—I have no intention of defending the indefensible—in any organisation, particularly at the start of its operations, whether it be in commerce, industry or whatever, there will always be teething problems. In the transfer of functions from one department to another technical problems obviously do arise.

As can be seen from the Auditor-General’s report many of the disallowances were as a result of incorrect allocations of expenditure which are recoverable from the Vote of general affairs. However, I believe, it is gratifying that many of the queries have been attended to and that those which have not been attended to, are receiving the capable scrutiny of the Auditor-General and also of the Select Committee on Public Accounts. There is, therefore, no question of there not being public accountability. There is public accountability, and everything that is wrong, is under the scrutiny of this House. The hon the Minister is also giving his urgent attention to the problem areas. I am certain that appropriate action is being taken and we are going to hear a much better story next year.

Budgetary and auxiliary services, which fall under the jurisdiction of this department, involve policy formulation by the hon the Minister, the Director-General and the head of department, as well as the rendering of financial and administrative services for the House of Assembly. This includes services to citizens in respect of electoral matters and dealing with own affairs relating to local governments. The functions, however, still vest in the various provincial administrations. Quite honestly, Mr Chairman, I do not know whether I can deal with those matters here. Perhaps, at the end of my speech, I might have time. This includes setting norms for … Sorry, I shall leave that …

You had better!

Yes. Personnel expenditure provided in the estimates of expenditure for the financial year 1988-89 totals some R16,131 million. This is for an authorised establishment of 773. This gives an average per annum of around R20 868 per person.

The hon member for Yeoville—who is not here at the moment—mentioned that 22% of the staff in this department earned R166 per month or less. If this is correct, I agree with the hon member that it is very much below the breadline and correction is required. However, the estimates before us reflect that in the lowest category 8% of the establishment earn an average of R700 per month. Therefore, I am unable to reconcile his statistics with this. Perhaps the hon the Minister could embroider on that.

As far as training goes, it is pleasing to learn from reports tabled that high priority is being placed on both formal and informal training in the department. To this end a training committee has been established at the head office. The training objectives and programmes listed give me further confidence on the effective administration in the future of this department.

The six ministerial representatives play an important role in effective administration and, while there may have been grey areas in the transitional period of transferring functions, it appears we are now seeing positive benefits. In Natal the appointment of Dr Gerald Hosking was a popular one and we thank him for the conscientious manner in which he performs his duties.

The location of Natal’s regional offices in Durban is a matter which I am pleased to learn is being investigated, and I trust that the logical move of those offices to Pietermaritzburg will be found to be feasible. This is desirable not only because the ministerial representative is situated in the capital of Natal; the majority of services provided are also in the Natal midlands or in northern Natal. I congratulate Mr Thompson on his promotion to the post of Deputy Director during the year and I hope he looks forward to his move to Pietermaritzburg.

On the matter of buildings under the administrative control of the department, I should like to refer in particular to buildings in or near Pietermaritzburg. The first matter I should like to mention is the Oribi Government Village in Pietermaritzburg. This well-known army camp from the Second World War was for some years used as a university residence and, more recently, as a residential village for social welfare pensioners. While a happy atmosphere prevails in that village it is very much in need of major upgrading and renovation, and I ask that this be given urgent attention. The CP might want to have another meeting there and would definitely like something better!

The rentals being charged are most reasonable at present, but there are fears of dramatic increases being imposed. I believe this must be handled with the utmost care, for enormous hikes are just not acceptable and cannot be afforded by those people either.

The next item I would like to refer to is the hostel at Cedara College. I am sure the hon member for Mooi River will forgive me if I trespass in his area but this hostel at Cedara College of Agriculture which is some 10 km from Pietermaritzburg, is a magnificent building. It has already been proclaimed a national monument but in the past 20 years it has been allowed to deteriorate alarmingly due to shortage of funds. Built in the famous Pietermaritzburg red brick, the cornerstone was laid on 28 April 1905 by the then Governor of Natal, Sir Henry McCallum. It is most pleasing to learn that this vital part of our heritage is presently being restored at an estimated cost of R375 000. In addition, R112 000 is being spent on additional accommodation. I trust this situation will not be allowed to occur again.

The faculty of agriculture of the University of Natal in Pietermaritzburg is administered by the department. This building should also receive attention as normal maintenance has been skimped on in the past few years. It is high time that the facilities at Allerton laboratory in Pietermaritzburg, Cedara College and the agricultural faculty of the university were perhaps considered for additional use as a fully-fledged veterinary science training faculty in Natal.

Mr Chairman, with regard to the address of the hon member for Pietermaritzburg South, I must say it was rather like the curates egg—good in parts. I am more than happy to support him in the creation of a veterinary establishment at the university in association with Cedara and I agree with his remarks regarding Oribi Village. However, I take issue with the point that he commenced with, which was the initiation of own affairs because, of course, we in these benches are totally opposed to the own affairs concept as it stands in the current Constitution.

We are also opposed to it!

We would also like to issue a particular warning that apart from the situation as it now exists as far as own affairs are concerned, there are those in the NP who are beating the drum of extending own affairs. I wish to quote a few words from the hon member for Umhlatuzana’s speech on 3 June 1988. Unfortunately he is not here, but he is an ideologue back-bencher in that party. He says:

He continues:

That kind of selfish pursuit of own affairs, contrary to the best wishes of the whole of the population of South Africa, is in fact going to lead us further down the road to disaster in this country. I have no doubt that this hon Minister has viewed his task with some trepidation, and let me merely add another burden onto the broad shoulders onto which he is having many things heaped. I want to raise the question of teachers’ salaries. The Improvement of Conditions of Service, Vote No 6, is this hon Minister’s responsibility. He has in the budget before us R45,5 million allocated for the improvement of conditions of service. We have no idea what they are. We have no indication as to how that money is to be expended. It is therefore on the assumption that certainly some of that or some additional money could be spent on teachers’ salaries that I want to bend this hon Minister’s ear concerning problems regarding the payment of teachers’ salaries. It is actually interesting. This department, the Administration: House of Assembly, has some 90 000 employees under its auspices, of whom the largest sector are educators.

We are aware of the fact, because the hon the Minister of National Education indicated this earlier, that the question of the backlog of 11% in teachers’ salaries compared to the rest of the public service has gone through his advisory bodies, and that they then proceeded to a joint committee of Ministers of Education to consider this. Again I must indicate clearly that the governing party, through the Government, have indicated that they would favourably consider some increase in teachers’ salaries of about 11%. A problem has, however, arisen. The matter has become stuck—we understand—with the Minister of Administration and Privatisation, who is in charge of the Commission for Administration, because it has become confused with the concept of a general salary increase for the whole public service, which that hon Minister of Administration and Privatisation has said will not occur this year. It may well occur next year, but not this year.

So, for six weeks since the hon the Minister of National Education said that he is favourably disposed towards an increase and after his advisory bodies have said publicly, through him, that they are also in favour of an improvement in the conditions of service of teachers, we have sat with no announcement. I want to tell this hon Minister that this has given rise to severe displeasure in the ranks of the teaching profession and the parent community. Additional resignations are in fact being submitted. A grave emotive atmosphere is being generated. It cuts across party lines. It is not a party-political matter. It is a matter we are all concerned with, and I would plead with this hon Minister that he, or one of his colleagues, make an announcement in the very near future concerning the expenditure of the amount of R45 million on the improvement of conditions of service in this Vote, because we know that if the teachers are to get an 11% increase for the balance of this year and if no money is made available elsewhere for the improvement of conditions of service or professional differentiation, that even this amount of money is too small. If they get an increase from October, however, it may just be enough in terms of this year’s Vote.

I would therefore plead with this hon Minister that he, in association with his colleagues, make an announcement to in fact set the seal on what the hon the Minister of National Education has said—that the teachers will get an increase.

I turn now to a matter raised by my colleague the hon member for Yeoville on the question of housing subsidies. I do not intend to go through this entire matter again. It is covered initially in the report of the Auditor-General, which has been repeated by a number of hon members. All I want to say is that the hon the Minister of Administration and Privatisation touched on it in his speech in this House.

I would call on this hon Minister once again to reiterate the importance of this to people who participate in the housing-subsidy scheme. I quote from the unrevised Hansard of the hon the Minister of Administration and Privatisation, dated 19 May this year:

He then goes on to say:

Mr Chairman, it is important that that warning be carried clearly to all the employees of this ownaffairs administration, because we in these benches, and I hope this whole House, will certainly not allow a condonation of overpayments. I suggest a warning must be issued immediately by circular to all public servants in relation to them having any queries whatsoever concerning overpayments. Here I believe the quotation contained in the Exchequer personnel booklet is correct, and I quote:

That, Sir, and the regulations pertaining to the scheme are quite clear. I believe that each and every individual employee of the State should be warned now that action can be taken, particularly for the recovery of money.

Finally, Sir, I should like to turn to the question of levies—levies relating to the Administration: House of Assembly. The hon member for Yeoville has raised the matter of the formula, as both he and I have done in previous years. The question of levies now arises because I understand it is the policy of this administration in fact to levy user charges on particular items. We would be particularly interested in whatever progress has been made in this respect. I think we need to look carefully into the question of compulsory tuition fees in terms of schooling. We understand those compulsory tuition fees obtained from parents will be paid into this administration’s general exchequer, and we would be interested to know how and where that money is going to be accounted for to the general Treasury.

We understand also that there is no advance being made in relation to tuition fees until the issue of user-charge levies by this administration has been finalised. The question of levies and of where those levies are going to be placed we should want explained to us. What kind of figure are they looking at? What is the formula that takes account of those levies? These questions are of great and integral concern to the whole of South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Pinetown has raised a number of issues, including the plight of the teaching profession of which he is an ex-member and for which this side of the House has great sympathy. He has also mentioned the question of housing levies, and I am sure the hon the Minister will deal with these matters in his reply to the debate.

I should like to raise, as have the hon member for Yeoville and the hon member for Caledon, the question of Groot Constantia. I should also like to include my congratulations to the hon the Minister on his promotion and on his new appointment. I am aware that the hon the Minister is a former member of the Groot Constantia Control Board, and therefore not only has a special interest in the well-being thereof but also has feeling and empathy in relation to the particular problems experienced there.

As Groot Constantia is part of the cultural heritage of South Africa it is possibly necessary to describe some of the farm’s history in order to explain its importance.

In 1685, six years after his arrival in the Cape Colony as commander—he was later to become governor—Simon van der Stel was able to select his own farm from all the known farmland in the Western Cape. He chose a piece of land on the eastern slopes of the mountain known today as Constantiaberg, possibly the most sheltered spot in the peninsula. By 1705 he had established vineyards and was producing red wines of outstanding quality.

He built his home in a parkland setting overlooking the most panoramic view in the entire Cape. The oak and vineyard-lined slopes look to the south towards the Ou Kaapse Weg, to the east across False Bay and to the west towards Paarl and Stellenbosch.

When Van der Stel died, the original farm was divided into various pieces, including Bergvliet, Klein Constantia and Groot Constantia. In 1716 Groot Constantia was bought by the Cloete family, who were to make in Constantia the first internationally famous wine from South Africa. The wines that the Cloetes made were sweet white wines that today would probably compare with the Spätlese and Auslese wines of the Mosel district.

It is alleged that the secret of the Cloetes’ success was the fact that the grapes were harvested extremely late and at a very high sugar level. Furthermore, it is known today that great white wines are produced in cooler conditions, and Constantia has its own built-in air-conditioning system in the form of the south-easter blowing over False Bay.

Constantia wines, in the form of Frontignac, Pontac and Steen, were to be enjoyed by such notables as King Louis-Philippe of France and Bismarck. It is said that during his exile on St Helena, Napoleon would drink only Constantia wine. The wine is also mentioned in one of Jane Austen’s novels.

Two disasters were to strike the vineyard in the nineteenth century. The first was oidium tuckeri, or powdery mildew, which the Cloetes correctly treated with sulphur dust. In those days it was the expensive method. Today it is the cheapest.

The second disaster was the arrival of the phylloxera nematode in the Cape. It came from America by way of Europe and was to cause destruction in the Cape wine industry. The Cloetes were not to be spared, and Groot Constantia was sold to the Cape government in 1885.

It was then used as an experimental farm and, by the sixties, was producing Cabernet Sauvignon and Shiraz wines of an international quality.

The estate was recently enlarged by the acquisition of parts of Nova Constantia and Hoop op Constantia. In 1975 the Groot Constantia Control Board was formed with two main objectives, namely the preservation of the historic splendour of the farm and the production of the famous Constantia wine, on the basis that it would become a paying concern. Large-scale replanting with the best cultivars took place, new cellar equipment was installed and valuable buildings were restored.

The problem has been that the project was undercapitalised, which necessitated borrowing and resulted in too high an interest burden. It has been said that borrowing dulls the edge of husbandry. This interest burden cannot be carried by the gross farming income, and the result is that the net farming income is negative.

On 30 June last year the accumulated deficit in the general capital fund was R6,7 million. Accumulated interest amounting to R675 000 was capitalised during the year. Loans thus amounted to some R10 million, which were made up of a Land Bank loan of R4,5 million and an interest-free loan from the House of Assembly of R5,5 million.

The principle of capitalising the interest burden has created a vicious circle—one continues paying more interest on a greater capital sum with the result that one has a bottomless pit absorbing money.

Mention has been made of the Auditor-General’s report. From a farming point of view, the accounting system at present is very much akin to the state of the art in China before the discovery of the abacus. At present it is impossible to establish the profitability of the farming side because maintenance costs of the old buildings are included in farming costs whereas these costs should be separated.

It therefore can be said that there are intrinsic costs in maintaining the estate for posterity which cannot be regarded from the entrepreneurial side as conducive to productivity or efficiency. It has been suggested that consideration should be given to privatisation of the farming venture. I, however, have my misgivings about this, although I am not against the idea per se.

I believe that we have to accept that if we are to preserve and maintain this estate for the future we shall have to pay for it. At the same time we could do well to take another look at the running of the estate on a commercial basis. There have been irregularities in the past, the sort of hiccough which occurs in any organisation. Comparative costs and income could well be looked at though.

A mail-in record system is already in existence for the wine industry, run under the aegis of the Department of Agriculture. Becoming part of such a scheme will enable management and the board to compare their costs with the average of the industry and also to compare their income with that of others. What is interesting about this exercise, is that costs and income can be compared on a per hectare basis.

What has to be done is to preserve for posterity a part of the grandeur of the Cape Peninsula—the true grandeur of the Cape which lies in its majestic mountains, its rugged coastline and the diversity of its indigenous flora and fauna.

*I just want to conclude by saying that I am sure the hon the Minister with his intimate knowledge of the problems of Groot Constantia will be able to take steps for us and for the future which will preserve this legacy for our children and grandchildren.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Wynberg devoted much of his speech to Groot Constantia, its history and its wines. Unfortunately, however, although I agree with him that fantastic wines are produced there, it would be unparliamentary to pull out a bottle of Constantia wine from underneath my bench and toast the future of Constantia and its wines here in the House today! I do not think you will allow me to do so but if you say it is all right, I will bring it next time.

I nearly said, try me out! [Interjections.]

I want to add that I hope every year will be a vintage year for Constantia in the future.

Earlier today I discussed the conditions of service of certain of the professionals in the department of the hon the Minister and, in particular, those of the medical profession. I described how the conditions of service for these professionals are deteriorating and I tried to give some reasons and details of what we consider good conditions of service in the full-time professions.

Salaries are important, but as I have said before, there are many other things that make it worth one’s while to stand in full-time employment. As I do not have time to go into any more detail, I should just like to talk about the teaching facilities given to us in full-time employment which enable us not only to practise our art, but also to help doctors and students in training to develop this art in order to enable them to become as competent as possible in order to ensure the future development in the field of South African medicine. We also talked about research facilities, as well as about travelling overseas. If you will grant me the opportunity, Sir, I should like to use my own experience as an example of what happened in the past and what is happening now.

When I qualified as a cardiac surgeon we had no choice; we had to go into full-time employment. There was no private practice for cardiac surgeons in South Africa. In those days our salaries could not compete with those of people in private practice, but we had fantastic research facilities in the Government departments. As you know, Sir, these research facilities led to the first heart transplant being done in South Africa. We were also encouraged in our work and there was enough money for research.

Secondly, we were given ample opportunity and encouragement to go overseas to study in order to keep up with developments in modern medicine and all the new facilities available. [Interjections.]

When I went into private practice eight years ago, there was only one unit in South Africa doing cardiac surgery. All the big teaching hospitals, all the full-time departments had adequate staff doing all that work. In Johannesburg there was one unit doing not even 50 cases per year. Today in the Pretoria-Johannesburg area alone, there are five private units doing most likely 3 000 cases per year.

The reason why I am telling hon members this is that this has resulted in a deterioration in the conditions of service for people in full-time employment in Government departments. I am using cardiac surgery as an example, but there are many examples in the hon the Minister’s own department. As the opportunities to go into private practice increased and as the facilities and remuneration there improved, more and more people have been leaving full-time employment in the Government sector to go into private practice. Let me give you an example, Sir. When I started eight years ago, the surgeon’s fee for an open heart operation, a coronary artery bypass graft, was R400. Today it is nearly R20 000. There has therefore been a tremendous incentive for people to leave Government service to go into private practice. For that reason there is unfair competition between doctors in full-time employment and there in private practice.

I should now like to tell the hon the Minister that the fragmentation of hospital services is something that this party dislikes. We have already raised enough arguments to criticise the division between own and general affairs. I should like to take up with the hon the Minister the fragmentation of medical services between the public and private sector. In health services this split is basically absolute, and I do not believe it is conducive to the improvement of conditions of service of those in full-time Government employment.

I believe it is a good thing for our party not only to say what is wrong, but also to make suggestions as to what can be done to improve the situation. Therefore I should like to suggest to the hon the Minister to go into the whole question of the fragmentation of Health Services between the private and public sectors. It has resulted in the frustration amongst the fulltimers in that their remuneration is not very good. This fragmentation also means that those in private practice cannot get involved in research and teaching facilities. I do not think the situation in the medical profession will improve until we get rid of this. The medical profession should be open to both sides to cross-pollinate and to make use of all the available opportunities. This is the suggestion I should like to make.

Everywhere in the departments of health we ask questions and we talk. The answer comes through clearly: There is not enough money. We ask for improved salaries, but there is not enough money. We ask for more hospital beds, but there is not enough money. It goes on in that vein. Something must be done because that money is not forthcoming. Privatisation has taken root in medicine. I do not think there is another area which is more privatised. In spite of that there is still not enough money.

There was an increase in fees in Government hospitals, but there is still not enough money. Therefore I would suggest that the hon the Minister and other Ministers should give serious consideration to trying to produce money. How can they do that?

I am all ears.

I would like to tell the hon the Minister that if this total division between the private and the Government sector can be removed, we can get private doctors to help diminish the workload in the full-time hospitals. Public sector doctors will then have the opportunity to do research and to travel. They will also have better working conditions and conditions of service. The income of doctors, nurses, physiotherapists etc can be greatly supplemented by giving them the opportunity to cross over and become private practitioners at the same time. Where I worked in America the professor of cardiac surgery was in private practice. However, in South Africa this is unknown. I believe a tremendous amount of money can be generated by the own affairs health department or any other health department if these full-time people can also sample this beautiful fruit-cake of private practice and help themselves to a big slice, so that everybody’s conditions of service may be improved.

Mr Speaker, I would like to review just a few of the general principles that have been raised here this afternoon. Perhaps tomorrow I will give a more detailed reply to some of the individual questions that have been asked.

As far as some of the general issues raised here are concerned, the hon member for Parktown talked about privatisation as a possible tool for maintaining high standards of medicine throughout our country. I will deal with that in a moment. First of all I want to thank everybody who took part in the debate. I congratulate them on the positive way in which they approached this Vote. I am grateful for many of the remarks that have been made and I am certainly very grateful for all the congratulations I have received. I appreciate them very much indeed.

It is very important that we realise that this department does not stand aloof from other departments. This department may have a primary concern for the own affairs of White people, but it is not an island. No man is an island, and this department is certainly not an island. It operates and functions within the same political and socio-economic environment within which everybody else operates. While we have a predominant responsibility for the particular functions that we have, it is a predominant responsibility, and not an exclusive responsibility.

Hon members must realise that constraints upon the South African economy are constraints upon this department also. In his Opening Address to Parliament this year, the hon the State President painted a particular picture as far as financial matters are concerned. He pointed out particular constraints and also set out the Government’s financial policy and philosophy. We in this department also operate within that policy and philosophy.

We are in a unique situation in this House in that the majority party in this House is also the Government of South Africa. We cannot use our particular political muscle, which happens to be overwhelming at this moment in time, to bargain for a deal for White people that would wreck the long-term constitutional possibilities for South Africa, because we are not operating in a vacuum. Anything we do must be part of the solution to the overall problems of South Africa, while looking at the predominant interests of the people for whom we are responsible.

Many of the principles which were raised here are general principles. For example, the hon member for Parktown raised the matter of tax. He said that doctors going abroad should be able to write off their expenses against tax. I do not know whether that hon member does his homework, but if he did, he would know that every bona fide application received by this own affairs administration from doctors to travel abroad to attend congresses, was accepted. Every single one was accepted and the grants paid. [Interjections.]

The fact of the matter is—that hon member will know—that we are trying to move away from the erosion of the tax base. If he had consulted with the hon member for Yeoville he would have told him that we are not in favour, as stated by the Margo Commission in their report, of eroding the tax base by allowing people to write visits abroad off against their taxable income. We would rather move towards direct grants which is on the budget …

You had better do your homework on this matter.

No, no, that hon member would have known it if he had read the Margo Commission’s report. If he reads the speeches of the hon member for Yeoville, he will also know that his party has accepted the policy of not eroding the tax base.

As far as our responsibility to doctors in our employ is concerned, in fact, every request has been granted to travel abroad for medical reasons.

*The hon member for Barberton opened this debate, and I want to thank him sincerely for his congratulations. I appreciate it and I appreciate the spirit in which he delivered his speech. However, I think the hon member wrote his speech before I delivered mine, because I had replied in my introductory speech to all the issues he raised. I do not blame him, because it is a good thing to have one’s views recorded. I can appreciate that, but the fact is that I have dealt in my speech with all the issues he raised in connection with public accounts.

As regards the appointment of marriage officers, it is true that we appoint White marriage officers in this own affairs administration. The other Houses appoint their own people. That is the simple answer. The idea is that in an own affairs administration one appoints the kind of people that one prefers to have in those positions, and that is what this department does.

†As far as the closing of the wage gap and the whole question of wage differentiation are concerned—this matter was also raised by the hon member for Klip River—the policy of the Government is well-known. We believe in closing the wage gap and we believe in the rate for the job. That is our policy. We believe in narrowing the gap as far as possible and we are moving in that direction as fast as we can. I just want to issue one warning in this regard. We must be very careful in South Africa not to so increase minimum wage rates that we contribute massively to unemployment. There are many people who will tell hon members that, if wages were reduced, it could add massively to employment.

At the moment we have a curious situation in South Africa at some of the mines. I have been down mines where one hardly sees a person. One just sees machines, it has become a huge capital-intensive operation. South Africa is short of capital and we have lots of people. As far as possible, where economically viable, we should use people and not allow the whole economy to become skewed. That is what has happened with things like the Sullivan report where, for example, American companies were forced to withstand the political pressure they were under. They then doubled the salaries of the staff, but halved the number of employees and put in capital equipment to take the place of labour.

One must, therefore, be very careful not to come forward with simplistic views on the subject. It is more complex than that. The big challenge facing South Africa is that we must become a wealthproducing society. To consume wealth is easy and to spend money is easy, but to create the wealth is more difficult. That is the big challenge facing South Africa. We also, in this House, must be inimitable in the solution of South Africa’s problems and not be an obstruction to the solving of the problems of this subcontinent.

I do not see it as my job necessarily to aggregate more money for any particular group. I shall do my best to see that we appropriate what is reasonable, fair and just against the whole background of the South African scene.

However, like the Government, I believe in reducing the size of government and in alleviating the tax burden. If we pay everybody more and do not apply fiscal discipline, we are going to find ourselves in a position where we will have to increase tax rates.

You must maintain a standard!

If I may give the hon member for Pinetown the shorthand, we want a small, highly-paid, highly-qualified, happy, contented and respected Public Service and not a huge, amorphous, underpaid and disgruntled Public Service. [Interjections.] That is the policy of the Government and that is what we stand for. We operate within the general constraints of the Government’s policy. We do not stand aloof from it.

Business interrupted.

Mr Speaker, the Official Opposition supports this amending Bill. There are certain aspects with which we are not entirely happy. They concern matters which the CP would have dealt with and implemented differently had we formed the government, but that is history, and the damage that has been done was apparently done before the present hon Minister was entrusted with the responsibilities in question.

The Bill deals mainly with adjustments to and rationalisations of the borders between the RSA and the independent neighbouring states which were previously part of the RSA. This only goes to show once again that matters of common concern such as these do not have to be dealt with within power-sharing structures, but can be dealt with successfully through negotiation between independent states that are each sovereign in their own right, without jeopardising the autonomy of the states concerned.

Many of the matters dealt with in the Bill arise from decisions which were made in 1984, and from consolidation proposals dating back to 1975 and even as far back as 1972. In general, the Bill falls within the frame-work of CP policy and for this reason we support it.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Potgietersrus promised a moment ago to lend his support to this legislation, but I doubt whether he is aware of what it contains. I do not know precisely what he means by his remark that the CP would have dealt with matters in a different way. There is absolutely nothing sinister behind the Bill to justify engaging each other in debate.

You old UP supporters will not understand it.

There are many good old UP supporters. The hon member was a bad Nationalist and he knows it. [Interjections.]

Ad hoc adjustments as regards land transfers within the RSA context will continue to be made for a long while yet in connection with the self-governing states, as well as the TBVC countries. All that this measure entails is the finalisation of long outstanding ad hoc cases of border adjustments between the RSA and three independent areas in South Africa. In terms of this measure we are adding certain areas to the schedule of the principal Act so as to enable the State President to effect the necessary transfer by way of proclamation.

As regards Bophuthatswana, clause 1(a)(ix) has been a consolidation proposal since 1984, which merely entails the sensible rationalisation of the border. It is actually a package deal, which boils down to an exchange transaction.

The land referred to in clause 1(a)(x) was obtained as long ago as 1958. I do not know why the CP has not dealt with the matter in the interim with all those people whom they boast are going to join them. It is only 26 hectares, on which a Tswana burial ground is situated, and so this is simply a practical correction of borders.

Clause 1(a)(xi) will be dealt with by the hon member for Albany, and it too merely entails a border adjustment.

However I should like to say something about Venda. Section 2 entails the finalisation of very lengthy negotiations which, in my opinion will be ratified by the Government of Venda amidst great acclaim.

This finalisation of negotiations dates back as far as 1973. It concerns the Senthimula Kutama location, as it is commonly called. Compensatory land of 20 000 hectares was originally purchased for this purpose near Soekmekaar. For a long while the Venda Government has been making representations on account of the fact that the spirits of their forefathers, as they call them, are buried in that area, and I wholly approve of the Government’s agreeing to retain the Senthimula Kutama area as a satellite area of Venda and de-proclaiming the compensatory land, with the exception of a small piece of ground of 1 800 ha which will be utilised simply for rationalisation purposes. I think this is an exceptionally good decision, and it finalises a problem which has long remained unsolved.

Clause 3 deals with the Ciskei. We are aware that there are hon members, and the hon member for Durban Central in particular, who still have problems with the situation in regard to Peelton in the Ciskei. I hope the hon member will weigh his words carefully, because I think the questions he has raised have already been answered in part, and the rest will be answered this afternoon. The hon member for King William’s Town will deal with that particular problem since it is situated in his own area and constituency.

I should like to thank the hon members of the standing committee for their co-operation as regards this legislation—and we on this side of the House gladly support this legislation.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Turffontein, as I think I have mentioned before, has a dual personality. When he is in the standing committee he is most patient and understanding …

He is just himself here!

… but when he is in this House he attempts to be offensive. He was not offensive towards the PFP today although at times he does attempt to be, and he is of course most effective at that. Today, however, it was the CP’s turn. [Interjections.]

We are opposed to this Bill, as we have been opposed to similar measures in the past. To put it briefly: We are opposed to the juggling of land within South Africa because we believe that South Africa is one country and that it is to no one’s benefit to fiddle around with pieces of land here and there. These relatively small pockets of land can only cause further uncertainty to all those involved. For the farmers it is a problem because their planting and their reaping are being delayed, and for the residents of the area there is a degree of uncertainty, in particular with regard to their future.

We are opposed to the piecemeal fragmentation of South Africa. We acknowledge one South Africa, one citizenship, and one constitution, and we therefore do not approve of this type of measure. We believe that one citizenship, one South Africa and one constitution are fundamental to our future—and to the peaceful future that we all desire for our people. This indicates that, unlike the NP, we are not afraid to acknowledge the non-racial character of our nation. We believe it is imperative to work towards the unity of our people and our country, and we therefore believe it is wrong to cut the map up into small pieces. In any event, the creation of many of these independent states has not got us any further along the road of apartheid, and I believe the CP should take note of that fact, because those independent states are not being recognised and they are unlikely to be recognised. This proves extremely unsettling for both Black and White people.

I say that the hon member for Turffontein was patient in the standing committee. He was extremely patient because this Bill has been before us since January. It is a small Bill, comprising only three clauses, and the reason why we have been debating it for that length of time was that the Labour Party had reservations about clause 3(c) in the original Bill. Because of the agreement which had apparently been reached between Ciskei and the RSA and because that clause was to be withdrawn from the Bill, the Labour Party expressed reservations about the possibility of an agreement reached between these two countries not being adhered to.

The hon the Minister gave us the assurance that discussions had been held with Ciskei, and that on that understanding clause 3(c) was withdrawn. This followed representations made by the Eastern Cape Agricultural Union in the person of the hon member for Cradock, and because of those representations the said clause 3(c) was withdrawn from the original Bill. One of the reasons put forward was that access to a portion of the Republic of South Africa that would be left over would be through a portion of Ciskei only. It was felt that problems could result because of that.

Farmers in that area were extremely fortunate because they had the hon member for Cradock to put forward their points of view. Clause 3(c), which had originally been agreed to, was therefore withdrawn once it had been drawn to our attention that there was some opposition to that particular stipulation in the Bill.

I must say it is a great pity that the farmers of Rust de Winter, in the Eastern Transvaal, did not have an influential member on the standing committee because in spite of their representations their properties were taken away from them. Their properties were expropriated and added to KwaNdeble. Apparently alternative land will have to be found in due course to satisfy Ciskei’s demands. That will, no doubt, be the subject of a further Bill, which we expect to be placed before us in due course.

Our other main objection to this Bill is that Black people living on those farms will lose their citizenship because those pieces of ground are to be added to Bophuthatswana and Ciskei respectively. That amounts to what can be termed a forced removal. Although they are not being physically removed, they are to be removed to a possibly hostile administration. I say this because we are aware that Bophuthatswana in particular is opposed to dual citizenship. When we debated the Bill dealing with the restoration of South African citizenship last year it was made clear to us that although citizenship which had been taken away from South Africans of Tswana origin or from those South African Blacks who spoke Tswana but who were forced to accept Bophuthatswanan citizenship at the time of independence of that area would be restored, the Bophuthatswanan government indicated that they were not prepared to allow South African Black citizens of Tswana extraction to receive dual citizenship. Therefore those people living on that land—if that land is to be added to Bophuthatswana, as has been indicated—will lose their South African citizenship. We therefore have the situation in which those people, because they are Tswana, became Bophuthatswanan citizens when that country became independent, and although their South African citizenship was restored to them last year when the relevant legislation in that respect was passed by this House, will again lose their citizenship when their land is added to the territory of Bophuthatswana.

That, Sir, places the Black labourers on those farms in an impossible situation, and as no provision has been made for them, they will therefore again lose their South African citizenship.

In another clause the question arises in relation to the people of Peelton. That position has been drawn to my attention. I refer in particular to the plight of those people who do not want to be Ciskeians. Their land, which they have occupied for some time, will in due course be added to Ciskei. That means that they will have to accept Ciskeian citizenship. The problem regarding the people of Peelton was not brought to the attention of the standing committee. I understand the hon the Minister is aware of the objections of farmers’ associations in the area, particularly the Kei Road Farmers’ Association. That, however, was unfortunately not brought to the attention of the standing committee. I have no doubt that had that objection been drawn to our attention, it would have received a great deal of consideration, and in particular from members of the Labour Party, who would have been interested in having this matter sorted out in a fair manner. They would have been particularly concerned with the plight of those people who, as I have said, do not want to become Ciskeian citizens.

A petition has been drawn up, pleading that those people who wish to remain “part and parcel” of the Republic of South Africa should be allowed to retain their South African citizenship. I understand that the petition has been brought to the notice of the department, and I would hope that some action will be taken to meet their reasonable demands. It contains hundreds of signatures, and I hope that some sort of reaction will be forthcoming from the hon the Minister today.

This was not brought to the attention of the standing committee, in particular the letter from the Kei Road Farmers’ Association, who say in their final paragraph that they intend fighting this issue with every means at their disposal and would appreciate an early reply as to what stage has been reached in order to consider further avenues of action. This letter was addressed to the Eastern Cape Agricultural Union.

If this had been brought to the attention of the standing committee, I am sure it would have been given serious consideration. As there is a problem regarding the people of Peelton, I ask the hon the Minister to refer the Bill back to the standing committee, so that the problems of the people of Peelton can be properly and thoroughly investigated. I ask him also to give his reply to this request today. Alternatively, will he advise us as to what he intends doing about their plight?

Mr Speaker, it is clear that differences in principle exist between the hon member for Johannesburg North and us. It is also clear that the PFP is far removed from the realities of the group set-up in South Africa, and that it does not recognise the right of self-determination of the various peoples of Southern Africa. I wonder whether they recognise Lesotho’s, Swaziland’s or Botswana’s right of self-determination, because they too are peoples of Southern Africa. Similarly, Bophuthatswana is a group in its own right, and the Xhosa’s also form part of the Southern African set-up.

I should like to refer to the first part of this amending Bill, namely the part dealing with Bophuthatswana. Those portions of the Rietgat farms in question, and which now have to be embodied in legislation with a view to their incorporation into Bophuthatswana, are so situated that it is only logical that they should be incorporated into Bophuthatswana. The incorporation of this land, which is approximately 76 hectares in extent, will confirm a practical adjustment to the RSA-Bophuthatswana border—a border which has over the years been both accepted and respected by the inhabitants of the area.

Section 3 of the farm Rietgat 611 JR, which is approximately 1,3 hectares in extent, forms part of the Soshanguve-Mabopane station complex which was originally so planned that the RSA-Bophuthatswana border would run precisely through the centre of it, with the bus station on the Bophuthatswana side and the railway station on the South African side. When the construction of the station complex was agreed to, the contractors had to shift it a few meters to the east on account of the location of a burial ground for Blacks inside Bophuthatswana, which could not be moved.

The relocation of the building a few meters to the east on account of the presence of this burial ground resulted in some of the businesses in the station building, as well as part of the bus terminus, falling within the territory of the RSA. The thousands upon thousands of vendors who make use of this bus terminal were always under the impression that it was part of Bophuthatswana. A visit to the station complex will confirm that the original intention was that the RSA-Bophuthatswana border should run precisely through the middle of the building.

The owners of the businesses which would have fallen within the territory of Bophuthatswana, as was generally accepted, are now, however, obliged to pay sales tax to the RSA. Hence, circumstances oblige them to recoup sales tax from business profits, because the Black customers were under the impression that it was part of Bophuthatswana and the further addition of sales tax would have led to unrest.

Hence it is not a case of creating a new border between the RSA and Bophuthatswana, but simply the correction of the original border arrangement, which has been necessitated by the relocation of the complex a few meters to the east.

This will also enable the owners of these businesses to place their businesses on a firmer foundation and to conduct their business without uncertainty as to the location of the border. It will also enable them to initiate appropriate negotiations with the South African receiver as to the amount of tax owing thus far—a tax which would not have been necessary had the building not been relocated, a situation of which they were not aware when the building was originally occupied.

Section 266 of Rietgat 105 JR comprises approximately 75 hectares of trust land which is situated on the western side of the Mabopane-Soshanguve station complex and which, from a practical and topographical point of view, only Bophuthatswana will be able to be utilise effectively.

Should this 75 ha remain a part of the territory of the Republic of South Africa, it would merely give rise to possible squatting and the underutilisation of land which could be used more practically and effectively by Bophuthatswana, since it is squeezed between the station complex and existing territory of Bophuthatswana.

We support the hon the Minister with this legislation.

Mr Speaker, I wish to deal with one aspect only, and that is the Peelton area. Peelton lies in the corridor near King William’s Town in the Eastern Cape where the Imiqalase tribe has been living for more than two centuries. Half, or a portion, of that area is now in Ciskei—the railway line divides it—and the other half is in South Africa.

Without consulting the people of Peelton who live in South Africa, against the wishes of the local farmers’ association, the Kei Road Farmers Association, and against the wishes of the Eastern Cape Agricultural Union, the Government is now forcibly pushing them, without their consent, into Ciskei—a foreign country.

This hon Minister is a Minister for whom one has always had respect, and one appreciates that the Bill before us is a result of developments long before this became his responsibility. Nevertheless, he bears the responsibility of pushing a community into Ciskei against their will by redrawing the boundaries.

It is a community where I have happened to be on a few occasions when I had meetings there. It is not known or heard of because it is a peace-loving and quiet community. This step was taken without their knowledge.

If the Lawaaikamp Blacks and Coloureds, who refuse to move, have one lesson to teach to other Black communities, it is not to take these things lying down. It does not help to try and behave in a way which is regarded as peaceful, quiet and co-operative because, if one does that, the Government will just trample on one—they will ignore one. One has to give those communities the message now to do something about it, to protest, to call in the international media, to call in the MPs and to take a stance otherwise the Government is going to trample on them. [Interjections.] That is what they are doing with the Peelton community. It is a disgrace! [Interjections.]

All those hon members can say is that I talk nonsense. Let them speak to the Eastern Cape Agricultural Union because they will tell them what they think about this step. [Interjections.]

Let them speak to the local farmers and they will tell them what they think about it.

More important, however, let them speak to the people of Peelton—there are thousands! They heard of these steps about three or four weeks ago. This was the first time the people of Peelton had heard about it. This Government treats those people like ignorant, insignificant figures. [Interjections.] The time will come when those people will react against this step. Those people were until now, and still are peaceful, law abiding citizens and that is why nobody knows about Peelton. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister has a petition. He has a petition on which more than 2 000 names appear. Not all of them are hand signatures, but it is an indication of the feeling of people in Peelton who refuse to become part of Ciskei because they have never been part of the Sebe tribe and they have never been part of that country; they have always been part of South Africa.

The people of Peelton were pushed around by the British colonial government in the last century; they were pushed around by missionaries who tried to carve up the Peelton area and now, in 1988, we have this Government doing exactly the same thing, just in a more subtle way. In a more subtle way the boundaries are changed.

The hon the Minister should please give us an indication of whether or not, in the light of the strong views of the Eastern Cape Agricultural Union and the people, he is prepared to reconsider the issue before he issues a proclamation, if he does it at all. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Cradock must go to the Eastern Cape Agricultural Union who will tell him how disappointed they are at his failure to point out to the standing committee the problems in the Peelton area. He did not do it. He neglected his duty by not doing it.

They never approached me.

Now he wants to come and rectify it afterwards. He should go and speak to them and find out what they are talking about. [Interjections.]

In addition to that, the portion of the Peelton area which is in South Africa has been neglected for years. It has been in limbo. There are no primary or secondary schools in that area, there are no clinics, no proper roads and no bridges. No infrastructure provisions have been made at all. Leaving it in that neglected state and not having done anything about it, the Government has washed its hands of that area and now wants to hand it over to the Ciskeian government, which does not have the resources to uplift that area. What is the Government going to do about that? The Government is going to throw them into the Ciskei where we know we can forget about them as far as South Africa is concerned.

This type of removal by changing borders has as many negative and long-term disastrous consequences as actual forced removals. It is just not as brutal. The local farmers in the area initially said that they wanted those people in Peelton removed. They were in favour of a forced removal there. However, there have been meetings of the people of Peelton, the Residents steering committee of Peelton and the farmers’ associations, where they have agreed that the border should be changed in such a way—the hon the Minister knows what the suggestions are—that the major portion of Peelton falls within the Republic again. That is what the farmers’ association would prefer, namely that the people of Peelton should be brought back into the Republic, rather than pushed into the Ciskei.

Why is the Government doing this? The reason is not that the people of Peelton want it that way. In the hon the Minister’s Second Reading speech he said:

It seems that it is at Ciskei’s request, according to the Second Reading speech, that the Government is now incorporating that area into Ciskei. To hell with the views of the people of Peelton! That is irrelevant! [Interjections.] I challenge the hon the Minister to have an independent agency conduct an opinion poll or in some other way to establish the views of the people of Peelton and find out what they think about this. It is not Chief Minister Sebe who ought to determine the lot of these people. They should have a say in it as well and at least be able to express their opinion. They were totally ignored, however.

They know there is a corrupt Government in Ciskei. They know the chief who was appointed in that area, Mr Mtembu, does not belong to the tribe of the people of Peelton, the Imiqalase tribe, but to Sebe’s tribe. He is acting on behalf of the government, and he belongs to the Committee of Ten. He does not have the interests of the people of Peelton at heart. He is the agent of Prime Minister Chief Sebe of Ciskei.

Furthermore, what assurances are there about South African citizenship? What will happen to the people who now live in Ciskei? As far as the farmers are concerned, what may be expected concerning the border? [Interjections.] At the moment the fence is a railway line which, in a way, one can recognise as a border. The farmers are concerned that now a big bulge protruding into the corridor will simply be fenced off suddenly, and that that will be an international border. They have great problems with that concept. What is the Government’s intention concerning that border? Are there going to be upliftment actions in Peelton before any decision is taken?

I appeal to the hon the Minister to go to Peelton and talk to the agricultural union and to the people who are directly involved. It is not Sebe’s decision. This type of legislation by stealth, as far as those people are concerned, can only be rejected.

Order! The hon member may not refer to legislation as being passed “by stealth” in this House. The hon member must withdraw that remark.

Mr Speaker, the people who are to be affected by this legislation heard about it for the first time after it had already been passed by the other two Houses.

Order! I accept that, but any reference in this House to the hon the Minister and/or the Government and/or this House as legislating “by stealth”, is unparliamentary, and such a remark must be withdrawn.

I withdraw it, Mr Speaker.

This Government is passing legislation behind the backs of the people who are directly affected by it. The Government does not even tell them or consult them about this legislation. [Interjections.] That is why one must reject it; one cannot possibly approve of such legislation. For that reason this Bill must be rejected, unless the hon the Minister is prepared to reconsider the decision to which I have referred.

Mr Speaker, I will come presently to the hon member for Durban Central. I would first of all like to suggest that this legislation is the consequence of continuing negotiations on the part of the Department of Development Aid with various independent states, local authorities, agriculture unions and private individuals. In particular I welcome the additions to the annexures of the principal Act contained in clause 3 of the Bill as it relates to adjustments of the international boundary between Ciskei and the RSA, specifically within the King William’s Town constituency. The addition of the remainder of portion 11 of Farm 832 in subparagraph (a) amounts to a minor adjustment of a piece of ground near the Cyril Lord textile factory.

Prior to the independence of Ciskei an agreement was reached between the RSA and the Ciskei National Development Corporation for the purchase of this ground. However, because the ground lay outside the then territory of Ciskei, the ground could not be transferred to Ciskei. The compensatory package subsequently negotiated between the RSA and Ciskei after its independence now makes this possible. The farms described in clause 3(b)(iii) of the Bill are to be added to Ciskei as part of a further exchange deal after in-depth negotiations between the RSA, Ciskei, the municipality of King William’s Town and organised agriculture.

The extent of the yellowwoods farms amounts to 210 ha, consisting of a number of smallholdings falling within the areas of jurisdiction of the borough council of King William’s Town and the Divisional Council of Kaffraria. These farms had become isolated as a result of the development of the Ciskeian parliamentary complex and the capital of Bisho. As part of the deal two portions of Ciskeian land lying to the east of the freeway between King William’s Town and East London, measuring some 75 ha in extent in the vicinity of Fort Jackson, will be deproclaimed and again become part of the RSA.

I want now to come to the hon member for Johannesburg North and his comments about Peelton. I also want to deal specifically with a speech made by the hon member for Durban Central on 5 May 1988 in the debate on development aid. I also want to respond to his speech today.

Although the affected portion of Peelton falls within my constituency, the hon members who live hundreds of kilometres away have seen fit to stick their political noses into my constituency. [Interjections.] What intrigues me, is that—having apparently studied the problem and having even paid visits to the area, without advising me—they both spoke with such an apparent lack of knowledge about the actual matter. I have an unedited version of the hon member for Durban Central’s speech from Hansard.

Sketching the background to what he called the “Nkalasi” tribe, he said that they moved to Peelton from Transkei more than two centuries ago, in the 1750’s. He described them as a closely-knit community divided by the Ciskei/South African boundary. He apparently met a so-called Residents’ Association …

Not so-called; they are.

I will come to that.

He said he was persuaded that they represented the overwhelming majority of people living in the Peelton area. He also referred to the edition of City Press of 10 April 1988 and rumours of forced removals from Peelton.

He asked for some certainty on that matter. I intend to remove his uncertainty this afternoon and to correct the facts. He seems to be persuaded much too easily. [Interjections.]

What are the real facts in connection with this issue? In the first place, these people did not arrive there in the 1750’s. The Imidangi and Imiqalase—not Nkalasi—tribes settled at Peelton in 1848 under the auspices of the Rev Britt of the London Missionary Society. That alone establishes that they are true indigenous Ciskeians. This piece of land was included as a scheduled area as far back as in the Land Act of 1913, for occupation by Blacks. The portion of ground affected by this legislation which lies to the east of the Berlin/Kei Road railway line and known as “Nkonkweni”, is the minor portion of the Peelton tribal area. When I say “minor”, I mean minor. It is by no means half of the Peelton area.

In 1969 a Peelton community authority was established for the Imidangi and Imiqalase clans and in 1972 it was proposed to deproclaim this affected area and physically remove the small community to the west of the railway line, allowing the eastern side to return to the RSA. In fact, I am not sure if the hon member spoke to the Kei Road Farmers’ Association personally.

I did!

In 1987 I was approached by them and their official representatives. I met them on site and they urged unquestionably for the full removal of those people and for the removal of the boundary to the railway line.

Look at the letter your hon Minister received in April of this year!

I am suggesting to the hon member right now that that is what was said and that is the position. Their attitude is that they do not want those people near their farms. They wanted them to be removed. As far as I am concerned, the request was immediately taken up with the officials of this department, the Department of Development Aid, at my request. They personally travelled to Ciskei and met with representatives of the Kei Road Farmers’ Association and subsequently conducted an inspection on site. I can assure the House that it was a thorough investigation.

The Government is against forced removals.

What a joke!

We are against the forced removal of communities against their will. Therefore we could not accede to the farmers’ request. It would have caused undue hardship to the Nkonkweni people. It would have been vigorously opposed particularly by the PFP and the NDM.

For a considerable number of years, and especially in the past two years, the Government of Ciskei has repeatedly requested, through the bilateral ministerial committee, that this land be incorporated into Ciskei. Additional facts are that headman Ntsoko has jurisdiction over the whole Imiqalase tribe, including those residing east of the railway line. Furthermore, the Ciskeian government pays their pensions and has consulted Chief Mtembu, headman Ntsoko and the elected tribal authority who have all indicated that they are in favour of the incorporation of this small section of land into Ciskei.

Have a look at the petition. Your hon Minister has it. [Interjections.]

It is true that the Imiqalase people are a close-knit community. This is all the more reason for them not to be divided artificially by international boundaries.

But you still did it!

What is the actual attitude of the people themselves? I would like to read a few brief extracts, if I may, from the Daily Dispatch of 17 May 1988.

Listen carefully!

It is stated here that:

[Interjections.]

He speaks for no one.

Do you speak for them?

Hold a referendum!

I quote further:

I quote the last paragraph:

I return briefly to the legislation.

Have a referendum!

It is nothing more than common sense legislation. The result will be that the Ciskeian government will immediately take over the administration of the area. There will be certainty and they will eliminate illegal squatting. They will bring the whole community into the planning of the whole tribal area of Peelton and upgrade the available facilities. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to start by thanking the chairman and members of the standing committee for the trouble that they took in handling this legislation, which, although it comprises small land adjustments, deals with delicate matters in some cases. I also wish to emphasise that this Bill is further proof of the Government’s determination to proceed with all legislation which may contribute to the constitutional structuring of the ethnic diversity within South Africa as far as this is practicable. In this case the Government is offering proof of its sincere intention to support independent states in their further development and I want to emphasise afresh that it remains part of the Government’s policy to lead and assist self-governing areas within the RSA who are desirous of it toward independence.

I also want to emphasise that the Government is striving to finalise consolidation, especially of countries which have already assumed independence. At the same time it must be taken into account, however, that negotiations which are sometimes delicate have to be conducted between all interested parties over a reasonably long period in order to achieve an agreement on the basis of which a measure can be designed, because it not only affects the RSA but also the countries in respect of whose territories these extensions are being proposed.

I do not consider it necessary to go into detail but hon members made various very useful contributions. The hon member for Turffontein in particular dealt with the proposals regarding Venda. The hon member for Albany gave an excellent explanation of the practical circumstances concerning the areas which are proposed for incorporation with Bophuthatswana. The hon member for King William’s Town dealt with the area in his vicinity, Ciskei, and provided a very effective defence against the arguments of the hon members for Durban Central and Johannesburg North. I want to thank these hon members from this side and I also thank the hon member for Potgietersrus for his support of this Bill.

In my opinion the only difference existing here relates to the question of the Peelton area. In the first place it is necessary to emphasise that the Peelton area or the Nkonkweni area, as it is also known, is not a region which belongs primarily to private individuals. It is a long-standing tribal area—it is not really the point whether this has been the case for more than one or more than two centuries—for which two different tribal authorities have existed since 1974. In 1969 there was a community authority. Nevertheless throughout the ages, and also recently, that tribal area has been administered as a unit and not divided between the various tribes.

If people who settled in that tribal area, especially those who are not members of the tribe concerned, now take it upon themselves as “residents” to express an opinion on what is to become of the tribal area, it is a flagrant assumption of a right which they do not possess. This is a tribal area and the authority in that in that tribal area is the tribal authority involved, and it is the standpoint of the tribal authority which must prevail.

This is a further example of the type of decision which people took elsewhere in Africa as well in the past without considering the cohesion of ethnic groups or population groups within specific areas in determining boundaries and merely drew a line through them by indicating a boundary. Here we actually have to admit that the decision made in the past to divide the Peelton area in half and make the railway line the boundary, so that the portion west of the line was in the Ciskei and the portion east of the line in the RSA, was a decision that was taken at the time without proper consultation with the tribal authorities involved so that they subsequently resisted this most strongly. It was a decision which really, in retrospect, was unfair because it was unfair to divide a tribal area in this way, whether it was one or two centuries old but in any case had a long historical background, so that—as the hon member for Durban North said in a previous debate—a person actually cut families and communities apart. What we are doing here is in reality restoring the historical right of the tribe to the unity of its area in spite of the fact that inhabitants who have meanwhile settled there are now objecting to this.

It is certainly true—this is a further point which we have to recognise—that this difference of opinion hinges on whether the eastern part of Peelton is to be incorporated with Ciskei or not. There is a difference of opinion but the important fact is that the authorities responsible for this tribe, the Imigalase tribe, since the time of the unfair division of this area up to today, have repeatedly expressed themselves directly and via the government of Ciskei and appealed for this unsatisfactory state of affairs to be put right.

I want to point out that the hereditary holders of this area made representations to the South African Government through the tribal authority that they definitely wanted this area incorporated with Ciskei. But it is equally true that the inhabitants who had settled there also submitted a petition. This is a very suspect petition, however, because according to the current official survey there are approximately 300 families settled there, comprising about 1 800 people—just a shade under 2 000 therefore—and we understand now that this petition was signed by 2 000 people! Everyone, adult and child, must therefore have signed it! This looks nonsensical. It is simply unacceptable because we to be precise received well-ordered representations from the hereditary holders of that area, through the authorities, that they wished to be incorporated with Ciskei. There is therefore no question that this matter …

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

No, I have had enough of the hon member; I want to finish my speech now. There is no question whatsoever of this matter having been conducted behind people’s backs. There is no question whatsoever of this matter having been conducted without people’s knowledge. This matter was addressed to the South African Government after years of representations, since the assumption of independence by Ciskei, by the responsible body which exercises authority over this tribe and this is the reaction to it.

As regards the position of the Kei Road Farmers Association, it is certainly true that this farmers’ association has changed its opinion. Its members’ initial standpoint, as explained by the hon member for King William’s Town, was that they wanted the inhabitants of that area resettled. They wanted the inhabitants of the area east of the railway line to be resettled elsewhere and this to become a White area. They insisted on this until the beginning of this year. When we told them that it was simply impracticable, they came up with the other standpoint, namely that the RSA merely had to excise that tribal area out of Ciskei now, apparently without consulting Ciskei, without respecting the wishes of the tribal authorities that they wished to be included in Ciskei, and that we should now fix the boundary along the main road so that a larger part of Peelton would be incorporated with the RSA.

With respect, I do not believe that the standpoint of the farmers’ association is fair or acceptable. We also told the Agricultural Union so. We negotiated with them and visited the area with them too. Subsequently we sat down and argued the case. We told them there that, on the basis of the reasons which I have already mentioned, it was not possible for us to comply with their requests.

†Mr Chairman, a point made by the hon member for Durban Central, I believe, has a certain degree of validity. That is that because of the uncertainty pertaining in respect of this area essential developments have in the past been neglected. I should like to give the assurance that the South African Government is in honour bound to assist Ciskei with the necessary development funds in order to promote in that area an acceptable degree of development comparable to that in the rest of the Peelton area.

I should also like to give the assurance that it is the policy of the South African Government to provide the necessary international fencing between the area in question and the Republic of South Africa. In respect of this issue we will also give special attention to the requests by the farming community. I want to point out too that this area, which is now proposed to be incorporated into Ciskei, was originally identified together with the other Black settlements in the so-called corridor area between Ciskei and Transkei for a massive resettlement of the Black inhabitants of those areas. Those areas were consequently earmarked for deproclamation in order that they would no longer be occupied by Black people.

In 1985 the Government decided it could no longer execute these plans because it would involve a massive forced resettlement, and it therefore determined that forced resettlement could not be resorted to. This also affected the Peelton area and the logical decision in respect of that area, because it forms a part cut off from a historically cohesive tribal area, was to restore the unity of that area and to incorporate it into Ciskei.

Was it really …

I should also like to refer to the points made by hon members in relation to citizenship. The position relating to citizenship is quite clear. There is no question of the South African citizenship of those people being affected by their proposed incorporation into Ciskei. The inhabitants of the Peelton area are South African citizens at present because the Peelton area was not included in Ciskei at the time of independence. After the proposed consolidation of that area with Ciskei they will remain South African citizens because the legislation which deprived South African citizens of their citizenship at the time of independence does not apply in this instance. In fact the legislation in respect of the restoration of South African citizenship is not even applicable in this case because they have not lost their South African citizenship.

Furthermore there is no prohibition in the South African citizenship regulations on dual citizenship. Meanwhile President Sebe, at the recent opening of the Ciskei Parliament, expressed approval of dual citizenship in such cases. It is only in the case of Bophuthatswana that the problem arises of that government refusing to recognise dual citizenship. Therefore the incorporation of that area into Ciskei will not adversely affect the existing South African citizenship rights of its people. That is why I do not believe this argument is really relevant.

There is one other point I should also like to deal with. That is a point raised by the hon member for Johannesburg North. He spoke at some length on the issue of Bophuthatswana and used that to illustrate his argument that an indirect process of forced removal by way of incorporation was in fact taking place. This is of course completely wrong because the two small portions that are to be incorporated into Bophuthatswana are not areas inhabited by Black people, as has, I believe, been clearly explained by the hon member for Albany. That argument does not apply here at all.

*Mr Chairman, the Government has handled these matters, including the Peelton case, with great care. I want to repeat that I do not deny that there is a difference of opinion in the case of Peelton. In view of the historical background and in accordance with the cohesion, unity and community ties of the tribe involved, it is only right that the unity of that tribal area be restored and that we again consolidate the portion which was excised and included in the territory of the Republic of South Africa with the rest of the area so that the people there, together with their fellow tribesmen, may become part of Ciskei.

As I have said, their South African citizenship will not be jeopardised in the process. We recently received an assurance from President Sebe that he had no objection to dual citizenship either. I therefore think this deals effectively with the objections which the hon members raised.

Mr Chairman, in view of the fact that the Peelton problem seems to be the only aspect of this Bill which is at all contentious, and as the standing committee did not have access to the facts relating to Peelton and the people of Peelton did not have access to the standing committee, may I ask the hon the Minister if he would not consider recommitting the Bill to the standing committee for consideration?

No, Sir, but it is very clear that hon members on the opposite side, and some of their friends, have been telling the people of Peelton for some time that they should become dissatisfied now and protest.

No. The matter was brought to my attention two weeks ago.

The people who objected by means of a petition were inhabitants whereas the persons in authority or representatives of the authority of the area, which historically belongs to a specific tribe, expressed themselves clearly.

That is not true!

There is no lack of clarity on this matter. [Interjections.] That is why I am not prepared to delay or recommit this matter. We shall actually carry it out as soon as possible after the legislation has been passed.

Debate concluded.

Order! I put the question.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I understood that in terms of the new Rules voting would take place at specific sittings. If you are asking the House to vote on this particular Bill now, I think that might be straying somewhat from the provisions of the Rules. I do not have the Rules before me at the moment, but I believe that it would be proper to vote on this only on a later occasion, when we will have the opportunity to make a declaratory statement of up to three minutes explaining our reasons for not voting.

Order! It seems to me that there is a little confusion. I will therefore postpone the decision until a later stage.

Mr Chairman, I move without notice:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I want to start by quoting from page 1 of the 1987 annual report of the department signed by the hon the Minister where reference is made to the democratic ideal as seen by the hon the Minister. It says:

When one reads through this statement one could almost be convinced by the innocence of intent conveyed by the words “to afford all citizens equal political rights in a new democratic dispensation.” This could only mean (a) universal suffrage and therefore (b) the total demise of apartheid which is the status quo. This could mean a drastic change to NP philosophy.

The status quo in this country is racial discrimination which is enshrined in the Population Registration Act, the Group Areas Act, the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act, etc. Reforming the status quo can only mean the total repeal of these Acts and/or substantial amendments to these Acts which, to my mind, may be too late now anyway.

When it is aimed to afford all citizens equal political rights where the word “separately” is not mentioned, it has to be realized that such a situation can only be brought about in a non-racial, non-tribal, free-association type society where every individual is protected by a bill of rights and is able to exercise a vote which is not conditionally confined.

However, the hon the Minister makes his standpoint very clear in the next sentence where he qualifies equal political rights to all citizens by saying that “this entails the improvement of existing systems” and—“the creation at all levels of new systems”. The word “separate”, before the word “systems” becomes superfluous as the hon the Minister spells out what he really means on page 4 of the report where he says:

Sir, therefore there is no doubt that the hon the Minister does not really intend to reform the status quo in future but rather aims at extending it. The hon the Minister has a passion for separateness and the new word he has been using lately is “differentiation”. Race has become an obsession with him and his party. He is haunted by the fear that Blacks will take over one day. If the hon the Minister obstinately pursues his present pernicious political course, he will lose everything—like a naked polecat.

I can help the hon the Minister if he is prepared to listen to me for once. [Interjections.] He never does. If he listens to me, however, the chances are that he may not be politically stripped to the bone. I am in full agreement with the hon the Minister when he says on page 5 of the report:

With whom, Sir? That is the million dollar question. The hon the Minister and his party have negotiated with the Indians and so-called Coloureds in the tricameral system as well as with certain selected Blacks. However, the bloody chaos and mayhem continue regardless. Bombs are exploding everywhere. Innocent people are being murdered and maimed. Gaols are bursting at their seams with political prisoners. The international community is resorting to economic destroying sanctions. The Zola Budds are being chased away from international competition. The Cubans are on our doorsteps and the South African youth is dying on our borders.

How long can the hon the Minister and his Government withstand this onslaught? The hon the Minister must remember the fall of the Roman Empire. It was the mightiest conquering machine the world has ever known and it fell by the hand of its own soldiers. Remember the fall of Marcos of the Phillipines when the army refused to kill civilians in the streets. Please, Sir, read the lesson the French revolution has left for us. Absolutely nothing lasts forever!

The Roman Empire has gone, Mr Marcos has gone and the Kings of France have gone. [Interjections.] How can this hon Minister save the situation here? He can learn from the mistakes of others. This is what I should like to say to the hon the Minister, in all sincerity: Be magnanimous. Swallow your pride and speak with the ANC.

Two nations, competing for the title of “Superior Nuclear Power on Earth”, have just completed an ongoing historical nuclear reduction programme which has given and is giving this globe an extended lease of life. All this negotiation between Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev was done in the public eye. The hon the Minister should not send undercover men to the ANC to arrange talks. The Sunday Star reported on 27 September 1987 that:

[Interjections.] Of course, the hon the Minister has denied this. He has said that his men are not involved. According to the same newspaper of the same date, the hon the Minister also said:

I regard the alleged overtures to the ANC as the act of a great statesman.

Like yourself! [Interjections.]

However, the denial of having made overtures and the excuse not to talk, is the work of an insensitive person who will be blamed for the devastation, the loss of life and the crippling injuries sustained from ANC attacks—which seem to be escalating, and will continue to escalate for as long as the talks are delayed, whatever the reason for such delay may be!

Who says so?

Kippen. [Interjections.]

Why does the hon the Minister think Dr Andreas van Wyk, his former Director-General, left his department? Why does he think the wealthy American, Dr Robert Hall, gave him R10 000 after he requested Dr Hall for a substantial donation during his last election campaign? The hon the Minister can read all about that in the Sunday Times of 28 April 1987. He can go and have a look at that newspaper. Both those gentlemen expected the hon the Minister to exercise great statesmanship.

Order! Will the hon member please stop addressing the hon the Minister directly and address him through me. The hon member may proceed.

Thank you, Sir.

Mr Chairman, both those gentlemen expected the hon the Minister to display great statesmanship in order to save this country from further chaos and mayhem. That is what they expected from him. What is the hon the Minister doing now, however? That is the question.

The hon the Minister is fiddling with powergrabbing schemes—first the provincial authorities and now at local government level with his “burgemeester” story—while this country is burning. The hon the Minister knows all about it. Prof Geldenhuys’s 50-page proposal—in Afrikaans—with regard to the hon the Minister’s intended control of local government bodies indicates this. In the case of second-tier government, for instance, the hon the Minister has had the Administrators appointed. The Administrator of Natal, for example, was not elected by the people of Natal; he was appointed by and takes instructions from the central Government and not from the electorate.

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

No, Sir, I do not have the time. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister will get his chance.

South Africa is totally shaken by the bomb attacks. Nobody knows where and when the next explosion will take place. I want to ask the hon the Minister, does he know? Can the hon the Minister help the people of South Africa and tell them where and when the next bomb will explode? The answer is no, he does not know. A bomb exploded only a few metres from Parliament a few weeks ago. Is that not alarming? The hon the Minister owes it to the people of South Africa to make contact with the ANC now, not tomorrow, but now. At present the committee chaired by the hon the Minister is busy with the National Council Bill. This discussion would be an ideal starting point for an ANC input. We must remember that the ANC is no longer totally Black. Members include Whites—even people from Afrikaner origin—so-called Coloured people, Indian people and Blacks. The National Council discussion without ANC input will be stillborn as far as credibility is concerned. The experiment is just not worth it.

On page 5 of the report the hon the Minister emphasized that for a better future, leadership was crucial to give direction, to articulate and to give practical substance to the aspirations of most South Africans for peace and reconciliation. I wish the hon the Minister had said “all South Africans” and not “most” because that implies that some people are being left out. After all, we all aspire to a peaceful South Africa. South Africa needs to return to the international community as a full member, as well as to the OAU, for the brotherhood we have been deprived of for so long. It has become abundantly clear that in this decade without leadership input from the ANC, the direction to peace and prosperity for all people in this country shall forever remain a myth.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Durban Suburbs is an old friend of mine, and I always have the privilege of speaking after him in a debate. I really do not know how to react to the confusion of ideas expressed here by the hon member today, however. I think the hon member must negotiate with the hon members of his party first so that at least they will speak with the same voice. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is to the right of the majority party in this House. One of the prominent frontbenchers, the hon member for Border, asked for national service for Coloureds. I wonder if the hon member for Durban Suburbs agrees with that. I see he is shaking his head, which obviously means that he does not agree. The front-benchers of the Official Opposition often ask what radicalism we are involved in when we and the Labour Party address the problems of the country. The hon member completely amazed us today, however, by insisting on negotiations with the ANC and statemanship. As a beginning, the hon member for Durban Suburbs must definitely negotiate with the hon members of his own party before they try to negotiate with anyone else.

My speech looks like an omnibus Act, but the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning covers an immensely wide field, so that one can talk about almost anything without running the risk of deviating from talking about the department. I want to dwell for a moment on the KwaZulu-Natal Indaba. A very interesting development and an aspect which I welcome, is the fact that the student council of the University of Stellenbosch recently accepted the Indaba proposals, because according to them they represent a spirit of negotiation between partypolitical groups.

They said among other things that the Indaba proposals represent a regional solution which can be repeated in other parts of the country if the national impasse concerning negotiation cannot be done away with. The chairman of the student council, a prominent member of the Cape youth branch of the NP, Mr Francois Beekman, said the resolution of the student council, supporting the Indaba proposals, should serve as proof to Blacks that the White youth is prepared to compromise and to negotiate. That is something from among the ranks of the NP youth which I really welcome. They are giving serious consideration to the problems confronting our country. Another prominent member of the NP youth group, and a member of the student council of Stellenbosch, said the motion in which they supported the Indaba proposals was justified because the NP had made it clear that it was in favour of a negotiable political future for South Africa.

In contrast with this spirit of compromise, we still have the situation that the Government has not adopted any clear standpoint with reference to the Indaba proposals. The Natal leader of the NP rejected the proposals very clearly. The Cape leader of the NP, who is also the Minister of the relevant department, dismissed the proposals as containing various deficiencies—such as that minority groups do not enjoy protection.

I should like to ask the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning today how the respective Black cultural groups are going to be represented within their cultural context in the future National Council. How are the Black cultural groups in the nine own affairs regional authorities which are being envisaged for urban Blacks, going to be represented? If we want to find a solution to this country’s problems, in my opinion our point of departure should be—various investigations have proved this—that the urban Blacks have been westernised in most cases and that cultural bonds within the urban context do not play as great a part any more.

A settlement in the Natal-KwaZulu region will attract considerable recognition for South Africa in the international sphere. It will place South Africa irrevocably on the course of reform. Sir, let us look at the advantages which can ensue from such a settlement. Among other things, it will give South Africa’s largest language and cultural group—there are six million Zulus—a political say right up to the highest level. Secondly it will give South Africa’s largest political party, Inkatha, which has more than one million registered members, a political say right up to the highest level.

Sir, the Whites in Natal are mainly progressivethinking English-speaking people. There are White, Indian and Coloured minority groups, and a largely homogeneous Black group. A kind of Southern African Kenya can be established here, in which apartheid can be abolished. The majority of people in Natal would endorse a free-market system. All the factors that can contribute to a political solution in Natal exist, therefore. Despite that, no finality can be reached with reference to the Natal-KwaZulu proposals.

Since I am talking about Natal, I want to discuss the crisis in the House of Delegates for a moment. The instability in the House of Delegates during the past few weeks has done this dispensation an irrevocable amount of damage. It has provided the enemies of this dispensation with ammunition. They can now say that those people who came to participate in this dispensation did so only to line their own pockets. These people are not interested in solutions or in the interests of the people at large. This has caused a great deal of damage, which is being felt by those of us who experience considerable opposition on the part of people who constantly criticise us because of our participation.

The accusations, especially with reference to the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Delegates, must be viewed in a very serious light. I want to give hon members a few examples. The report of the House of Delegates’ own affairs committee on Public Accounts was tabled in Parliament last Thursday. Dissatisfaction is expressed in this report about the expenditure of R1,1 million for the purchase of the Odeon Cinema in Durban. Why did the House of Delegates have to buy a cinema in Durban costing R1,1 million? It has been said that this expenditure was unauthorised.

Earlier this year the hon member for Springfield, one of the PFP’s representatives, mentioned the case of land adjacent to Lenasia South which had been sold to a member of the House of Delegates for R30 000—land which had previously belonged to the National Housing Commission. Three and a half years later the same piece of land was bought back by the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and the hon the Minister of Housing in the House of Delegates for R400 000. That person therefore made a profit of R370 000 on that piece of land in the space of three and a half years.

Rumours are doing the rounds that the House of Delegates is building a school in the Transvaal, and that the cost of this school already amounts to much more than R10 million. [Interjections.] There are constant accusations of maladministration, corruption and bribery with reference to the renting and purchase of land. All indications are that there is an urgent need for an investigation into the administration of the House of Delegates, and that a commission should be appointed for this purpose. If no one is guilty, people’s good names must be restored. If there are guilty parties, they must get prison sentences, because I have an idea that a new information scandal is being enacted in the House of Delegates.

I now come to the statements made by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, after some of his members broke away, viz that he was merely dangling a few carrots in front of them—I am referring to ministerial appointments—after which they would all return.

[Inaudible.]

This kind of statement is doing the status of Parliament and the Government as an institution a great deal of harm. I want to ask the hon the Minister to institute a judicial commission of inquiry. I am not trying to score a political point in this way; I am trying to indicate how serious the matter is. A number of hon members in this House have requested that this investigation be instituted, but for some or other inexplicable reason, a judicial commission of inquiry simply cannot be instituted. I really feel that something should be done about this matter. We have the situation that the House of Delegates has accepted a motion of no confidence in the Ministers’ Council. The options, as spelt out by the Constitution, are either an election or the reconstitution of the Ministers’ Council. Another motion was agreed to, however, and now everything is hunky-dory once again. [Interjections.] Things are simply continuing in that way. [Interjections.]

Order! Was it a foreign word that the hon member used?

No, Sir, it is a well-known word. [Interjections.]

While I am talking about ministerial appointments, I want to talk about the situation in this House. The Ministers’ Council of the House of Representatives consists of four Ministers at present, who take care of the own affairs of almost three million people. In the House of Delegates, however, there are five Ministers plus a Deputy Minister, and they take care of the affairs of approximately 800 000 people, not even a third of the number of people represented by this House. Representations were made to the hon the State President by the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council some months ago requesting that he appoint another Minister to our Ministers’ Council, because the House of Delegates has five Ministers whereas we have only four. The Commission for Administration concluded an inquiry about the rearrangement of the departments in the Minister’s Council in question approximately two months ago. As far as I could determine, the Commission recommended that another Minister and a Deputy Minister be appointed. Nothing has been done about this by the hon the State President as yet, however. What has become of the principle of no domination of one group over another? What has become of minority groups’ right of self-determination over their own affairs?

I want to ask the hon the Minister at least to be consistent in implementing his own policy. The request of the hon member for Border, who is a member of an opposition party that really has no right of existence, to appoint a member of this House to the Cabinet was received very enthusiastically by the hon the State President, but one simply gets no decisive answer to the request of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council for the appointment of an additional Minister in this House.

I now want to discuss another matter that gives cause for concern, viz the Group Areas Act and the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act. With reference to Press reports, inter alia in Die Volksblad, the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning supposedly said at an information meeting of the NP in Durbanville that the residents of an area would have to decide whether that area would be thrown open or not. I want to ask on what basis they will decide. Will it be by means of an ordinary majority vote, or a two-thirds majority? What will be the basis?

Another worrying aspect is that it is being recommended that management committees be established for new so-called open areas. The hon the Minister knows what stigma is attached to management committees which merely have advisory powers. He knows what problems exist between White local authorities and management committees. Yet it is being recommended that management committees be established for the new areas which are going to be thrown open. How does the hon the Minister expect it to be acceptable for people to live in one area, whereas they do not have the right to form a local government for that area?

One is concerned to read in the Press that the hon the Minister of Information, Broadcasting Services and the Film Industry says they are simply going to bulldoze the Group Areas Amendment Bill, which is to give the Act more muscle, through Parliament. Apparently the President’s Council has received instructions to extend its session in anticipation of Parliament’s rejection of the legislation, because they will have work to do.

Will the hon member please give us his sources?

The hon the Minister of Information, Broadcasting Services and the Film Industry said in front of representatives of all the media that they were simply going to push the Group Areas Act through Parliament, and if that did not succeed, they would refer it to the President’s Council. [Interjections.]

This brings me to the question of the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act. Despite the fact that the President’s Council recommended that this Act be abolished, there has been absolute silence on the part of the Government about the continued existence of this Act. Then there is the decision of the hon the Minister and the Administrator of the Cape—one can dismiss this as an immoral decision—to appeal against the Supreme Court’s judgement that the beaches in the Port Elizabeth area were never properly zoned for one race. This is a golden opportunity in which the court—the highest juridical authoritative body—has given a judgement about the interpretation of a law. Why must the Government appeal against this? What is happening to the sincerity of the intention to reform this country, to give other people a right of existence and to recognise their human dignity? There are really no fundamental differences in the level of civilisation of hon members of this House and the hon the Minister and the Administrator of the Cape, but the fact is that they can make use of those beaches, whereas we will be turned away. I want to ask the hon the Minister if they would have formed a union in 1910 if the British had told them that they were prepared to form a union with them, but that they would not be allowed to swim on those beaches or live in those areas. Would they have wanted to form a union with them or achieve constitutional reconciliation with them had that been the case?

I now want to discuss one of the anomalies of the past year, viz the Appeal Court judgement in March this year that the hon the State President had exceeded his authority in incorporating Moutse in KwaNdebele by means of a proclamation. I say that this is anomalous and ironic, because the Appeal Court ruled that the main objective of the national states was to accommodate people within their cultural and ethnic context. The Appeal Court therefore rejected the Government’s approach that from the point of view of situation and administration, Moutse could be governed most conveniently from KwaNdebele.

It is ironical, because the Government’s own policy is based on cultural and minority groups. Here, where that exists, and where the traditional structures chose to give substance to that policy in such a way, it is disregarded, however. Elsewhere the Government propagates a policy that is based on the multicultural character of the country in order to justify apartheid. Here, where people choose to live within their cultural context and object to that, they are passed off onto another cultural group simply to give KwaNdebele an opportunity to become more viable for independence. Already 50 people have died in the Moutse area in the most gruesome way conceivable. What really upsets me is that it is the simple traditionalistic people who are still living within the traditional Black structures. They have been completely radicalised, however, as a result of what is taking place there. I truly welcome the Appeal Court’s decision in this connection. I have understanding for the problems this is causing, but I want to express the hope that the hon the Minister and the Government will not proceed with further steps to incorporate Moutse in KwaNdebele. The LP’s National Executive has expressed itself most strongly on this matter. It is very unusual for us to comment in advance on a topical matter, but this was to bring home to the Government the seriousness of the situation.

I now want to discuss what I regard as conditions for a peaceful settlement in this country. I want to express my concern about constitutional trends in this country. We have the dilemma in South Africa that the Government says it is prepared to share power without one group’s dominating another. There is no system anywhere in the world in which all groups share power without one group’s dominating the others, and in which everyone is completely happy, however. One always finds a majority party, a majority group or a majority coalition which governs, and an opposition, which is in the minority, which opposes. Whatever the case may be, that is the Government’s policy. How one can give this political substance is not yet clear. Meanwhile the Government dominates all facets of government on the national, provincial and local government levels. Power is shared only on the basis of co-optation. Separate structures are established in which people can take responsibility for the administration of their own affairs, but the final right of determination still vests with Tuynhuys.

On the other hand we have the ANC which says that it wants to obtain the power, but is not prepared to share it. The ANC is prepared to negotiate, but merely about the takeover of power. It has no intention of establishing a multiparty democracy or maintaining a free-market economic system in the post-apartheid South Africa. That is the impasse that exists between the two major political groups in the country. There is no point in wishing the ANC away, because one need only look at the HSRC’s objective survey which clearly showed that the ANC enjoys approximately 30% of the support in South Africa. It also showed that Nelson Mandela enjoys approximately 30% of the support of urban Blacks in South Africa. That is more or less the same support as that enjoyed by the NP Government. Whatever the case may be, all kinds of conditions are being set in the midst of this impasse between the two dominant actors on the South African political scene. The NP’s condition is that the ANC must denounce violence and reject it as an instrument of change. Then they will be prepared to negotiate with the ANC. The ANC’s standpoint is that the Government should denounce apartheid as a basic ideological point of departure and that the Population Registration Act inter alia should be abolished. If that could happen, it could provide an ideal solution for the checkmate situation that exists. We all know, however, that politics is the art of what is possible, and that we have to proceed within these realities in which neither of the two parties wants to sacrifice any prestige.

As a basic point of departure, I want to associate myself with the hon member for Durban Suburbs in saying that if we want a solution in the country, the time has come to lift the prohibition on the ANC’s political wing. Such a step will force the ANC to distinguish itself clearly from its communist members. There is very strict legislation in the country which prohibits communism and members of the ANC, who are also members of the SACP, will not be able to return to the country. Such a step will free the ANC of one of the great objections raised against it, viz that it is a communist organisation, and only those who are members of the political wing of the ANC will then be able to return to South Africa.

I am not saying that for political gain. It is very clear today, however, that the absence of a legal Black political mouthpiece—no matter how radical it might be—poses a great threat. Let us see what happens if there is no mouthpiece. Schoolchildren, church leaders and trade unions are used as a mouthpiece through which the grievances of the Black community are aired. This creates a very dangerous situation, because there is no definite standpoint or any political party with which one can have discussions. In the midst of this confusion, the department is now attempting to get negotiations off the ground. There is no one with whom to negotiate, however. No recognised leader has come forward to declare himself unequivocally in favour of negotiations.

The present spate of unrest which has given rise to two states of emergency—one of which has lasted for longer than two years—began on 3 September 1984 as a result of legitimate grievances on the level of local government. Because there was no mouthpiece through which negotiations could get going, however, this country suffered losses to the value of millions of rand and we were confronted by sanctions, disinvestment and a state of emergency—with no chance of this being lifted in the near future. It is very clear that there will be no point in wishing the ANC away, because they have support. As long as the political wing of the ANC is banned, we shall have a checkmate situation in respect of negotiations with Blacks.

Consequently it has become essential for the rights of the individual to be entrenched in a bill of rights. I say that because we have seen the erosion of human rights in this country to an increasing extent during the past three years. In fact, it is correct to say that we have fewer civil rights today than we have ever had at any stage of the country’s history.

Draconian security legislation is contained in the Statute Book. We have practices such as detention without trial, and there is a state of emergency. All these things indicate that man’s fundamental rights are being eroded increasingly. Such a bill of human rights will aim at abolishing Draconian security legislation, lifting the state of emergency, doing away with detention without trial and abolishing all discriminatory and apartheid legislation. What is more, a bill of human rights will make it clear, once and for all, what rights South Africans do have.

The prevailing situation is that citizenship rights have been extended to the Black communities, but in practice that means very little. What do rights of citizenship mean without political rights? We have a situation in which one person’s citizenship is worth more than that of another. One citizen can go and swim on a beautiful and safe beach, whereas the others have to go and swim among the rocks. If a bill of human rights can spell out these privileges in a universal sense, however, the problem can be resolved. This would make the debate concerning human rights in the country so much easier. A bill of human rights would also guarantee freedom of the Press and freedom of speech in the country, for example. The present situation is that the Press is evaluated from the point of view of Tuynhuys. What is democratic news? What is democratic opposition and what is revolutionary opposition? There is no freedom of the Press in this country any more.

And then, Sir, one of the most important prerequisites in the future is probably division of power. I had this debate with the hon the Minister on a prior occasion, and want to continue it now.

The division of power—the division between executive, legislative and legal authority—has proved over the centuries that this is the best way of guaranteeing democracy. In this connection Lord Echton, the British philosopher, had the following significant dictum:

Throughout the world, but mainly in the Third World countries, one can see that where decentralisation of power has taken place, democracy has come to an end. We now have the situation that two Ministers have already been appointed to the Office of the State President, viz the hon the Minister of Administration and Privatisation and the hon the Minister of Information, Broadcasting Services and the Film Industry. The position of Prime Minister—appointed by the hon the State President—is also being envisaged, and he will probably also operate in the Office of the State President. We find an increasing concentration of power and a decentralisation of administration. The Security Council, the State Security Council, the State President, and the Ministers in the Office of the State President are beginning to operate more and more like a Politburo, whereas the distance between the Cabinet and Tuynhuys is increasing. The Cabinet is becoming a Ministers’ Council for General Affairs, in which the Cabinet will deal with administration. Consequently one can now afford to open up the Cabinet and appoint Blacks to it, because the Cabinet members are basically going to be involved in administration. The true decisionmaking, the determination of priorities and regulations with reference to national security, is going to be done in future in a super-body which will operate just like a Politburo.

Sir, there is a last and very important requirement. Whatever takes place in this country, the majority of South Africans will have to reconcile themselves with the fact that we must have a free, market-orientated economy. I say a free, market-orientated economy with social accountability to the underprivileged group of people in this country. Both the State and the private sector in South Africa have a responsibility to take an active part in uplifting the Third World part of our population. I want to advise the hon the Minister to go and read the latest edition of Die Suid-Afrikaan. Then he will realise what problems we in the LP have within the community we represent here. We are experiencing those problems because we in the LP are involved in the struggle of seeking a middle course in this country. We have an enormous amount of opposition in this connection. He can also go and look at an editorial article written by Anna-Marie Mischke in yesterday’s Rapport.

In conclusion I want to read a quotation which I think is very relevant with regard to the crisis that this country has experienced so far. These words were said by Dr Martin Luther King:

[Time expired.)

Mr Chairman, I am also sorry that the hon member Mr Lockey’s time has expired and that he cannot continue. It is always a pleasure for me to speak after that hon member. The only problem is that he has spoken in such detail that there is nothing left for me to say.

†Still, Sir, there are some things I should like to say.

I want to start off by talking about my personal background. My background is one of slavery. My forefathers came to this country—against their will!—as political exiles because they had objected to what had been taking place in their own country. They had been forced out of their own country by a foreign power and placed in the southern tip of Africa.

Some of our forefathers came here as slaves, but the greater majority of our people came here as political exiles. Since our arrival here, we have made a concrete contribution to the development of South Africa. I want to say, without any fear of contradiction, that we have been living in this country for as long as the Afrikaner has been living here. The Afrikaner cannot claim a monopoly on the development of the southern tip of Africa, because, had it not been for the cooperation of other people in this country, the Afrikaners, with their sparsity of numbers, could not possibly have developed this country. However, when it came to power and government, the Afrikaner took upon himself the absolute monopoly of governing this country and deciding for everybody without consulting anybody. If one looks at the product of those political exiles that came here in 1654, it is obvious that their contribution towards the development of this country has not been justly rewarded. There is Bo-Kaap which has been proclaimed a monument, but it is only a monument to the invaluable contribution of those people towards the development of this country. These people have not been justly rewarded. When I talk about rewards, I mean development in its complete form.

*For so many years the majority of the people have stood outside while the Whites—and particularly the Afrikaners—have taken decisions for others. The time has now come for us to take joint decisions regarding the future of South Africa.

†I want to refer hon members to Eshowe where my party—quite rightly and correctly—took the correct decision at the right time to participate. Every day we see Black on Black violence, but bombs will not change South Africa. One can, however, not deny the relevance of the ANC. I know the relevance and I think everybody else in this country realises the relevance of the ANC. When the final draft Constitution is drawn up for South Africa, the input of the ANC will be absolutely necessary. I want to refer again to our Eshowe decision.

At no stage during that conference and in the final draft of the decision did we accept the Constitution as final or as the alpha and omega. We said it provided the opportunity for a start and my party was prepared to utilise that opportunity, as well as the risk involved. I can assure the hon the Minister that it has not been an easy passage since we took that decision at Eshowe. We live in the townships and day after day we have to explain to the people our reason for participating. This is no easy task. However, without any fear of contradiction, I can say that it has been an absolute pleasure to explain our participation to our people. Therefore, while we do not welcome by-elections—it is an unnecessary nuisance—we have used the opportunity during those by-elections to explain to people the reason for our participation. The kind of response we have had during all the by-elections, has been absolutely positive. This is why it is so sad that, from the side of the Government, who in fact has to sell the system, there has been no assistance at all.

In fact, there has been a limited amount of advertisement for by-elections. This is something which causes us a great deal of concern, because if one wants to sell one’s system, one must at least advertise it. However, it has been left to us as if it is a do-or-die situation. To us, winning or losing is not the alpha and omega. However, one has to maintain contact with people so that one can sell the ideals of reform. It would have been ideal if there had been some assistance from Government quarters. However, unfortunately there was no such assistance. Of course, it is not too late for the Government to play its part in selling by-elections.

I say this, because a general election is on the cards. It is inevitable. In fact, judged by the way things are going in the House of Delegates, it would be better if we had a general election. What is taking place in the House of Delegates is an absolute embarrassment to Parliament—not only to hon members of the House of Delegates, but to all of us who take part in the system. It may be true that the greater majority of people have been won over to support the ideal of participation, but things have to be set straight in the House of Delegates. It seems that a seminar has to be presented to hon members in the House of Delegates. One must explain to them why they are here. It appears that there are hon members in that particular House who do not understand why they are here. There have continuously been personal fights. Right from the outset there have been attacks on the person of individual members, Ministers, the Ministers’ Council and, in particular, on the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council.

This worries me, Sir. While we have had some success in selling the idea of participation in the system, every time there is an upheaval in the House of Delegates, it affects us. It affects our credibility. Of course, we do not all agree with one another. It is understandable that we follow different strategies. However, when dishonesty and corruption are continually highlighted and when allegations about absolute irregularities are continually made, it makes my task very difficult.

I know that South Africa’s problems can only be resolved here in Parliament. These problems will not be resolved by the placing of bombs in Roodepoort or in Johannesburg or in Pretoria. That is not going to solve the problem; it will rather be made worse. However, in order to sell the idea that changes will have to take place from within Parliament, we will have to sort out the wing of Parliament which is causing bad advertisement to Parliament itself, because the credibility of the whole of Parliament is being exposed to ridicule.

*Sir, I ask the hon the Minister to give attention to this situation. It is not a matter of own affairs. After all, Parliament is Parliament, is it not? A part of it is part of the whole.

†Sir, if there are problems in the House of Delegates, then let us have an election. That negative publicity is certainly affecting constituency work within one’s own area. When one does constituency work, one finds that when people talk about these matters, they do not refer to the House of Delegates, but to Parliament. They talk about the alleged corruption as if one is personally involved in it.

Sir, in order to dispel that kind of doubt in the minds of those who believe in participation as the solution to South Africa’s problems we will have to consider seriously how to deal with the House of Delegates, even if it means a general election. All of us will accept an election. I believe that since we came to Parliament in 1984, although we have had our differences, we have always participated in the greater interest of those outside this House. We are only present in this House because people elected us to this House in order to represent them and to be part of finding the solutions to the problems of South Africa. I have already stressed what is happening in the House of Delegates, but I want to say that there is great concern, not only from my side, but also from outside Parliament. I know that participation, as I have said earlier, is the solution, but while we are participating we would also like to know in which direction we are moving and when are we going to arrive at that goal. That is the important role the hon the Minister has to play.

*The Constitution is the brainchild of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. He is the architect thereof, and it is something of which he is very proud.

†I do not want to differ with him, because I am here because he was partly instrumental or entirely instrumental in opening Parliament to Coloured people. I want to say to him that we must start spelling out in detail in what direction we are moving and how we are going to get there. However—and this is of even greater importance—while it is difficult to place something in its perspective step by step, all we need to know at this stage is what we envisage for South Africa.

*We know that the hon the Minister is still involved in the composition of a national council, and he will probably reply to me about that.

†We know that a part of the solution to South Africa’s problem is to involve Black people, and the hon the Minister might also reply to that. However, that is not the kind of answer I want, because we know that until we have Black people sitting in these benches with us—until the day breaks when people are represented in Parliament, irrespective of groups—the whole concept of groups must be dispelled in the process of the future development of South Africa. This is the kind of thing the hon the Minister must explain to me.

*How does he see the new South Africa? We had the pleasant opportunity of debating together on the Votes of the various provinces.

†Although the CP boycotted those joint debates—they had no contribution to make in any case—the world did not come to an end. People of different political persuasions got together to differ, but in the end they agreed. They did not get together for the sake of differing. It was good for the ordinary MP to be exposed to a person who was always seen as the opposition; a person who was in fact seen as the enemy.

*I want to assure hon members that hon members of the NP and even my own party did not know what to expect of one another when they met for the first time.

†There was this fear as to how to start a debate and what to say in a debate. However, things developed naturally, because people exposed what they were harbouring inside. That gave me hope for the future. Although we differed in those committees and although what we said at that stage was not of particular importance, people got together to sit down and sort out the difficulties of the second-tier government. Maybe we will have to sit back and think again in terms of a second-tier government.

Maybe it was too hasty, in the first instance, to eliminate second-tier government, because if one really looks back on what has happened since the scrapping of second-tier government, one notices that there has been a vacuum. At that level there was Black input. This means that a Black person had already spoken in Parliament and it did not spell the end of the world. Black people participated and made an equal contribution, although they did not necessarily enjoy the vote like everybody else that was representative of second tier government. The fact that this can happen gives me hope for the future.

I want to make a bold statement and say it is unfortunate that the majority of its members are Afrikaners, but the CP is totally irrelevant in today’s situation because they have not come to grips with the reality of the situation. We no longer live in the era of the ox-wagon and while the ox-wagon was necessary as a form of transport, we are flying jets today. If people wish to remain with the ox-wagon, we must leave them behind. If we have to drag them along with us, they are too much of a handicap at this stage. We cannot take people with us who have their feet on the brakes all the time.

To me the excuse that was used for boycotting the joint debates, namely that the LP was being seen as the official opposition in Parliament, is merely the reality of the situation. By virtue of the number of representatives we have in Parliament we are the opposition and I want to warn them that those numbers can only increase next time around. My hon friend on the other side will agree with me that the numbers of the LP can only increase, because the LP represents the aspirations of those who are not White. So, if Dr Treurnicht and his group believe that our numbers will diminish I am sorry to disappoint him. I want to repeat that it is a fact that we are the opposition to the Government. They want to be the opposition to the Government and take us back to ah era which we would love to forget. We, the so-called Coloured people, were also guilty of creating that era of Afrikaner domination and NP rule in this country, because we boycotted in 1948. I am one of those who plead guilty, because I also advocated the boycott in 1948 and hon members know in how many seats we had the deciding vote. However, we said rather the enemy we did not know, because we knew Jan Smuts and his group. We paid the price for 40 years, but now that we are approaching the end of the tunnel and are beginning to see the light, the CP wants to take the people back. We cannot afford that.

I want to make a passionate appeal to people who do not understand Dr Treurnicht’s policy, to realise that while it sounds fine, partition can never work in this country. This country cannot be divided, because it is one. It is small enough to be one. We do not have the numbers required and it is artificial to think in terms of groups. People came together long ago. While ethnicity is a reality, it does not really constitute a group. However, because of the old system of divide and rule which we inherited from the British, we must perpetuate the division among people. That is not acceptable.

Now let me talk about beach apartheid. We are often lectured about the respect that we should have for the authority of the courts—in this case the Supreme Court—and we do have the greatest respect for it. The Supreme Court gave a verdict about the illegality of beach apartheid at King’s Beach, but what does the hon the Minister do? We all know what he did. Maybe he was forced into the situation. We all remember how my leader was denigrated and insulted and how the media at the disposal of the NP were used to ridicule him. This was done merely because he went for a swim in an area where he had grown up and on a beach which he has known all his life.

God’s Beach.

Those are God’s beaches, but the NP took it upon themselves to play the role of God when they passed these laws.

That was not the end of the world, however, because the courts did us in South Africa a favour by bringing back some normality. The hon the Minister is in a very awkward position, however, because if the decision of the Supreme Court is accepted, the hon the State President owes my leader an apology for the actions which ensued from his swim on that beach. One may say that the swimming incident and what followed made a contribution to his decision finally to withdraw from the Cabinet. However, South Africa cannot reach a settlement as long as it has an exclusively White Cabinet.

*The hon the State President himself said so here.

†He flirted with hon members of the opposition because they said the things that he wanted to hear. I think, however, that it is absolutely normal for people in a Cabinet to differ and to disagree, not because they want to disagree, but because of their devotion to those whom they govern. This is the kind of input that the hon the State President should be looking for, not that of people who would come here merely to decorate the benches. I am not pleading to be taken up into the Cabinet. [Interjections.]

*I do not think I would fit in there. I am not afraid but I am not pleading to be included. [Interjections.]

†The hon the Minister must tell us what inspired him to lodge an appeal against this decision of the Supreme Court. To my mind it was an illogical response.

*The hon the Minister is in favour of the high authority of the court and therefore I cannot understand why he is questioning the decision of the court.

†The next aspect that I want to deal with is the whole question of group areas.

Yes, it hurts.

It has hurt us, because we have paid the price for it.

†We have said this before and we shall continue to do so. It hurts those people whom we represent. We who are from the townships have to go back there to report on the progress we have made. We are asked the question: What progress have you made with regard to the group areas? The argument has been advanced that the scrapping of the Group Areas Act will resolve our housing problem. We know very well that it will not. It will, however, be the beginning of our becoming acceptable to the rest of the world. It is group areas and race classification which cause the outside world to attach a stigma to our whole South African society. The Group Areas Act cannot be modified or improved. We shall not rest before the Act is scrapped and only then shall we become acceptable to the outside world.

We are no island; we cannot live by ourselves. We can bluff some people some of the time, but we cannot bluff all the people all the time. What is going to happen after the presidential election in America will make things even more difficult for us. This is not merely a frenzy. South Africa has to retrieve its place in the world community.

*We will never be accepted by the people out there until we have clearly indicated where we are going. We must show them that we are walking on the road of democracy.

†People outside cannot understand why the greater majority of Blacks are still being discriminated against, and why we are still talking in terms of separate residential areas. This system is unique to South Africa. One needs uniqueness in any government anywhere in the world because people are different. Group areas, however, are discriminatory. Maybe one has to give the hon the Minister some advice. We told the hon the Minister of Information the other day that if one can experience what is projected in the stage play District Six, one will begin to understand that it is not just an emotional expression, but that it points to the suffering that people had to endure because of the Group Areas Act. Maybe we can make a positive effort in regard to what one can see right from Parliament, viz District Six itself. I am not saying that the Group Areas Act started there. I am also not saying that the suffering started in District Six, but because of the high profile of places like District Six, we can amend some of the faults that were made in the past.

Let us use District Six as an example of what we envisage for South Africa. No matter how we want to look at it and how much power we have—economic or otherwise—if we want to remain together in this country, we have to start building together at this new South Africa. We cannot wish each other away. What would be a better start than to use places like District Six, Page View, Southend and other high profile areas so as to prove to people the sincerity of those who govern with regard to reform? In conclusion I should like to say to the hon the Minister that so much has been said in regard to reform. We have reached a dead end. We have come to a total standstill and this causes grave concern.

*If we do not want to go further, we must be honest and say that we have reached the end of the road and cannot go further.

†We must not fool around with each other. There has to be an election very soon. We have to go and tell the voters what the future holds. We have to warn them about what further participation is going to entail.

*I am in favour of participation. I believe that participation, and not violence, offers the solution. When, however, participation does not bring any progress, we cannot agree with it. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Durban Suburbs never ceases to amuse or to surprise me.

I have really made every attempt over many years to understand what the hon member wants to say, but up to now I have failed dismally.

There is a reason why I cannot understand the hon member, however, and that reason is that words have meaning except for that hon member. The hon member quoted from what he said was my annual report. He went even further and said he would read my personal words as they appeared on page 5 of the annual report. Let us check the validity of that statement. What I read here, Sir, includes the following:

That note was signed by the Director-General of the Department. [Interjections.]

What difference does it make? [Interjections.]

Sir, this is not a report by me, but a report to me. The words in the report are not my words, but those of the author of the report.

What difference does it make?

No, please, I am talking to the hon member now. I sat very quietly when he spoke, and I can tell him that that was an effort.

I understand that the hon member was at one time an information officer attached to the Department of Information and, latterly, to the information section of the Department of Foreign Affairs. [Interjections.] I understand that he was a senior official, which made him even more important. Now I should like to ask him what he did when he had to inform other people of the policy of the South African Government. [Interjections.] If the hon member tells me that he exercised his duties very diligently, he must have defended the system he is now criticising. Otherwise, Sir, he was not doing his job properly. The hon member also said that the ANC was relevant. Of course the ANC is relevant! They are relevant in the sense that they cause violence and havoc and commit murder, arson and other crimes. So they are definitely relevant.

Stop them by discussion.

I am stopping them, but not with the hon member’s assistance. I want to tell the hon member that if he wants to sup with the devil he needs a very long spoon. [Interjections.] The hon member Mr Lockey is quite correct: The ANC is not interested in the democracy we envisage. The ANC is not interested in negotiating an end result that would mean that people will share power in democratic institutions as we know them. [Interjections.]

The hon member talked about ancient history. I do not know whether he was a student of ancient history. He talked about the Roman Empire. I do not know what his knowledge of the Roman Empire is, but I happen to have studied. I should like to refer the hon member, however, to more recent experiences in Africa. I should like to ask him whether he thinks that people in the rest of Africa are satisfied with the systems that they adopted and which he propagates for South Africa. I would ask him to go and talk to the people of Asia and ask them whether they are satisfied that they now have more freedom and more human rights than they had before.

If the hon member is a student of politics—and he should be one when he professes to speak about it—he will know that the system that he propagates has not brought more liberties, more human rights. [Interjections.] When we talk about these things, I believe we should do a little more than just play politics. I have warned, and I would like to repeat that warning with all sincerity, that we must be careful not to fall into the Nkhruma syndrome of “giving me the heaven of politics and all other things will be given unto thee”. That is not true. When we talk about freedom and human rights, we are not talking about the right to vote alone. The concept of human rights is much broader that just the right to vote.

I want to ask the hon member a question. Why does he question in this flippant manner the considerations which led to Prof Van Wyk’s taking up a position at the University of Stellenbosch? Why does he do that? Prof Van Wyk is a man for whom I had, and still have, the highest respect. I wish the hon member would take a leaf out of the book of that professor, because, like him, the professor was also a civil servant at one stage. The hon member—I suggest—knows, or should know, that Prof Van Wyk issued a statement when he left.

Could he have said anything different?

Order! Will the hon member for Durban Suburbs please refrain from making interjections? If the hon member wants to ask a question, he should do so in the proper manner. The hon the Minister may continue.

Sir, the hon member has a verbal disease. He cannot contain himself or his disease.

The compliment is returned.

Order! The hon the Minister is allowed to use the word “disease” in that sense. It is not meant in a derogatory way. The hon member must please accept my ruling. The hon the Minister may continue.

Sir, I want to quote from the statement issued by Prof Van Wyk.

What does the professor say now?

Sir, I suggest I sit down to give the hon member another opportunity.

The hon member said he knew about the statement, but that means he is condemning himself. I believe his remarks about Prof Van Wyk are derogatory, insulting and objectionable. I refer to the last paragraph of the statement, and I quote:

Where is the truth that the reason Prof Van Wyk left was because of his dissatisfaction with the reform process? Anybody who claims that that is the reason is lying, and lying deliberately. I have nothing to add in this regard to the remarks made by the hon member.

*I now want to refer to the hon member Mr Lockey as well as the hon member for Toekomsrus. I want to say immediately that the fact that hon members could make speeches here today is adequate proof to me of the progress which we have made.

Before we had the opportunity of putting our standpoints to one another here—and, as the hon member for Toekomsrus said, in the extended committees on provincial affairs—we shouted them at one another from a distance. Is that not true? Whatever the defects of this system may be, it has enabled us to talk to one another about what hurt us in the past, about what we want to change in the present and about where we want to go in the future. Is that not true?

But that is the beginning.

Of course.

It is not the end!

I am getting to that. [Interjections.] The hon member must simply accept that it is the beginning of a process. This in itself provides proof of the value of the system. I want hon members to take a look at every sphere to see whether we have progressed. After all, that is the acid test, not so? The point at issue is not whether the task has been completed—because we shall not be able to complete it—but whether we have made progress. I say that we have progressed.

The hon member Mr Lockey said this was a “rommelkas” speech. I am afraid of misinterpreting the hon member. Let us say that it is an omnibus speech, so that the general public will not misunderstand us. The hon member said that he wanted to deal with many aspects of it and I think he has done so. He must allow me to make a few comments now. It is true that we represent different constituencies. In judging our standpoints of policy, each of us refers to his constituency. It is very interesting that the alternatives for my party, in the constituency in which I function, are radical options. Hon members will understand this. [Interjections.] In the hon member’s constituency his party’s options are radical too—but with a difference. There is also a rightist radical group in my constituency. This does not pose any election problems—I want to repeat this—but represents a problem of violence to me if it should come to power. There is also a group, however, which holds an ultra-left, extreme view. The hon member has such a group in his constituency as well. I therefore request that when we consider our respective standpoints, we take these facts into account as well.

The hon member referred to the decision of the students’ council. The hon member and I were both students and I recollect a great deal from my student days. There is also a great deal that I would rather forget and am afraid of what my wife will remember. Students—and this is actually the point I want to make—should explore, speak and think. This is a good thing and I help them in this too. Let us examine the proposals which emerged from the KwaZulu-Natal Indaba, for a moment, however. I merely want to place this in perspective; I do not want to speak on it at length. Those proposals were submitted to the Government on 13 January in spite of the false impressions which people wished to create that those proposals were consensus proposals. This is misleading, because that was not the case. There was also a minority report and there were people who refused to vote at all. There were also people who withdrew from the indaba. This is the first point I want to make.

The second point I want to make is that I entered into an agreement with two important actors in Natal, namely the Chief Minister of KwaZulu and the Administrator of Natal. I am waiting for their comments and we shall therefore take action after considering the report. The impression is being created that we have waited for 15 months before reacting to it. This is patently untrue. In the first case, we received the final comment of the KwaZulu Government only in August and that of the Administrator of Natal in November of last year. In the process discussions took place which I cannot actually make public now. Who actually brought those proposals and the indaba concept into the political arena? It was the NRP, which has disappeared now, and the PFP, which is in the process of disappearing.

Are you serious?

Yes, I am serious in that those two parties made it the subject of an election agreement, regardless of the request of Chief Minister Buthelezi that the KwaZulu-Natal proposals should not become a plaything in White politics. They involved them in politics in Natal. Those are the facts. If we want to discuss this, therefore we must have the correct facts at our disposal.

I want to make a third comment about this before I conclude. Once again it is being maintained in a misleading way, with reference to opinion polls, that the majority of people support the proposals while the question asked was not whether people supported the proposals, but whether they supported the KwaZulu-Natal Indaba. It is the concept which is in question, not the proposals. I myself support the concept of initiatives for peaceful solutions. I also support the concept of the KwaZulu-Natal Indaba on behalf of the Government. If hon members and I are in favour of the concept of a national council, it does not necessarily mean that we will be in favour of each other’s proposals. If we defend these matters—I am not saying that the hon member is doing this—I want to warn against deception outside. We must not become part of that deception.

The hon member spoke about Moutse and this is very interesting, because the hon member is actually right in saying that there was an anomaly …

He is always right.

I must warn the hon member to be careful; no person can always be right. [Interjections.] The hon member is correct in that the court, in considering the addition of the specific area to the KwaNdebele area of jurisdiction, found that ethnic considerations had not played the dominant or definitive role which they should have played in terms of the legislation. My comment in this regard is that I accept the finding of the court and therefore also the right of the court to interpret laws of Parliament. If any court gives an interpretation of a law, however, other than that contemplated by the legislature, it is the legislature’s duty to rectify that law so that its intention is clear. I want to say that the hon member himself will find this in his own House. There is a division, as the hon member quite rightly said, between the legislature, the judiciary and the executive authority. The legislative authority in the country is sovereign—above the executive authority as well. It would be a matter of personal regret to me if this were no longer the case because we would then no longer be able to leave democracy in the hands of the people who sent us here. We would then be placing it in the hands of appointed people and this would be fatal.

Let us examine the factual situation in Moutse, however. The impression which I gained was that Moutse is ethnically homogeneous. This is not the case. I can furnish the hon member with the numbers of the principal groups in Moutse: Xhosa, more than 1 000; Zulu, more than 5 000; Swazi, more than 7 000; Southern Ndebele, more than 10 000; Northern Ndebele, 10 833; Northern Sotho, 39 770; Tswana, 12 883; Shangaan or Tsonga, 4 270. There is no question of ethnic homogeneousness in Moutse. I shall leave it at that except to say that the hon member is aware that, after consultation with the Chief Ministers of both areas, Lebowa and KwaNdebele, and with the consent of the hon the State President, I have decided that a one-man judicial commission under the chairmanship of Mr Justice Rumpff is to be appointed.

What about a referendum?

We cannot hold a referendum on this, because then we shall have to hold a referendum in both countries. I do not wish to discuss this now, however; we can discuss it later.

The hon member will understand that, in accepting the judgement of the court, he and I have a responsibility as part of the legislature to authorise all the actions which have taken place since the date of incorporation to the date of the court order, otherwise it would be possible to argue that those findings were invalid.

The hon member referred to the occurrences in the House of Delegates and what I am saying here I also said there. I am therefore not talking behind people’s backs.

The occurrences in that House of Parliament are a disappointment to me. I agree with the hon member for Toekomsrus that they not only reflect on members of that House but on all members of Parliament. What is more, they reflect on Parliament as an institution. I must say this because we have this in common. We who are sitting here made a choice of how we wanted to reach our constitutional objectives. We said we wanted to do this in a democratic way. This means that we want to achieve these objectives through this Parliament. Consequently this also means that we in Parliament have to convince one another of the merits of our standpoints. It means that we in Parliament must be capable of reaching compromises too. If every community or group only wants to enforce its own will, there can be no question of solutions. It is a process of give and take. My experience, however, is that people are always more inclined to take than they are prepared to give.

†It is not always the institution itself which is important, but the actors in that institution. Their behaviour is important. Many people talk about democracy, but they unwittingly want to destroy the very essence of what they believe in. Democracy means associating …

Equally.

Yes, as equals. Let me tell that hon member what it means, however. I do not believe that democracy for South Africa can be based on numbers only. I do not believe in democracy based on majority alone. However, I do not believe that a minority Government can survive either. Therefore, whether hon members like it or not, I have complete clarity in this regard. Not only do I have clarity about that with my colleagues, but I put the future of our party at stake like hon members here did at Eshowe.

Go forward now.

Of course we are going forward. [Interjections.]

†In conclusion I want to say that I have made it clear in this House that hon members must act in such a manner that respect for this institution is enhanced and built up and not reduced. I make this appeal for another reason as well. The way some hon members act in that House does not assist in broadening democracy. It strengthens the forces of resistance in many communities including my own. What they are in fact doing is to retard the process and not to assist it.

It is true what the hon member said. In that House there was a slinging match where one hon member accused another of irregularities and malpractices. The hon the State President indicated quite clearly that if that House was prepared to take a resolution substantiated by the fact, and submit a request to him for an enquiry, he would consider it. I understand there is such a motion on the Order Paper of that House.

The hon the State President has already said this and therefore I can make it known publicly. He has instructed the Auditor-General to scrutinise the accounts of all three Houses of Parliament most meticulously so as to ensure clean administration in this country. I think all hon members will agree with this.

Hear, hear!

I would now like to refer to a point raised by the hon member for Toekomsrus. I hope the hon member will take it in the spirit in which I am going to say it. The Afrikaner has never claimed full credit for the development of this country. Let me say this. The Constitution that we inherited in 1948 was a European constitution. [Interjections.] Sometimes one must be right; even if it is accidental. It was a European constitution in the sense of definitions. Hon members can read it.

[Inaudible.]

No, the hon member has to watch. It was a European constitution. Let me say again that the constitution of the country that was changed so as to include other people apart from Europeans was the effort of the White politics of my party.

No, that was 40 years ago.

The hon member must be careful. We must treat one another well. Hon members must not make little calculations. [Interjections.] If we had not amended the Constitution in 1961 and liberated the country from colonial control, we would have found ourselves in the same position as Rhodesia whose fate was decided at Lancaster House, Whitehall. As a result of what my party did, the decision was not taken in Whitehall, but here—in this House too—and the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa cannot be changed without the consent of this House. What did we do? We placed the amending of the Constitution, which affects people’s political rights, in the hands of all three Houses of Parliament for equal decisionmaking.

Because this is so, we should all learn to dispose ourselves to see eye to eye so that the rights of other people, which we talk about, may also reach fulfilment. [Interjections.]

†From now on we cannot blame the House of Assembly alone. From now on all three Houses of Parliament will have to accept the responsibility for the changes to the Constitution.

No, it always vested in the House of Assembly.

Order! The hon member for Toekomsrus and the hon the Minister cannot carry on a dialogue.

The hon member will know that there are entrenched provisions in the Constitution which refer to the composition of Parliament, to the people participating in Parliament, and those entrenched provisions can only be changed by all three Houses. It is not correct, therefore, to say that the House of Assembly dominates that scene. They do not dominate that scene.

No, not that. All right, but … [Interjections.]

No, I now want to get to the next point. The hon member spoke about group areas and free settlement areas. I want to suggest that, as relevant legislation is to be introduced in this House, we conduct a debate on the subject then. I do not want to avoid debate, but I think there is something else which we want to say to one another during this debate today. We shall definitely have an opportunity to discuss those other matters.

I want to make one correction which deals with proposals for the franchise which we should consider in connection with free settlement areas. This does not limit the development of local government institutions into management committees. They can develop into full municipalities. Let me just mention this now; we can continue the discussion on it later.

There is something else which I want to say to the hon member for Toekomsrus, and he must listen carefully now.

But I am listening carefully.

Yes, but the hon member must not take so many notes. [Interjections.]

I want to issue a warning today that we should be careful in our choice of words, because we often harm our relations with the words we choose. The hon member may not like my party’s policy on beaches, but he must not accuse me of turning myself into God. I shall leave it at that.

No, Sir, I did not say that at all. The hon the Minister can take a look at my Hansard.

Yes, Sir, the hon member did say something about the beaches belonging to God and that we now wanted to be God. I shall leave it at that, however. I merely want us to be careful in our choice of words because through this …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon the Minister is putting words in my mouth which I did not use here at all. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Esselen Park must control himself. Would the hon member for Toekomsrus just repeat what he said, please? The hon member for Esselen Park must keep quiet.

Sir, the hon the Minister is putting words into my mouth that I never uttered here in this Chamber.

*Nevertheless I shall request a copy of my Hansard and then we can clear up this matter.

Thank you very much. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Then let us do that, Sir. Just let the hon member grant me this small point and then we shall have disposed of it. If he did say so, it was a poor choice of words.

[Inaudible.]

Of course. All I am doing is discussing the choice of words. If I interpreted the hon member wrongly, he may draw my attention to it and I shall correct it. If he did not mean it in that way, he is free to correct it. I think this is a good compromise which we may reach with each other. Surely this is not a matter about which we need to quarrel.

The hon member spoke to me about the composition of the Ministers’ Council. The hon member will know that this is not a responsibility of mine and I therefore cannot pass judgement on it. I know, however, that the hon the State President and the hon leader of the LP are negotiating about this. I understand too that the hon leader of the LP will return only next Thursday or Friday. I assume that they will continue the discussions on this matter then.

I now come to something the hon member Mr Lockey said. Here again I am dealing with the choice of words. He said that there was no longer even a free Press in the country. Good heavens, Sir, does the hon member not read newspapers every day? Let him bring me Press reports again in which the Government is criticised as by the unilingual Press in the country.

In all fairness, they also criticise the hon member and his party. We need not discuss the freedom of the Press any longer. I want to make only one comment, which is that I do not believe the hon member is pleading for freedom for people who are propagating a revolution. Nor do I think that the hon member and his party are pleading for a medium which is striving for the violent overthrow of the system. If we agree on this, we can definitely hold useful discussions in future.

Let us see what the courts have to say about this.

I can tell the hon member what the courts have to say. We have legislation in this country which protects individuals, but I would ask the hon member to take a look at the extent to which that legal system and those laws protect a public figure. The hon member could well examine that and then we can talk again.

I want to conclude by saying that it is true that we are quite probably experiencing a time of crisis once again. At such times all people who participate in politics have to reflect on what their reactions to such circumstances would be. Fortunately such periods of crisis do not occur regularly, but they do always crop up. Times of crisis also bring moments of decision-making in which people have to take decisions. We are experiencing such a crossroads situation at present and, when such moments crop up, decisions cannot be postponed. No person can shirk the decision or wish it away. One obviously has to make choices and, I want to add, these are human choices. Choices are never made about events which have passed. Choices are always made regarding the future and an uncertain period of time, because it does not lie in our hands to ordain it. Have hon member noticed how pleasant it is to conduct politics in retrospect, how clever people are afterwards when we can point out all the mistakes of those who have preceded us? The difference is not that we were not there when those decisions were taken. We can do nothing about yesterday, except that, if there have been mistakes—which there certainly have been—we will not repeat those mistakes. We shall make mistakes again, but then they must at least be different mistakes and not the same ones.

A second comment I want to make, whether hon members agree with me or not, is that my party has never hesitated to make choices. Depending upon where a person was and to what political spectrum one belongs, one can of course hold a critical opinion of the decisions which have been taken, but nobody can say that decisions have not been taken. On this basis my party, as well as the party to which hon members belong, headed South Africa in a new direction in 1983 when the country was at a crossroads. Is that not true? This has also held great rewards for all of us, however.

Viewed historically our constitutional development is not unique. Many countries of the world have experienced this, but our country is distinctive and it is seeking its own solutions to circumstances peculiar to itself.

†I have quoted Burke before, and I should like to quote him again:

*After all, renewal is life—throughout the entire creation it is life—and reform is renewal. That is why it does not mean destruction; it means change. Nevertheless we cannot ignore the facts in this country. Both those hon members referred to this. Sir, I am not afraid of Black people. White people do not fear Black people, nor do Coloured people fear Black people. Do hon members know what the greatest fear in this country is? The destruction of values.

Norms and standards.

Yes. Why? It is because two worlds meet each other here, just like two rivers converging—a developing or Third World and a developed world. Most countries find that these two poles are irreconcilable. A person who ignores these problems of development, however, is playing with the future of his country. That is why we cannot speak only of constitutional development and political rights. That is why we must also permit development in economic and social spheres to take place together with that in the political sphere. If the economic capability of the country does not develop, it will not be able to afford a democracy in which more people may participate. In countries in which a democratic system has survived, the per capita income of members of the population was on a very much higher level than in our country or elsewhere in Africa. Consequently, hand in hand with our search for answers to constitutional questions, we have to increase our economic capability. I appeal for this once again.

The definition of “groups” has developed an unpleasant connotation in our country. Why?

Group areas too.

Yes, group areas too.

This is the case because people—rightly or wrongly—have experienced the group definition as favouring one and disadvantaging another.

That was the case!

If that was the case or is so today, let us change that content.

We need a declaration of intent.

I have no doubt that we shall not be able to get away from the fact that there are groups here and that they will have to be defined if we want to protect them, but then it must not be a humiliation. The rights of individuals must be capable of fulfilment within that context. That definition must also ensure justice in the academic sphere. It is not my sole task nor that of my party to determine what form it should assume and within what structure it should take place; it is the duty of hon members in this House as well. In fact, it is the duty of all who participate in politics. We can only commit ourselves to positive action here. I want to conclude with a few announcements.

No, do not conclude, first tell us … [Interjections.]

All right, I shall tell the hon member what kind of South Africa I envisage. It is the new South Africa as he wishes it, in which democracy is not only theoretical, but in which things change. I see a South Africa in which there is justice for all groups. I envisage a South Africa in which the human dignity of every person is maintained, not only on paper but also in real life. I want to move toward a South Africa in which we are equal before the laws of our country. I want to move toward a South Africa in which it is no disgrace to be White or Coloured, but rather a privilege to belong to one’s group. [Interjections.] I envisage a South Africa in which all communities will defend their country with national pride against the forces which want to destroy it. I envisage a South Africa in which human rights by definition not only consist of the right to vote, but to live, to participate in the labour sphere, to participate in the economic system. This is the South Africa toward which we are moving. We have made a choice, however, in order to get there. We have come out against violence. We must not involve perpetrators of violence in dialogue about the future. We must not involve them. Let us involve all leaders who strive for peace. We must not involve those who choose violence. Let us call in those who are in favour of peace. [Interjections.] Do not let us involve the weak-kneed who want us to bow to foreign countries as if they all formed one. Let us solve our problems here.

I want to conclude; my hon colleague can take over from me now. We have agreed with one another—if there were no other equivalent, I would have said: “Great minds think alike.” We have announced that we should like a national forum. Let us place this on the Statute Book and let us all go out afterwards and persuade leaders to come and participate. We should not attach an exaggerated measure of authority and leadership to false people, those whom nobody has chosen.

I shall talk about beaches as soon as there is legislation on the subject; I only want to announce now that in all fairness there are not enough beaches for everyone in the Cape Province. Increasing numbers of people have acquired the means to holiday at the seaside. Apart from the use of beaches, we must vote additional funds for beaches. I should like to announce that through the agency of the hon the Minister of Finance we have succeeded in voting an additional amount of R97 million for the Cape Province and Natal alone this year in order to improve facilities for all people. [Interjections.] I really do not want to be involved in other people’s quarrels at the moment. The money will be voted from the Additional Appropriation.

Hon members will be aware that the regional services councils of the Western Cape and Algoa have provided own affairs administrations with specific services amounting to R15,3 million. The hon the Minister of Finance will make that amount available too so that it may be paid over and it will probably also be possible to do this through the Additional Appropriation.

[Inaudible.]

Mr Chairman, I thought the hon member for Toekomsrus would have welcomed this, but if he does not want me to allocate it here, I can do it somewhere else. [Interjections.]

I want to conclude the debate—my hon colleague can deal with the rest—by thanking hon members for the fact that they are here; for the fact that we are all prepared to move on from here and that we wish to move into the future in a specific way. I regard this as of cardinal importance and I want to make the last remarks of the hon member for Toekomsrus my own too. I want to assert that the extended provincial committees and the debates which were conducted there could be the cornerstones on which we might build further. The more people learn to debate with one another, the more they understand one another, and the more they understand one another and one another’s respective standpoints, the better the chance of establishing a sympathetic relationship among them.

Mr Chairman, I should like to pause briefly at the physical development of areas here in the Western Cape, especially as regards Black people. It was announced on page 3 of Die Burger of Thursday, 2 June 1988, that 4 500 residential units would be built at a cost of R150 million at Mfuleni on the Cape Flats. Two utility companies not for gain, the Housing League and Garden City, will be responsible for the project and will make an immediate start on it. The price of houses will vary from R30 000 to R50 000 and erven will range in size from 200 m² to 450 m². The area of the final development of the town will comprise approximately 400 ha.

I should like to welcome this development, because there is an enormous need for middle-class housing in particular among the Black people, as Black people are pouring into the Western Cape in increasing numbers. I have no problem with this, but I do have an objection to the use of utility companies to provide middle- and high-class housing. We are faced with a dilemma in this country, viz that the corps of taxpayers is decreasing continually. If the private sector could have been used here, between R150 million and R200 million would have been spent on which they would have paid tax. Now we have utility companies, however, which will fundamentally build the houses at the same price, but with one great difference and that is that they will not pay tax on the amounts which are to be spent here. If the private sector could have been involved in this project too, so that there could have been more competition regarding the Mfuleni development, the final product would have been far better.

I now want to pause at another facet of physical planning in the Western Cape, namely at Khayelitsha. This is a matter which I also raised with the MEC responsible for Black housing during the provincial debate, because this is a matter which causes me great concern. At Khayelitsha 400 000 people are accommodated on approximately 300 ha. Because the land is inadequate to accommodate so many people, one finds that the residential area of this development is planned with a very high density. The result is that there are erven of 112 m2 which have to accommodate families ranging from six to eight people.

As a result of the population density in the residential areas, one finds that for every 12 ha of residential land in Khayelitsha, 12 ha of land is required to provide for schools and open spaces for sports fields, parks, etc. An erf of 112 m2 in Khayelitsha costs approximately R6 500.

Immediately adjacent to Khayelitsha, where the private sector is developing housing for the Coloured community, one finds the erven selling at R27 per m2, whereas people in Khayelitsha pay twice as much, about R57 per m2, as a result of the population density. One of the reasons for this is that the residential area was planned with too high a density so that an imbalance has resulted between the residential area on the one hand and open spaces, roads, schools, etc on the other. I want to make a very critical statement today, but it is a calculated one. If the kind of development which is taking place at Khayelitsha now is continued with, we are simply erecting yet another First World squatter camp there. There are tarred roads, but I really cannot see how a person can accommodate a family of six to eight people on 112 m2.

I want to ask the hon the Minister, where new areas are planned in future, for an effort to be made to create employment opportunities as close as possible to these areas. The statement is frequently made that South Africa is a rich country, but this is not true. We have an enormous group of needy people in this country. The tragedy is that these people have to spend a large part of their weekly and monthly wages on fares between their places of work and residence. This is money which is used up along the way and which is not applied to create more wealth and more development for people. If this problem could be solved and, in planning for the future, industrial development as close as possible to residential areas could be considered, ordinary labourers like these could save large sums annually.

In connection with development in the Northern Cape, I should like to request that the Sishen-Saldanha railway line be connected with the line at Taung in order to effect a natural flow of traffic through the Northern Cape to Sishen and Saldanha. There are two reasons for this. The first is that the Sishen-Saldanha railway line is a white elephant at the moment. It is subsidised at enormous cost to retain people who work on the line in employment. I have no objection to this, but if such a line, which will cost relatively little in comparison with the subsidy on the Sishen-Saldanha railway line, could be connected with Taung and the Witwatersrand, industries could be established along the railway line in the Northern Cape. There would be a natural flow of raw materials from the Rand to the factories and from the factories to a harbour where they could be exported. I am saying this because the Northern Cape is one of the areas which has a history of neglect.

Like the West Coast.

There is practically no question of decentralisation benefits. Because there is no rail connection to a harbour, few factories intend establishing themselves there. In neighbouring Bophuthatswana large amounts are spent in order to attract industries and consequently great development is taking place there. Increasing numbers of people are moving there to live and work. If we are not going to reverse this process, the depopulation of the rural areas will continue and the problem centred on urban establishment will increase.

I now want to spend some time on the RSCs. These RSCs have a very important task to fulfil as regards the physical development of the whole of South Africa. I should like to ask the hon the Minister and the Deputy Minister to ensure that the 22 functions which are mentioned in the Schedule to the Regional Services Councils Act ultimately be transferred from development bodies like divisional councils—which are now being abolished—and from local authorities to the new RSCs which are still to be established. I am saying this because the RSCs have a very important role to fulfil and they can do it only if they have the say over all 22 functions which are mentioned in the Schedule to the Regional Services Councils Act.

The Regional Services Councils Amendment Bill, which was piloted through Parliament earlier this year, provides for the partial transfer of assets, liabilities, rights, duties and obligations to RSCs.

If the intention is that only partial transfer of the 22 functions should take place now, this alters the fundamental basis of the Regional Services Councils Act. The principal object of the Regional Services Councils Act was to accord all population groups a say on a common basis in the 22 functions which are mentioned in Schedule 2 of the Act.

The principal object of this Act was the rationalisation of services so that they could ultimately be made available more cheaply to the consumer. If it is the intention now to transfer only a part of the functions to regional services councils, what it really comes down to is that services are being duplicated rather than rationalised. If the intention of the partial transfer is that it is to be an evolutionary process which will not take place overnight and that all 22 functions will ultimately be transferred to the new regional services councils which are to be established, I shall support this.

I appreciate that there is an enormous number of problems related to the abolition of development bodies with the attendant transfer of personnel and the sorting out of administrative functions. I want to issue the warning, however, that we must not move backwards now. Regional services councils have the potential for development into one of the most positive bodies in the sphere of development in the country. They have the inherent power to do this. As we progress along this course, the constitutional processes of the country will be promoted.

The hon the Minister pointed out with justification that it would be of no avail to us to give a person the vote without giving him tarred roads. It is of no avail to give somebody freedom of speech and political and citizenship rights if one cannot give him a house. It is here in particular that the private sector can make its contribution by means of taxes which the regional services councils will levy. In this regard it is also the very important function of the State to uplift the less privileged in our country.

This is also the point where grievances which give rise to the revolutionary climate prevailing in the country can be removed. This is a time-consuming process. There must be a purposeful movement, however, toward elevating the standards of this country to such a level that all people may be proud of their dwellings and that all people will live happily in their residential areas. They should be proud of them.

A further aspect related to physical planning and development which I should like to welcome—in which this hon Minister and his department play a very great role—is the recognition of the permanence of Black people in the country by according them property rights. If ever an evolutionary step has been taken in this country, this is it. One can take a look for instance at the positive development on the Witwatersrand, in the Port Elizabeth vicinity and in the Western Cape. One can take a look at the beautiful houses which are being erected and then one will realise that this step was really an investment in a stable future for this country. It was a difficult step, but it was a step in the right direction. It took a long time before the Government carried it out, but ultimately the decision was taken and I think we shall see great progress in this sphere in future yet.

Mr Chairman, I do not want to reply to what the hon the Minister has said. However, I have to devote part of the time allocated to me to reply to what he has said. I have to tell him that the franchise is not the most important aspect in anyone’s life.

†There was a great battle to get the franchise as it is our democratic right. It is the extension of democracy. Therefore, as long as people are being prevented from getting their rightful share in the economy of the country, the franchise will mean absolutely nothing. The hon the Minister justly said that the welfare needs of the people must be addressed and that they must share in the economy of our country. To me these two aspects are far more important than the franchise itself.

However, one cannot separate the one aspect from the other, because participation in the economy of the country depends entirely on whether or not one has the franchise.

It is important, therefore, that we have both. It is all very well for me to get up here and say I do not need the vote, but I do need the right to develop economically. I can never develop economically, however, if I am not part of the decision-making processes.

The only message that I am trying to impress upon the hon the Minister, Sir, is the importance of local government. If a system does not work at local government level, it will not work at any other level, and the hon the Minister can blow his brains trying to make it work. It will not work at any other level, whether it be second-tier level or third-tier level because local government is people government. Local government is a form of government that is nearest to the people. The voters’ needs are more easily satisfied at local government level than at any other level. For that reason, more emphasis should be placed on development at local government level. The hon the Minister should give up this idea of the management committees becoming acceptable. They will never become acceptable. Because people believe in negotiation and because they believe that through participation they can get where they want to be, they have used the system of management committees since 1964. Anyone who says, however, that it has been acceptable at any stage since then or that it will become acceptable in the future, is living absolutely in a fool’s paradise. Management committees are totally unacceptable; and until we devise a system whereby people can participate in decisionmaking processes—when they serve on bodies like the city councils and the town councils—we shall not even begin to satisfy their needs. We shall not satisfy the needs of people by extending the powers of or delegating powers to management committees. It is a totally unacceptable system. Its only value is that one has the opportunity, first of all, of representing people and, secondly, of making a contribution to the final decisions that are taken.

We should not fool ourselves. The management committees are purely advisory bodies, and for as long as people are not part of the final processes of decision-making, these bodies will be unacceptable.

It is at local government level that it will be easier for us to find each other. After all, we live next door to each other. It is at this level that we have to spell out our declaration of intent. We have to tell people where we are going. If we could tell people about autonomous bodies, we would like to. However, we are talking about autonomous geographical bodies. We are not talking about autonomous group bodies or autonomous ethnic bodies, but about bodies that would become substantial in that they would be self-supporting.

Allow me, Sir, to share some thoughts with the hon the Minister about what is happening at the moment. There is a total imbalance when it comes to the smaller towns. The name of my constituency, for instance, is Toekomsrus. In Randfontein Whites are paying 7,14 cents per unit for electricity. Yet, just across the road in Toekomsrus we are paying 10,1 cents per unit. That is simply because the town is subsidised by the industrial area and by the central business district. Because the authorities have made the accounts of areas like Toekomsrus autonomous, the people from those places receive no subsidy from any source, so they have to pay for everything they use. Surely that is not how it should work. After all, every town in the country is subsidised by its industrial areas and its central business districts, or rather, every White town. To me this is an absolute irregularity. I do not want to use a stronger word, because then the hon the Minister would again say we should refer to Hansard. Still, as far as I am concerned, this is an absolute irregularity.

I am not reflecting on whoever is in charge of that local authority, because the same thing applies in all the small towns. I am merely referring specifically to my own constituency. Let us look at Roodepoort, for example. The same applies in Davidsonville in Roodepoort.

Davidsonville is not there by the design of my people. Davidsonville is hemmed in by minedumps and a dam is nothing but an island. The Group Areas Act has placed people in little pockets and because of that we have lost contact with each other. It is therefore important that the hon the Minister re-examine the function of local government and what the local government of the future will look like. The key to the success of South African politics lies in our ability to improve the situation at local government level.

Last year the committee dealing with constitutional development dealt with a Bill that provided pensions for people, those forgotten and important people who served on local government level. These people make the same sacrifices as any other public representatives, but no provision has even been made for a pension scheme for these people. I appreciate that we cannot give them the same pension as Parliamentarians, for instance, because they do not make the same sacrifices. Nevertheless we must accept that because of their involvement at local government level, their businesses or work might have suffered and that they should therefore be compensated in one way or another. The Bill took a long time to go through the committee because of the meticulous way in which the committee dealt with that specific Bill. I am absolutely amazed that the Bill has not yet been implemented at local government level. People who had given a lifetime of service to local government will thus not qualify for pensions when the elections for local government come up in October. No provision has been made for these people. The Bill clearly states that local authorities can decide whether they want to pay their councillors a pension or not. In other words, it is not a compulsory, but rather a voluntary action. It appears that people are now running away from making a final decision. However, I think it is imperative, because the Bill has limitations in the sense that one cannot buy back unlimited time. One therefore has to give people the opportunity to buy back some time. It is not their fault that a pension scheme was never created for them. This is in fact done on various other levels. We even gave people who did not qualify for pensions when second-tier government was abolished this opportunity to buy back time. Why can we not give the same consideration to people who served a lifetime on local government level? I spent 13 years of my life, albeit not a lifetime at local government level, but there are other people who spent 30 or more years there and now they do not qualify for a pension because they cannot buy back time. I want the hon the Minister to look into this matter. I do not expect the hon the Minister to give me an answer now, but I make this passionate plea on behalf of people who made a very valuable contribution on local government level.

*I want to conclude by asking the hon the Minister to give attention to reform processes on local government level. It is on this level of local government that people are affected most and it is very important.

†It is on this level that one should provide houses and look at the welfare and needs of people, as well as their share in the economy.

It is on this level that one makes people feel that they are part of a city and, in the broader picture, of South Africa.

*If, therefore, it does not work there—we are still alienated as far as local government is concerned—we shall always remain alienated at the national level. It is good that we differ with one another about philosophies here in Parliament. However, it is easier to find one another on the smaller scale of local government. I am not saying that I am an important philosopher. I am also not God, as the hon the Minister says. I therefore cannot predict what is going to happen. I know deep in my heart—it will not be easy to convince me that I am wrong—that local government is not the most important part of government. I do, however, want to repeat that it is on the local government level that tangible things are happening—the kind of development that Aunt Sophie and Uncle Piet, Uncle Koos and Aunt Martha see taking place on a daily basis. The development on the local government level can therefore lead to development on the level of national government.

Mr Chairman, it seems the hon the Minister is also going to have a turn to speak after all. There are certain matters to which hon members referred to which he will respond.

I want to make a small contribution, however, and begin by thanking hon members, especially the hon member Mr Lockey and the hon member for Toekomsrus, for the responsible way in which matters were discussed this afternoon. Both the speeches that were made by the hon member Mr Lockey were omnibus speeches in which he dealt with a wide variety of matters. In my view his speeches emphasised one thing, and that is that he always takes a very responsible view of matters affecting the country and also of matters affecting the different communities and the people he would like to serve. The same can be said about the hon member for Toekomsrus with regard to the matters he raised. If we continue to talk to one another in this way—even if we differ with one another, and it is clear that we differ with one another with regard to certain aspects—we can still, in my view, follow the course which the hon the Minister mapped out so capably earlier this afternoon.

The hon member Mr Lockey referred to the provision of housing, more specifically to the project in respect of Mfuleni that was announced last week. He made a plea to the effect that the Government should involve the private sector on a larger scale in cases like this. I agree with the hon member, Sir, because irrespective of the considerations with regard to tax which may possibly have to be taken into account, the State or semi-State bodies are in any case not able to address needs on their own. That is simply a physical impossibility.

What do we see happening time after time, Sir? I am not making a big fuss about it, but unfortunately it is a fact. In many cases it is left to Government bodies or semi-Government bodies to make provision for housing for the lower and even the middle income groups. The private sector does not accept that responsibility in the end. The private sector is geared towards making a profit from housing projects—as it does from any other project in which it is involved. Unfortunately the same applies in this case. With the exception of one or two cases, the private sector throughout the country has made absolutely no contribution in respect of the provision of housing for the lower and middle income groups. That is a problem that we have at the moment. We shall have to get some support from the private sector in this respect.

It is precisely because this situation constantly recurs that the utility companies play an important part in the provision of housing for these groups and in the creation of the necessary infrastructure. That is their role at the moment—in the end they have to ensure that the needs have been met.

In view of the fact that the utility company is partly private sector, we can argue about whether it should be replaced by the exclusively private sector enterprise. We can argue about that, but what is important—I do not want to oppose the sound argument advanced by the hon member—is the question of whether houses ultimately have to be built. That is the need we should address as soon as possible. That is why I feel this specific project is very important. With regard to the provision of housing I should just like to mention some figures which I feel should be placed on record. For the 1987-88 financial year two institutions, viz the National Housing Fund and the South African Housing Trust, advanced R413 million and R229 million respectively for the establishment of infrastructure, the rendering of services, the upgrading of existing services and also the making available of stands. When one takes into account that the South African Housing Trust has been in existence for only a short time, one realises that spectacular things are taking place.

I should also like to associate myself with what the hon member said in respect of the recognition of permanence and indeed the consequences thereof in respect of the development of urban Black communities throughout the country. As Deputy Minister of Law and Order it was part of my duty to travel through the country and see what was going on at various places. It always struck me that there was hardly a Black town in the country where some of other form of development was not taking place as regards upgrading, the introduction of new services, housing and everything associated with that. Accordingly I should like to support the hon member in that regard by saying that the creation of infrastructure such as housing, the provision of health services, education and everything related to that, is linked to the enhancement of the quality of fife. That is improving dramatically in South Africa.

Someone from Johannesburg wrote to me and said that he had taken cognisance of the proposed upgrading project in Hillbrow. He then asked why we were not doing the same in Alexandra. I shall reply to him now. I want him to go and see what is going on in Alexandra. As a matter of fact, what we are doing in Hillbrow with regard to the upgrading of services has been taking place in Alexandra. That testifies to how ignorant people from all population groups in our country are as to what is happening in our Black towns and cities.

The hon member Mr Lockey also referred to the population density, specifically in Khayelitsha, and the situation which has arisen with regard to the overpopulation there. That is true. It is true that that area is overpopulated. However, it is precisely because of the scarcity and the cost of land, as well as the costs related to the rendering of services, that we have a choice in that regard. I am thinking of transport, for example, and everything that goes with it, and also of the limited means of the consumer, the Black man travelling from the rural areas to the city. In other words, we are talking about the means he has at his disposal to pay for these services. That is why we are limited as regards the density of our population.

It is still widely believed at this stage that Black people are not prepared to extend vertically as far as housing is concerned. We shall have to look into that. It is true that this density—as regards vertical development as opposed to horizontal development—is more or less equal at the moment in any case when one looks at the density of housing in respect of horizontal extension. The fact of the matter is that the answer does not necessarily lie in the availability of land. We simply do not have the means, and that applies to both availability and costs. That is why we shall be forced to consider vertical extension in the end—this applies in respect of Black housing as well—so that we can alleviate the density and at the same time create sufficient living space for every individual.

Let us look at Khayelitsha itself, however. I am reasonably well-informed about the situation there. The expansion programme for Khayelitsha—inter alia the 4 500 about which the hon member mentioned and also the other expansion in the vicinity of Khayelitsha—is such that this density can be managed. Sir, it is not only new applicants who are being accommodated; the existing density is also being alleviated.

The point that the hon member is making has therefore already been taken into account in the planning. When we look at the total surface, we see that it too is somewhat limited. We shall have to turn to vertical extension; it is inevitable that we do.

The hon member also spoke about the Sishen-Saldanha railway line and mentioned that it was being extended to Taung to link up with the Witwatersrand. I cannot respond to that off the cuff. I do not think it necessarily falls within the ambit of this department and so I am not sure that we have to respond to it. Nevertheless, we should like to furnish the hon member with that information on another occasion, because he made an important point with regard to the need for the establishment of industries in the Northern Cape. As far as that is concerned, I should at least add—it is also the Government’s declared policy in this regard—that one can decentralise if there is an inherent potential to do so. I do not want to say that the Northern Cape does not have that potential. It is just that we have to go and identify that potential so that the establishment of industries and expansion can take place in a way that will result in decentralisation. I fully agree with the principle which the hon member expounded upon and we should like to see it implemented as far as is practically possible.

I should like to make a general statement with regard to the decentralisation programme, however. In the period since April 1982—ie for the past six years—the Government’s programme of regional industrial development has led to the creation of 156 000 additional job opportunities countrywide in a regional context and industrial investment of nearly R3 billion has been made. I think that is phenomenal. These facts are often not publicised enough. The annual report of the Decentralisation Board will appear soon and I appeal to hon members to have a look at it and to acquaint themselves with projects which even during the past year have created new job opportunities on a large scale in the various development regions. For instance, approximately 27 000 new direct job opportunities were created by means of industrial projects in a regional context from March 1987 to March this year. We thought regional industrial development had come to a standstill. One can have a look at projects like Botshabelo, Isithebe, Phuthaditjhaba, East London and Ezakheni. I was in Phuthaditjhaba recently and I must honestly say I was pleasantly surprised to see what was happening there, particularly as far as regional industrial development is concerned.

The hon member also made an important point about the regional services councils and the part they are playing in facilitating constitutional processes at regional level. I think those were more or less his words. I should like to underscore that point and say it is precisely in this context of regional economic development on the one hand and regional constitutional development on the other that we have points of contact. The regional services councils inter alia can also play an important part in this process, by addressing the need for political representation at regional level in the constitutional sense. I should like to underscore the point made by the hon member. It is the kind of future development which one can envisage happening. I have seen that we already have to contend with the concept of consensus decisionmaking in certain regional services councils. I think that is conducive to the future development to which the hon member referred.

My time has nearly expired and I should like to make just one remark with regard to something which the hon member Mr Lockey and also the hon member for Toekomsrus said earlier with regard to reform in general. When we talk here about planning—these are the points which the hon member Mr Lockey emphasised—it is clear that we are not only talking about reform in the constitutional sense, because constitutional, economic and social reform have to form an integrated whole if we want to attain the future ideal to which the hon the Minister referred. It is true that at this stage we differ with one another in respect of the Group Areas Act and I do not want to repeat that argument now.

Repeal it!

We shall get an opportunity to talk about that later on when definite legislation is introduced.

I should like to make an announcement with regard to this Act. With a view to the expansion of Eersterus, the Department of Development Planning announced on 12 February 1988 and 25 March 1988 that the Group Areas Board was planning to conduct an investigation into the desirability of proclaiming a Coloured group area in certain advertised areas.

Many representations were received as a result of this, including the proposal that the Derdepoort area possibly be used for this purpose. After careful consideration it was decided also to consider an area north of Eersterus, about 690 hectares in extent, as a possible Coloured area.

The advertisement in respect of the Derdepoort area will appear in Beeld and in Pretoria News on 10 June 1988.

A committee of the Group Areas Board will investigate the various alternatives and make a recommendation to the board. The board will then advise me on the matter.

I should like to draw hon members’ attention to the fact that the closing date for representations is 22 July 1988 and that these representations may be addressed to the regional representative of the Transvaal Provincial Administration in Pretoria.

Mr Chairman, to link up with the announcement which the hon the Deputy Minister has made, I want to say that I should have been glad if the late hon member for Eersterus had been here to hear the announcement. He appealed for this for years.

Permit me to record my appreciation to my department and the officials, not only for the year’s work but also for the inspired way in which they have done it. I know this is a difficult department and hon members will note that I have acquired far more grey hairs since I started to work here than I had before. I want to thank them all most sincerely.

As peace now prevails between the hon member for Toekomsrus and me, I should like to tell him something. [Interjections.] I remember the former Prime Minister once said that what he found strange was that people usually wanted to start at the bottom, but in politics they wanted to start at the top. He said that the only occupation known to him in which a person began at the top was that of a funeral undertaker and to end up where he eventually did was not really pleasant. I agree with the hon member for Toekomsrus that if we want to develop a system in this country according to which we can build a pyramid for participation at central level, we have to start with local government systems and community government. That is the essence of democracy; in fact, that is how it originated. We shall do everything in our power to make this possible.

A second comment I wish to make is that this pension legislation has given us a considerable amount of trouble, as the hon member knows. I think that negotiations which take place in connection with pension schemes are given far too much publicity, to the extent that the principle ultimately suffers because of a number of perceptions which are created. The pension scheme was submitted to the co-ordinating council and at the moment, if I recall, negotiations are being conducted on only three aspects. The first is the question of buying back pensions; the second is the contributions of local authorities and participating members to the proposed scheme in respect of the buying back of pensions and the third is the proportion of payments towards the pension in future. This has to be approved by the hon the Minister of Finance and all the hon Ministers of Local Government. We hope to dispose of this as soon as possible before the election. I promise the hon member for Toekomsrus that we shall see whether we can dispose of it.

As regards regional services councils, I have only a few comments to make. The first is that regional services councils work; they work within a short time.

I want to record my appreciation toward the provincial administrators and executive committees for the way in which they have worked. If anyone had told me that the Transvaal, as regards its total surface area, would fall under a regional services council within a year, I would have said it was impossible. I think Mr Cruywagen in particular deserves our sincere appreciation.

I want to concede that the situation in the Cape Province is more difficult and I want to tell hon members why this is so. A divisional council system existed in the Cape Province. [Interjections.] This system had to carry out specific functions and divisional councils employed officials. In the Transvaal, however, an entirely new system was instituted. In the Cape Province one system had to be substituted for the other. There are certain matters which hamper such a substitution enormously. It is easy to introduce a new system because only structures are involved. It is difficult to replace one, however, because not only structures are involved, but also people who are employed in the existing system. Conditions of service and job security are at issue. The most sensitive aspect of reform is what is going to happen to people and where they will be placed. People are not pawns on a chessboard; they are human beings with emotions and reactions. That is why this has to be taken into account.

I now come to the question of the transfer of functions. I want to point out to the hon member that 21 functions have been transferred to regional services councils in the Western Cape. This was possible because these functions were carried out chiefly by divisional councils and their officials could therefore do the work on a continuous basis. I agree with the hon member. The ideal is that functions should be transferred to regional services councils as laid down by the Act. I insist, however, that this must fake place on two conditions. Firstly, the necessary finance must be provided and also the staff which is to administer it. It is of no avail to transfer a function if there is no finance. The hon member will probably agree with me in this respect. [Interjections.]

It is incontrovertible that these institutions can become a powerful instrument for the upliftment of people’s quality of life and circumstances. I should like to quote a few figures in this regard. The levy in the Western Cape for the 1987-88 financial year amounted to R49 700 000. The estimated levy for the current financial year is R63 million and this provides a greater potential than the three divisional councils had together and therefore enables the regional services councils to incur considerable expenditure in furnishing services. This is a welcome development. I hope that we shall be able to iron out the other problems and that regional services councils can be instituted throughout the Cape Province as soon as possible.

I want to make an announcement which I think will be of importance to the hon member for Mamre. I do not think anything can come of local government for the community which the hon member serves if it is not viable. I have always said this. The status of a local authority and the level of its economy are also determined by its financial capability. One cannot create such an institution if it does not have the capability to serve the people. I agree.

In the discussions of this department’s Vote last year the hon member for Mamre referred to Atlantis. He pointed out that the Atlantis residential area had been placed under the authority of the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture upon the abolition of the Cape Divisional Council on 30 June 1987. The industrial area of Atlantis, however, was placed under the authority of the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Works of the Administration: House of Assembly.

Which was a disgrace.

The hon member must not pick a fight with me. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Minister is making a statement. Hon members must not interrupt him.

The hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture has since brought the matter to my attention and to that of the Administrator of the Cape Province and has taken up the matter with us. I want to announce today that the Administrator of the Cape Province has formally requested the Demarcation Board to investigate a possible redemarcation of Atlantis.

Thank you very much.

The hon member’s suggestion that the residential and industrial areas should both fall under the Atlantis committee’s authority was taken two steps further in the Administrator’s request to the Demarcation Board. Firstly, Silwerstroomstrand was included in the possible demarcation process; secondly, a large area for expansion north of Atlantis and west of Mamre was also included in the proposed area of jurisdiction which the Demarcation Board is to investigate. [Interjections.]

The Administrator’s proposals will soon be advertised in the Gazette and subsequently the Demarcation Board will hold a public hearing in Atlantis at which any interested parties may give evidence. The report of the Demarcation Board will then be submitted to the Administrator for a decision.

I believe that this could bring about a new dispensation at local authority level for Atlantis and its people.

Sir, may I thank all hon members who participated in the debate most sincerely. I also want to thank them for the spirit and attitude in which we were able to conduct the debate.

Debate concluded.

Mr Chairman, as the debate on this Bill is being held in this House, hon members must exercise a little patience with me because I have to deliver the introductory speech here now so that it may be tabled in the other Houses.

The object of the Bill is to lend professional status to the profession of town clerks.

An indication of the professional status of a profession is not only the existence of recognised professional organisations, such as the Institute of Town Clerks of Southern Africa and the Association of Chief Administrative Officers of Local Authorities, but also the necessary statutory instruments by means of which members of such a profession are themselves able to preserve the professional nature and character of their profession.

In consequence of this, the Bill provides for the establishment of a Town Clerks’ Council, for the registration of town clerks and other matters. An Education Advisory Committee for Town Clerks is also established to advise the council on the educational and other qualifications and requirements for registration as a town clerk.

The Profession of Town Clerks Bill also represents an important step in the development of local government in South Africa.

A far-reaching process of constitutional, economic and social change has been under way in South Africa for the past decade. South African society—in all its facets—is in the process of changing fundamentally.

This process of adjustment to changing circumstances, the acceptance of new challenges and the development of our country’s ability to enter the 21st century are not happening by chance. They are the results of sustained development. It is an evolutionary process of renewal. This Government has tackled and launched this process of renewal with daring and, I believe, with realism.

An important aspect of this is the development of local government as the basis for viable and permanent democratic development and to satisfy the needs of a growing population.

The point of departure is that local communities must be able to decide about themselves as far as possible. To accomplish this, the Government has committed itself to the maximum devolution of power to and minimal control over local authorities.

For this initiative to succeed, local authorities must be placed on a sound footing. They must be equipped to fulfil their role as local governments.

As the chief executive officers of local government, town clerks play a key role and carry out a task which demands great responsibility and insight.

In the words of the Marais Commission:

The Committee of Enquiry into the Finances of Local Authorities in South Africa—the Browne Committee—stated inter alia:

This is certainly a role they play and a duty they fulfil with distinction.

As a result of this, the Browne Committee recommended that the professional status of town clerks be accorded recognition by laying down qualification requirements and by ensuring that the status and obligations of town clerks were embodied in uniform legislation. These recommendations were accepted by the Cabinet. This Bill accords statutory recognition to the office of town clerk. A town clerk is defined as “the chief executive officer of a local authority regardless of the designation of the post occupied by that officer”.

The professional development of the profession of town clerks may also be ascribed to the valuable role which the Institute of Town Clerks of Southern Africa has played since 1946. The institute strives for the broadening of the technical and professional knowledge and skills of town clerks, as well as the promotion and improvement of the training of prospective town clerks, inter alia by means of setting examinations and co-operation agreements with South African universities.

This Bill was accepted in principle by the Council for the Co-ordination of Local Government Affairs on 27 November 1987 and introduced in Parliament on 18 January of this year. It was referred to the Standing Committee on Constitutional Development and disposed of with certain amendments on 10 May this year.

†In accordance with the principles embodied in the Remuneration of Town Clerks Amendment Act, 1987 (Act 106 of 1987) this Bill similarly represents the maximum devolution of power as the regulation of, and control over, the profession of town clerks is placed in the hands of a body which is representative of town clerks from all population groups. The Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning will be involved in making the necessary regulations alone, but only after consultation with the Town Clerks’ Council.

Clause 3 determines the constitution of the council. The council represents the profession of town clerks and therefore is appointed from the members of the chief executive officers, and also by organised local government. The Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning must appoint the designated members. The council shall consist of 11 members. Four council members—one from each province—will be designated by the Institute of Town Clerks of Southern Africa. The executive committee of the Association of Chief Administrative Officers of Local Authorities designates four of its members—also one from each province. The remaining three council members are designated by the Coordinating Council of Local Government Affairs. For each of the Town Clerks’ Council an alternative member is appointed in the same manner.

In clause 4 provision is made for the necessary requirements for a person to be appointed as a member or alternate member of the Town Clerks’ Council. In addition to the requirement that a member must be a South African citizen, a person may only be appointed as a member or alternate member if he is registered at the Town Clerks’ Council in terms of the Act. The last-mentioned requirement shall only come into operation 12 months after the commencement of this Act to give town clerks the opportunity to register with the council. A member or alternate member of the council holds office for a period of four years and may be reappointed at the expiration of his term of office.

In terms of clause 6, the members of the council elect out of their number a president and vice-president at the first meeting of every newly constituted council. The term “president” and “vice-president”—rather than “chairman” or “vice-chairman”—gives higher recognition to the elevated status of the Town Clerks’ Council. The council represents and consists of the chief executive officers of our local authorities.

Clause 7 provides for the appointment of several committees to promote the functions of the council. The council may also appoint ad hoc committees and subcommittees to exercise such powers and perform such duties as the council may from time to time determine. Persons who are not members of the council may be co-opted as members of the last-mentioned committees.

The council also appoints a disciplinary committee which may investigate cases of alleged improper conduct by persons registered in terms of this Bill, and may take the necessary disciplinary steps as determined in clause 25.

In addition to the chairman, who is a member of the council, the disciplinary committee consists of six members. Two members are designated by the Federation of Municipal Employers’ Organisations, while one person is designated by the local authority which employs the person in respect of whom an inquiry in terms of clause 25 is to be instituted. The other members are persons registered in terms of this Bill, but who are not members of the council.

The duties and powers of the board are set out in clause 8. The council is obliged inter alia to appoint a registrar who shall act as the secretary of the council. The registrar is the accounting officer charged with the accounting for all moneys received and for all payments made by the council. The council also determines the remuneration and conditions of service of employees which the council may appoint to perform the functions of the council.

The manner in which meetings shall be convened, the procedure to be followed at meetings, the determination of registration fees, a code of conduct or ethical rules applicable to persons registered as town clerks and the way in which the council’s funds are to be handled, may be determined by the council. The council may publish professional journals.

Clause 9 determines the sources from which the council may receive funds to perform its functions, and that the council may reimburse members and alternate members for expenses incurred in connection with attendance at meetings or other duties performed in the interest of the council.

*In order to ensure stable and orderly local government in the Republic, strong, expert organisational leadership is essential. This requires the appointment of town clerks who are not only suitable persons but are also adequately qualified.

As early as the 16th century it was required in England that a town clerk have specific qualities:

In terms of clause 14 an education advisory committee is being established to advise the Town Clerks’ Council as regards the educational and other qualifications and requirements for the registration of persons as town clerks. This committee shall consist of two persons designated by the Committee of University Principals to represent all universities in the Republic providing instruction in public administration or local government; three persons designated by the Federation of Municipal Employers’ Organizations; three persons designated by the Town Clerks’ Council, and two persons by the Training Board for Local Government Bodies.

To ensure that only suitable persons shall be admitted to practise the career of town clerk and that persons who are involved in this important and sensitive profession are properly qualified for the task which they have to perform, it is required of persons in the positions of town clerks and prospective town clerks to register with the Town Clerks’ Council.

Clause 18 provides that the registrar of the council shall keep separate registers in respect of professional town clerks, registered town clerks and prospective town clerks.

If the applicant is employed as a town clerk, the registrar shall also inform the local authority concerned of the acceptance or rejection of the application. An applicant for registration shall be at least 21 years of age, and shall satisfy the registration committee that he is a fit and proper person and that he possesses the educational qualifications and the practical experience which the council prescribes.

If a local authority is unable to obtain the services of a registered town clerk, another person may be appointed to act as town clerk for a period of 12 months. The council may provide exemption in terms of clause 20.

Clause 21 provides that any person holding the office of town clerk shall apply to the council for registration within 12 months after the commencement of this Act and in the manner determined by the council. Any person employed by a local authority as a town clerk on the commencement of this Act, shall be registered upon application.

He shall be registered as a professional town clerk if he possesses the educational qualifications and the practical experience determined by the council as requirements therefor; and, secondly, in all other cases as a registered town clerk.

If the disciplinary committee finds a person guilty of improper conduct, it may caution or reprimand him, impose a fine, suspend his registration or remove his name from the register. In the last case mentioned the local authority employing the person shall dismiss him from the post of town clerk. He may, however, serve in a post other than that of town clerk.

The Joint Committee on Constitutional Development adopted a strong standpoint that town clerks against whom disciplinary steps had been taken and who continued to feel dissatisfied with the outcome of an appeal to the council should also have the right of appeal to the Supreme Court.

Clause 27 was therefore amended at the request of the joint committee and the procedure which is followed to lodge such an appeal is set out in detail in the Bill.

The object of the Bill is to lend professional status to the profession of town clerks and in my opinion it succeeds in achieving this.

Mr Chairman, I rise in support of this Bill. I can give the hon the Minister the assurance that this is one of those Bills which passed through the particular committee very easily. It is something that does not always happen, as the hon the Minister well knows. The main function of my component of that committee is to see, first of all, that race is eliminated in all legislation or future legislation. I want to say without any doubt that there is no race connotation in this legislation. This Bill is responsible for controlling the functions of the town clerk and for creating a body which will see to the welfare of the citizens of a particular town. It makes provision for the establishment of a Town Clerks’ Council and for the registration of professional town clerks and prospective town clerks so that people will have the opportunity of becoming part of this body. Before one can become a town clerk one will first have to be a member of this particular body.

If one looks at this legislation one will immediately see the whole purpose of the legislation. The position of town clerks has become of considerable importance in the process of constitutional reform which is taking place in the Republic of South Africa. Hon members are aware of the important role of a town clerk in a city. To most of us the town clerk is the most important professional in a city or town. If one therefore has a person who is not suitably qualified, one is going to have difficulty in implementing what Parliament legislates.

If local authorities are to play a meaningful role in local government it is important that suitably qualified persons administer that local authority. The Bill provides for the registration and the qualifications of people who might be appointed as town clerks. It also provides for the discipline, conduct and also the misconduct of town clerks.

Then there is also the very important aspect of devolution. Although I am not pleading for extended delegated powers, I am saying that power must be delegated, not necessarily in the terminology which we have become used to, but in the sense that town clerks are not always in the position to do all that is required of them. Therefore it must be possible for town clerks to delegate their powers in order to keep things going in the city.

Furthermore there is also the whole question of the functions of the town clerk. Perhaps I should conclude by saying that my component of the committee felt that although we appreciated the important role which town clerks play and the importance of a town clerk as such, the management committee members felt that town clerks were invariably appointed for them and that the management committees—those unacceptable bodies—did not have a say in the appointment.

Management committees do not have a say as to who this important official is. Therefore, we feel that without the consultation of management committees, town clerks cannot be appointed. If I have a say in who is to be appointed I will be respected accordingly. At the moment—this is the exception rather than the rule—there are instances where town clerks are much more important than the political figures in some towns. This is an unhealthy situation.

While I am talking about town clerks I want to make a passionate appeal to the hon the Minister. There is a piece of legislation before the committee which is to provide for special votes in the October elections. The town clerk is going to play the most important role in implementing what Parliament now envisages. We know that the future voting pattern is going to be a special voting pattern because of the intimidation of people who wish to exercise their democratic right to vote. Therefore, one must compliment the person responsible for this. I think it is necessary, because I believe that while one enjoys the right to vote, it must also be convenient to exercise that right. Here the town clerk is going to play an important role and therefore we must ensure that all town clerks are aware of what is happening and are aware of this legislation. They must also take that awareness to people in the local authorities so that they can exercise that right. Let us not, after 26 October, plead that certain people did not know because of the ignorance of town clerks.

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon member for his support of the legislation. With reference to special votes, the whole concept of the legislation is based on one principle, which is—as the hon member rightly said—that people should not only have the right to vote; it must also be physically possible for them to vote. Apart from the question of intimidation, it is a fact that people do not always live on their property and consequently cannot get there on voting day. Other people work far away, or are not capable of getting there because of their age. The purpose of this legislation is to give everyone a reasonable chance, if he cannot vote on the given day for any expected reason, to vote 14 days before that date. [Interjections.] As far as possible we shall ensure that there are as many ballot boxes for special votes as possible, depending on the number of officials available to deal with the matter.

I thank the hon member for his contribution. An important aspect is that the town clerk statutorily becomes the accounting officer for the activities of those councils. I think this implies progress, but I hope the legislation is not going to be used only to keep an exclusive number of people in the profession, but rather to train sufficient people so that there can be proper competition with regard to the availability of town clerks.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I give notice that I shall move tomorrow:

Mr Chairman, in connection with that notice of resolution I humbly request the Chair to give a ruling as to whether, from a procedural point of view, it is correct for the Leader of the House, according to convention, to be appointed by resolution of this House or of Parliament. He is never appointed by resolution of Parliament or a resolution of this House; I do not think the Leader of the House has ever been appointed by Parliament. Before and after the implementation of the new Constitution, the Leader of the House has in fact been appointed by the Executive of that particular House.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: A notice of the draft resolution has been moved in this House. The merits and demerits of the issue could probably be debated when the motion is on the Order Paper.

Order! I think the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is entitled to put his point of view. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I want to make an application to you to give the following ruling: Firstly, that the Leader of the House is not appointed by resolution of the House, but by the Ministers’ Council—that is the convention. Secondly, I make an application to you to give a ruling that in terms of Section 88 of the Constitution:

Mr Chairman, may I respectfully submit that the Chairman of the House will probably feel that the motion should not be accepted or put on the Order Paper if only for the reason that it does not make any sense. One cannot fill a vacancy which does not exist.

Order! I should like to advise the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council that in view of the sensitivity of the matter, I should not like to give any ruling which could in any way be seen to militate against the interests of any particular hon member. I shall have to seek the advice of Mr Speaker and the Officers of Parliament in order to come to some final arrangement. I shall hand down my ruling at a later stage.

Mr Chairman, I just wish to enter this very important debate on housing very briefly.

First of all I want to place on record that, important as this department is with regard to the upliftment of our community as a whole, tremendous responsibilities rest on the shoulders of the administration of this particular department. For their sacrifices and the interest and dedication they have shown, I shall remain indebted to them. I also want to commend the hon the Minister, who works tirelessly, on the comprehensive report with regard to housing development.

I just want to state briefly that the Chairman of the South African Housing Trust, Dr F J du Plessis, in presenting his first annual report, estimated that the housing backlog in South Africa at presently exceeds 700 000 units. It is further estimated that up to the year 2000 about two million new houses will have to be built, representing expenditure in the region of R4 500 million a year. This in itself signals the importance of housing, particularly with regard to the lower income group in South Africa.

In this week’s Financial Mail a very important article appeared which I want to quote here:

It goes on to say:

This, in actual fact, implies that where consideration has been given particularly to the underdeveloped communities, no other factors should override the importance of subsidising and narrowing the gap with regard to housing.

Coming back to parochial constituency issues, I want to make it clear that I want to thank this particular hon Minister and the administration for the development in my constituency and for highlighting this area. Richards Bay, which is going to be one of the most important growth points in South Africa, has begun with close to 600 homes built by this department. Mtubatuba is off the ground and Gingindhlovu is on the verge of beginning with further financing required for water reticulation. Eshowe is just about getting off the ground and Newcastle is another important growth point within my constituency where additional land and housing is required. At Dannhauser additional housing is required. At Glencoe additional housing is needed and Dundee has to be looked at very carefully. Kranskop is a new area where there is a need for housing. Now Vryheid, as hon members will know, is historically connected with the restriction of the free movement of Indians and as a result of our negotiations that legislation has been reversed. Negotiations are afoot and land has been identified. The machinery has now been set in motion to establish housing. Charlestown, on the border of Natal, also needs to be considered.

I want to make an appeal to the hon the Minister that whilst we have all these backlogs one of the important aspects which many hon members mentioned is the question of religious sites. I do hope that with all the limitations which the Indian community has been subjected to with regard to religious sites, this administration looks at the possibility of making religious sites available within the means of the Indian community, so much so that this will enable them to protect their culture and religion.

The other practical aspect which has been very topical is the need for teacher accommodation in various growing areas. With this I would once again like to thank the hon the Minister and the administration for their excellent work. I would like to remind them that the stability of South Africa rests on the shoulders of their department.

Mr Chairman, on Friday I commented on certain points raised by hon members of this House and I want to thank them again for the positive sentiments they have expressed and the positive suggestions which hon members have made. Hon members were also entitled to highlight the progress and the deficiencies in their respective electoral divisions.

I would firstly like to deal with matters that are of national importance—especially the argument that is carrying on in the Durban metropolitan region about the new rental formula. I want to state that the rental formula was determined by the National Housing Commission, which was not split at the time. After thorough investigation by the Committee of Housing Ministers—I was not Minister of Housing at the time—the Ministers’ Council approved the rental formula.

I want to say that much of the agitation is not based on facts, but on political considerations. I received a memorandum from the Durban City Council. I just want to give a breakdown of the consolidated bill of a person earning, for example, R200 per month, and residing in a high-rise with four rooms and a kitchen. The public is not aware of the fact that our rental formula enables the person to pay only R18 per month for capital returns and interest. The problem does not lie with the House of Delegates or with the State. I want to highlight the problem, which will explain adequately the reasons for that agitation. The administration charge of the Durban City Council is R10,30, the insurance is R3,06, the maintenance cost is R69,07, and wages, stores and materials come to R50,85. The person earns R200 per month, but the administration, insurance, maintenance, wages, stores and materials come to R133,28. We are charging approximately R18 per month. Added to that is a reserve for loss. The total the tenant should pay, without electricity, water or rates, is R141,34. That excludes what is owed to the Housing Development Board, namely R18 per month.

This speaks volumes and gives one a thesis in respect of where the problem lies. Nevertheless, as I said on Thursday, we received a deputation from the Durban Municipality, and the Committee of Housing Ministers has appointed a work group comprising members of the National Housing Policy Council, representatives of the Natal Provincial Administration, representatives of the Durban City Council and the own affairs Administration to examine this problem urgently with a view to finding a solution, especially for the poor people; those who belong to the low income group.

I may add for the benefit of hon members that the Committee of Housing Ministers co-ordinates the efforts to ensure that we have a common policy and subscribe to a national norm, which can differ according to certain special circumstances which each Administration may have. For this purpose we have, firstly, a Committee of Ministers consisting of all the Ministers and members responsible for housing of the Executive Committees of the various provinces. The committee functions as a policy-making body for all common housing matters.

Secondly, there is a South African Housing Advisory Council on which the private sector’s representation consists of nine members out of a total of 16 members and which acts in an advisory capacity to the Committee of Ministers. This council was established during 1986 and is assisted by four work groups constituted of proficient persons from both the private and the public sectors.

Thirdly, there is a working committee of the heads of departments on which all departments and Administrations involved in housing are represented, which was established during 1987. The functions of the committee focus primarily on the co-ordination of the executive actions common to all relevant institutions.

The other matter that was raised concerned the question of our formula in respect of determining the price of religious sites in our housing schemes. Special mention was made of the religious sites in Marlboro. Here I want to place on record that the formula system may not prove to be advantageous to religious organisations that are acquiring religious sites in small housing scheme areas. They can prove to be advantageous where we are constructing large housing schemes, like those in Lenasia, Northdale, Pelican Park, Phoenix and Chatsworth.

In respect of the Sandton Hindu Samaj, I would like to mention that the Housing Development Board determined the price of Lots 568 and 577, in accordance with the formula, at R193 100, subject to the society being responsible for the consolidation and rezoning of the sites concerned. A Minister of Housing cannot dictate to the Housing Development Board to lower the price. However, as a result of representations received, the Housing Development Board on 17 November 1986 approved that the sites be sold to the society at R92 688, dropping the price by R100 412.

I will deal with policy, but firstly I want to deal with the Sandton Muslim Jamaat which has been sold and which alienated Lots 68 and 132. On 6 May 1982 the Community Development Board resolved that the abovementioned sites be sold to the Sandton Muslim Jamaat at a price of R325 975. We received representations and on 17 November 1986 the board approved that the price be reduced to R206 366, a discount of R119 587.

That is the level to which the board can reduce the price in terms of policy and Treasury regulations. If I pressurise the board, we will probably have another select committee appointed. Nevertheless, even if the board wants to go below these prices, it does not have the authority. The only other alternative to this is a recommendation that is very strongly motivated, like we did in the case of the Oriental Plaza. We first had to get the approval of the hon the Minister of Finance. The difference is charged to us; it is debited against our housing fund. The only way in which we can sort this out, is by fully motivating the case to the Treasury for certain amounts to be written off as a loss to the Housing Development Fund. Neither the Housing Development Board, nor the Minister has the authority to do this. This can only be done with the prior approval of the Treasury.

Sir, I wonder if the hon the Minister can answer this question. Recently a religious site in Laudium, which had previously been priced at approximately R200 000, was sold for R58 000. How is that possible?

Mr Chairman, I do not know the details.

There is no such thing!

I do not have any details about this religious site in Laudium, but I will examine it. However, what I wish to convey to the House is that these official decisions are made by the Housing Development Board within the terms of the formula. They do not have any authority to reduce the price any further. Any reduction has to go to the Treasury. Of course, I personally believe that there is a case, as there are cases in other areas. If need be, we shall motivate the case to the Treasury.

It will not be possible for me to deal with the issues and problems raised by various hon members because of my limited time. I want to give them the assurance, however, that I will write to each hon member individually as I did last year and during the course of this year.

We know that housing development could not take place in the Zululand area because of the area’s history and its problems. I do not think that the people of Richards Bay can complain about the housing programme which our department and our administration have instituted in that area.

Ever since the Government accepted the recommendations of the Fouche Commission on Community Facilities it is the policy to look at housing also from a sociological point of view to ensure that the adults and children have the necessary facilities. What I do find disturbing is the attitude of certain municipalities. I find that the attitudes of municipalities in areas where we are supposed to get negative attitudes, are positive. In the Transvaal, in Northern Natal and Pietermaritzburg one finds excellent community centres. Unfortunately, in a place like Durban one finds poky little halls constructed in places like Chatsworth and Phoenix. We even suggested to the Durban Municipality that to provide a beautiful town centre in Chatsworth and Phoenix we would be prepared to recommend to the Housing Development Board to consider the applications for loans favourably. I can state officially this afternoon that we are even prepared, in response to the request made by the hon member for Phoenix, to apply this to Phoenix.

The people of Phoenix also require a central sports stadium. It is a massive scheme that will ultimately dwarf Chatsworth in size. As in the case of Chatsworth, the Housing Development Board will most certainly give favourable consideration to applications for funds from the Durban Municipality.

Other hon members raised the question of what we would do when Phoenix was completed. I indicated in a previous debate that in consultation with the Durban Municipality we were about to receive a viability report. We have already received an evaluation report—we paid for this ourselves—for the extension of Phoenix called Phoenix East. I can assure hon members that Phoenix East will be one of the most ambitious housing projects ever undertaken for the benefit of the Indian community.

I want to thank the hon member for Durban Bay for his positive sentiments. He also referred to the problem of Clairwood. We are all aware that the report which was referred to by the former Deputy Minister of Development Planning has been made available by the Durban City Council. We have a copy of that report and I think that progress is possible in so far as Clairwood is concerned.

The hon member for Merebank quite correctly raised the issue of the attitude of local authorities. He also placed tremendous emphasis on the rental formula. I have already explained the rental formula but I want to say—this is also in response to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition—that where the rental formula shows deficiencies we must examine it. The committee consisting of the Ministers of Housing has already appointed a work group to look at the areas where there are problems.

I also want to convey our appreciation to the hon member for Allandale for the positive sentiments which he expressed. We undertook an inspection with MPs and members of the local affairs committee, as well as members of organisations that belong to the extraparliamentary group. We had an excellent inspection in Pietermaritzburg. I indicated at the end of the inspection that the MPs of Pietermaritzburg definitely had a case in respect of the reviewing of the sale price of homes.

I want to say that we do have problems in certain areas. Our rules only apply to areas where State funds have been used for housing purposes. The hon member for Chatsworth Central—if he was present—would agree with me that certain parts of his constituency were developed from municipal funds. This is similar to the problem which we had in Springfield. The hon member for Springfield highlighted this in his contribution.

Likewise, the problem in Pietermaritzburg is not the House of Delegates. The problem is that the Pietermaritzburg Municipality has priced the individual sites at market value in terms of provincial regulations. Even if we reduce the price of the dwellings they are reluctant to reduce the price of the land. We had a discussion on this matter at the meeting of the Ministers of Housing this morning. Concern was expressed by the hon member for Newholme and the hon member for Allandale about 30 June being the deadline for our sales campaign. I want to give hon members the assurance that they do not have to take the date of 30 June too seriously. Although I am not making an announcement I do not think people will have a problem after 30 June in cases like this if they want to acquire homes.

The hon member for Allandale referred to Copes Folly and Dunveria. I do not want to deal with that this afternoon, but I want to say that we have problems. Originally there was a valuation in Copes Folly and Dunveria and an argument was put forward, which I did not dispute, that that valuation had to be reviewed because certain portions of those two areas which at that stage were not usable had been declared usable. Because they were declared to be usable, it resulted in the revaluation of this area from R4,92 million to R8,92 million. I am convinced that the Administration took these facts into consideration when the revaluation was affected, but I was told by my officials that we were having problems with those areas and we therefore could not go back to these people and tell them to give us back the R4 million. I sincerely express the wish that someone will appear on television and then submit this to the Advocate-General. I will not do it. I want to thank the hon member for Allandale for his positive contribution.

The hon member for Bayview raised some very important issues. I have already replied to the questions concerning the main civic hall in Chatsworth. The fault will not be on our part. Also, with regard to the matter of the Chatsworth stadium which other hon members raised, there was an article in the Tribune Herald that the House of Delegates was not providing the finance for it. That is correct. In Chatsworth the Durban City Council owns large tracts of land and it has balanced its books. What we indicated to them was that they should sell that land and use the proceeds from the sale to finance the stadium. They had approximately 300 serviced sites. There was a difference between the Southern Durban LAC and the Durban Municipality. I received a deputation from the Durban City Council’s management committee at which the LAC members were present and we reached an understanding that we would acquire the site where we could give them the overall amount that could be ploughed back into the stadium. The House of Delegates is at present going to alienate that site subject to the condition that not less than 70% must be sold to the people on the council’s waiting list.

Reference was also made to Chatsworth’s crematorium. I now want to make an announcement. We are responsible for community facilities. I have asked our administration and I am going to ask the Housing Development Board in the interim, pending the establishment of a regional services council, to allow names to be made available to local authorities or institutions through the local authorities for the purpose of providing crematoriums.

The question which people ask us is: What will be the rate of interest? My reply to that is that we can approach the Treasury to give some consideration to the rate of interest, and I hope that this answer will be adequate for the hon member for Bayview.

Insofar as Actonville is concerned, during the course of my main speech and again on Friday, I outlined the Ministers’ Council’s attitude towards those areas we want on the East Rand. I think I adequately explained our attitude towards Apex, as well as Windmill Park. I indicated that if Windwill Park could be made available today we would want it because there are ready-made dwellings there, as well as serviced sites.

I am going to have discussions with the relevant hon Minister about notices served on people living in White areas. I do not think it is fair to serve those notices because the neglect of the Indian community on the East Rand was not the fault of our people; it was the fault of the Government. It was because of the Group Areas Act. [Interjections.] It was due to the inability of the Government to identify available land and to make land adjacent to Actonville available for the members of the Indian community.

Insofar as Larrendale and Leachville are concerned, we have indicated that we want them. They are contiguous to Actonville, but they have not been made available to the Indian community for the purposes of housing development. However, I want to assure the hon member for Actonville that, contrary to the sentiments expressed here, no one can accuse us of looking at the development of particular areas depending on which party the hon member representing that area belongs to. I do not think anyone can accuse us of that. However, I want to assure the hon member for Actonville that I am giving the housing development there, as well as in other areas, my personal attention.

Two hon members gave details about the comparative allocations to the House of Representatives and our House insofar as …

Order! I want to direct the attention of the hon member for Actonville to the fact that the hon the Minister is responding to him but that the hon member is engaged in discussions and in writing notes. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I want to give the hon member for Actonville the assurance that as in other areas, because of their history, I am giving this matter my personal attention. However, let us not draw comparisons and say that the House of Representatives is getting more than us.

The House of Representatives suffered and they did not obtain the type of housing development which the Indian community had. Therefore, as a result of their arrival in Parliament, they are now staking their claim. They are now definitely staking their claim and are receiving proportionately more because of the very serious backlog in the provision of housing for the members of the Coloured community.

I also want to compliment the hon member for Tongaat. I think time was against the hon member on Friday, but I think that Tongaat as a region, together with Stanger, requires dynamic development. In response to the discussions I held with civic leaders in Tongaat and also in response to the discussions I had with the hon member for Tongaat, I announced that our town planners had already identified land in the Tongaat area for the provision of 4 000 housing units. Of course, this is going to take a long time. However, that Tongaat region, as well as the region I discussed with the hon member for North Coast, require 4 000 houses today. We do not require 4 000 houses five years hence; we require them today. However, the fact that a group areas advertisement appeared in the newspaper last Friday, is enough proof of the fact that we are backing our words with action.

I want to come back to the East Rand. We do not want to repeat the mistakes of the past by identifying small patches of land and then, five years later, looking at what one requires today. There are some Natalians who are going to the Transvaal because there is no housing available near their place of work. They are going to Lenasia South. They are working around Actonville. They are working in the Witwatersrand complex and therefore provision has to be made for migrant people. Villa Lisa can only accommodate 2 000 housing units but I believe that we shall need 5 000 units over the next eight years. We therefore need an area larger than Villa Lisa, and that is why we want Windmill Park. We also need to do some overall planning and we need to decide on that overall planning now.

Likewise, as far as Tongaat is concerned I want to give the hon member for Stanger as well as the hon member for Tongaat the assurance that we do have problems in Stanger, but the Housing Development Board is discussing the issue of Stanger at its next executive meeting on 8 June. Thus, as far as Tongaat is concerned, I want the hon member for Tongaat to know that we are going to move as fast as we possibly can as far as housing development is concerned.

When is the whole matter going to be resolved, Mr Minister?

On 8 June.

Will it be finalised then?

Well, I shall give the hon member the details, but I cannot decide on the Board’s behalf. There might be some technical flaws in the submission.

But all things being equal?

All things being equal, it could be finalised on the 8th. However, I want to check it and before the hon member leaves for the Middle East I shall give him the details.

I should like a nice bon voyage.

Yes, and let us hope that when the hon member returns he will leave a message on that side, having had a bon voyage on this side, and that he will adopt a different approach when he returns. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

I want to say to the hon member for Stanger that I do not wish to spoil this debate. We must not criticise people who are not here. We must not criticise the MECs. I do not wish to score a political point, but I think that the hon member for Stanger should look at issues positively.

I did.

He was the only hon member of this House whose entire speech was negative. Hansard will prove that. I am a politician; I can take it, but the hon member for Stanger should realise that there are difficulties and problems all the time.

As far as the hon member for North Coast is concerned, there are problems in regard to Shakaskraal, but I appreciate the fact that the hon member for Natal North Coast understood the problem. However, he referred to similar situations on the South Coast. I should like to have a discussion with the hon member to see whether the Development and Services Board dealt with similar situations differently. If they did so in the areas under their jurisdiction then I am prepared to have another round of personal discussions with the hon member for Natal North Coast and the Development and Services Board.

He made three very important points in his contribution. Firstly, he looked at housing from a socio-economic point of view. That is something that quite a lot of hon members and members of our society fail to understand and realise. Then the hon member for North Coast quite correctly referred to housing from a socio-political point of view, since there is no doubt about the fact that the provision of housing in South Africa will play an important role in promoting political stability. If one wants to fight communism, give a man a house. By giving a man a house, one counteracts communism. He also dealt with the concept of a house and a home.

The hon member for Laudium referred to Laudium. He expressed positive sentiments, and I want to express my appreciation for the excellent role played by the hon member for Laudium in establishing positive inter-group relations in the Laudium area where the Blacks adopted a certain attitude towards our housing development programme. The hon member for Laudium got the Black leaders together—leaders of all sections of the community—and reached an understanding. We have consensus. We reversed the previous plans for Pretoria, and Lotus Gardens is on the programme for development.

The hon member for Umzinto made reference to low-cost housing. I can give the hon member for Umzinto the assurance that the provision of low-cost housing is a high priority. That is why we snatched some land away from Newlands West, not even giving them to the Urban Foundation, since everyone now has a tendency to provide homes for those who earn above R1 000 per month. The private sector is neglecting the people in the low-income group, even those people whose earnings fall between R1 000 and R1 500 per month.

He gave us the excellent suggestion that we should look at Blue Downs. I think we accept that invitation. I spoke to the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture in the House of Representatives, Mr David Curry, this morning to arrange a visit to Blue Downs.

As far as Lenasia Central is concerned I want to say that I did indicate that we had problems in Finetown and Unaville. The hon member inquired whether progress had been made with regard to the proclamation of Lenasia Extension 9. I want to say that the necessary documents in this regard …

Mr Chairman, will the hon the Minister take a question?

Please be brief.

Mr Chairman, is the hon the Minister aware that some White hon Ministers are advancing strong objections with regard to the Windmill Park area being occupied by the Indian community? However, I do believe that the White community there is prepared to allow the Indian community to occupy that area. This may become a viable area with Villa Lisa and this is a case where this House should register its objection to those White hon Ministers bringing in impediments in an area which should be available for occupation by Indians.

Mr Chairman, experience has shown that in delicate stages of negotiations we should not go public.

As far as Lenasia is concerned I would like to say to the hon member for Lenasia Central that for Extension 9 the necessary documents in this regard have been prepared and lodged with the State Attorney. The hon member also wanted to know what was being done with regard to the request by the residents of the houses in Fine-town and Grasmere for these houses to be sold to them, as well as the question of a reduction in selling price of the 55 duplex units in Lenasia Extension 10. I can tell the hon member for Lenasia Central that both matters are to be looked into.

The hon member for Cavendish enquired about Buffelsbosch, where Extension 1 is being developed by the Development and Services Board. We have problems and that is why we have decided to develop Buffelsbosch Extension 2 ourselves. In respect of the flats in the Shallcross area I can say that we went on tender. The Housing Development Board was not happy with the prices and the chairman of the Housing Development Board visited the Shallcross flats himself. I can give the hon member for Cavendish the assurance that we will definitely go out to tender again in June.

The hon member for Southern Natal must be thanked for his positive contribution and his congratulations as regards making it known in public that he has an excellent relationship with our administration. That hon member also pointed out that there was a delay in the transfer of properties to individuals in Marburg. I want to say that Marburg is one of our important points and the fault of yesteryear was that we were concentrating too much on a central point. We were not looking at small areas where we could easily build 50 or 60 homes. As a result of the non-provision of homes in the smaller satellite areas around the towns people had the tendency to migrate towards the towns from 15 km or 20 km away where they could have built their own homes. The result was that they were choking the development and were adding to the pressure on the urban areas. I can say to the hon member for Southern Natal that the procedure is that the township first has to be registered before any transfer of properties to individuals can be processed. However, we had discussions with the Marburg Town Board and with the hon member for Southern Natal. Something positive will take place arising out of these discussions.

I now come to the hon member for Camperdown, who wanted to know what the latest position in regard to the development of Cool Air was. The Development and Services Board is presently redesigning the area so that they can get more erven. Our department was not satisfied with the number of erven as planned by the Development and Services Board. As far as Ixopo is concerned I have written to the hon member for Southern Natal prior to last Friday’s debate.

I would like to deal with the hon member for Stanger who expressed concern that the application by the Stanger Municipality for the development of portions of Lots 14,15 and 16 had still not been finalised. The total area of those lots is approximately 237 hectares. The municipality wants to erect 100 detached and 290 semidetached houses in Phase 1, which would occupy 97 hectares. Discussions were held with the officials of the municipality on 23 May 1988 to clear up certain points.

The application for a loan of R15 458 426 for the acquisition of the land and development is to be considered by the Housing Development Board on 8 June 1988. If it is practically and humanly possible, I will let the hon member for Stanger know, before his departure from South Africa on a very important mission, whether there are faults with the application.

The hon member for Springfield made reference to the Odeon Cinema complex. The matter is sub judice and I do not want to deal with it. I want to say that acquiring land and properties is a sensitive issue. In my capacity as the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, when I first met the former Director-General, I decided on the policy that whatever the political arm decides, the administrative arm must ensure that all procedures are followed. The present Director-General is aware of the procedure. Even if an hon Minister’s department decides on any acquisition, the Director-General and the senior officials of the Administration must ensure that proper procedures, especially procedures regarding the Treasury, are followed. In fact, recently when we were dealing with the alienation of a particular site, our Director-General, in consultation with me, even went to the Auditor-General to get his advice on the matter.

Because of the shortage of time, I will respond personally to those hon members whose contributions to the debate—a debate which was one of the most positive debates on housing we have had in the House of Delegates—I have not had the time to deal with. I am prepared to meet them personally to have further discussions, and I can give them the assurance that notwithstanding events in this House, our work on housing did not suffer. During the recess I have no holiday. I will inspect the areas. I owe a long-overdue inspection to the hon member for North Western Cape. We will visit Kimberley. I have not been to East London and we will go there, as well as to other areas.

Regarding the areas where we experienced the major problems, we are looking at land around Pretoria, and in the Mid Rand area we have also identified land. Our planners are identifying land. I want to say that our major obstacles in respect of the identification of land appear to be over. The hon the Minister of the Budget has to help me with the subsidy we have to obtain. Without subsidisation, we will never be able to develop housing schemes at affordable prices. Regarding ‘Project 25 000’ I think we can safely say this afternoon that it will not only be 25 000; it will be ‘Project 25 000’ multiplied by two.

I want to place on record my appreciation to all my colleagues on the Ministers’ Council, the Director-General, the Chief Director and all the officials of our Administration, and lastly to the chairman and members of the Housing Development Board. We are hearing many rumours about the Housing Development Board. I had discussions with the chairman the other day and we had a good laugh. The office of the chairman is always open.

Once again I want to thank hon members for a positive and constructive debate. We are one family. Let us build a better South Africa.

Debate concluded.

Mr Chairman, at the outset I should like to avail myself of this opportunity of expressing my sincere thanks on behalf of the Muslim community of South Africa for the constructive role played by the hon the Deputy Minister, in co-operation with the Deputy Minister of Transport Affairs, in making a special place available for religious purposes at Jan Smuts Airport, as well as with regard to travellers to Mecca and people who come to meet them and say goodbye to them. We appreciate that most sincerely.

With regard to South Africa’s image, I must definitely take into account what the Department of Foreign Affairs does for our country. This is the primary objective of the department, and it is handled very well.

The proposal concerning further talks between the governments of Mozambique and South Africa is a positive step in effecting peace between these two countries. I should like to place on record the good work done by the Director-General in respect of the Angola talks in England. Cuba will now think twice before interfering with South Africa.

The principle of building business relations with Brazzaville is something that should really be appreciated. South Africa has very few neighbouring states that would not want to admit this in public, but approximately 47 African states receive goods from South Africa. They trade with South Africa, but do not want to acknowledge this openly.

†The Republic of South Africa supplies 90% of Botswana’s imports, and even more of Lesotho’s. The BLS countries obtain all their petroleum products from the Republic of South Africa, while Zambia and Zimbabwe rely on the Republic’s transportation network. The value of the Republic of South Africa’s exports to the BLS countries is presently estimated at R2 250 million, compared with the goods valued at just R442 000 which the BLS countries import from countries other than the Republic of South Africa. This just shows how dependent these countries are on South Africa.

If hon members watched television last night, they would have seen how the Zulu nation actually objected to sanctions against South Africa. They say that those people who are in favour of sanctions against South Africa, are obstacles to peace in this country. It is common knowledge that if sanctions against South Africa succeed, it will not only be the people of South Africa who will suffer, but also our neighbouring countries, because they rely heavily on South Africa.

*I want to emphasise once again that the building of friendships between our country and the Middle East is of great importance. I said this last year, but I want to repeat it: We must take the first step. They may not want our friendship, but we must try to build bonds of friendship with them. It is essential that we take the first step. We must send people there who are acceptable to them. We must build up contact with them and open doors so that we can put our case to them.

Many things that happen in this country are incorrectly conveyed to them. They do not know what is going on in our country. We know our problems and we can solve them, but if countries abroad want to force us to do this in their way, we shall never find solutions to our problems. I always compare this with a married couple that has a quarrel. There is no married couple anywhere in the world that never quarrels. Quarrels between couples usually last only until dinner time, because then they have to sit at the same table. However, if the neighbours interfere in the couple’s business, it will result in a divorce.

South Africa knows how to solve its problems. The outside world does not know our problems. Consequently I think it is essential that we tell the outside world what our problems are. We must also show them that we can solve these problems ourselves. Our friendship with the Middle East is essential. If we do not take the first step, they will not do so. We must take the first positive step. I should like the hon the Minister and the hon the Deputy Minister to pay attention to this. They must ensure that we make a start in this respect. It would be a good thing for our country, and it would also be of great value to other countries with whom we co-operate.

The left-wing radicals’ greatest fear is that the world will believe that beneficial changes are taking place in the Republic of South Africa, because if that appears to be the case, these radicals will be deprived of their agenda and their platform. Hence the well-known strategy of the far left that the Government is not doing anything to move away from apartheid. They believe the Government is doing too little.

We know very well that South Africa is trying to do away with apartheid, but our enemies would like to show the world that we are not doing anything. We know that we ourselves must try to solve our problems. I say again that it is our duty to ensure that we put our case to the outside world. Far-reaching reforms are taking place in South Africa, but the world does not want to believe us. That is because of the negative and one-sided image which is being conveyed by the media worldwide. I want to say, however, that people are beginning to recognise the truth, and I am referring not only to people in our own country, but to people worldwide.

The Blacks in our country are beginning to realise that the radicals are causing trouble in our country. If we have sanctions, the Blacks and their families are going to suffer. I think this is the right time to show the outside world that our people want peace and want to co-operate with one another. We know that we cannot solve our problems by means of confrontation. We can only do so in a peaceful way around the negotiating table. We are bringing Blacks into the Government machinery so that they can participate in the legislative process.

I do not have much time left. I understand I have only two minutes left, but in this short time I want to say once again that we would like to build bridges, and not destroy them. We want to build bonds of friendship.

We are fortunate to have both the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the hon the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs with us this afternoon. The hon the Minister is very busy, and we seldom see him. We are grateful that he is here today. I want to tell them this afternoon that we must take positive steps to make contact with the outside world to the advantage of our country and its people.

Mr Chairman, one of the many functions of the Department of Foreign Affairs is to convince the whole world that South Africa is serious and genuine about its reform. It seems that the hon the Minister and the hon the Deputy Minister have come here today to defend their Vote.

Whilst other countries normally use their foreign affairs department for certain matters only, our department is pressurised to present constitutional, political, economic, educational and social reform—in other words, reform in totality. We recognise that heavy pressure is placed on this department. This department has to sell—if I am allowed to use the word—the policies of our present Government to the outside world. We know that the hon the Minister in his anger sometimes has to tell certain sanctimonious political hypocrites and mavericks, both local and international, through his ambassador to go and do their damnedest. We realise that righteous anger is sometimes necessary to tell certain people to go and do their damnedest or, to use the ordinary words, to go to hell.

One sometimes reaches a stage where one says “so far, and no further”. Some people live in glass houses and always throw stones at others. They do not realise that they have beams in their own eyes while they are looking for motes in other people’s eyes. I want to draw the attention of the hon the Minister concerned to the fact that he must take this in the spirit in which I am telling him this today.

Our department is also heavily involved in bringing out visitors from other countries to see for themselves the development that is taking place in our country with regard to the reform process that has started here. Admittedly, all is not going well and we must be honest about this. Amongst other tours on which our visitors are taken they are also taken through the various townships and some of us assembled here in Parliament meet these visitors. We have discussions with them they have discussions with us and some of these discussions take place with conservatives, with left-wing and right-wing elements and all types of people. What I am trying to get across to the hon the Minister is that most of the visitors whom I meet usually ask questions about the depressed conditions in these townships.

The hon the Minister might say that this is not his portfolio but, as I have said, the hon the Minister must defend the policies of his Government and our problems overseas. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning does not go to the UN; it is the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs who has to defend South Africa at large and in totality right throughout the whole world. I think the hon the Minister is the most widely travelled Cabinet Minister because he jets all over—not for fun—and that is why he loses his cool and tells the world to go to hell.

Inasmuch as we are trying our best, or to use the words of our ambassador, we are doing our damnedest to get things going in this country, I appeal to the hon the Minister to do his damnedest to get things right in the townships. This is what is worrying the foreign visitors, these visitors who are concerned about our country and still have a positive interest in our country. Many of these visitors who visit our country and are concerned for the well-being of our country feel that when they have to talk about our country overseas, particularly to those elements that talk about disinvestment and sanctions against our country, the question of the depressing conditions in the townships comes up and when they have to answer that there are depressing conditions in the townships it is like putting a pin into a big balloon.

We are doing a lot of good work and I know the hon the Minister will reply that the RSCs are being established to fund the depressed areas. However, time is a factor. The whole world is trying to confront us with a sea of rage. The hon the Minister should influence his colleagues in the Cabinet and he should influence the local authorities so that they realise that this lifestyle and the imbalances must change in order for the people in the townships to be happy with the improvements that are taking place. We will then no longer have situations such as Crossroads or the KTC camp. By this I do not mean that nothing is taking place; something is taking place. We recognise that something is taking place but the pace is too slow. I therefore make the appeal that whilst a lot is being done it must take place at greater speed, so that the lifestyle of the communities in the townships is uplifted and the depressed areas upgraded as soon as possible. There should be an acceleration of this process and, in view of the fact that this is the jet age, a kind of jet propulsion must take place and these slum areas must be eradicated. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I think we can all enter this debate on foreign affairs with a measure of cautious optimism. I think the developments of the past two months indicate that a sincere effort is being made by the South African Government to seek reconciliation in Southern Africa, and I should like to take this opportunity to compliment the hon the Minister, his Deputy, and all his officials and advisers who have been involved.

The early meetings in London, soon to be followed by the meeting in Brazzaville, and the expressions of optimism and the candour with which those discussions took place, as well as the impact they made on the hosts who were responsible for holding this meeting in their country, are all indicators of the fact that accusing fingers cannot be pointed at South Africa in regard to our stand insofar as peace in the Southern African region is concerned. I think the whole world can see that we are seeking peace. We have demonstrated that we are hell-bent on arriving at peaceful solutions and the world can see for themselves the demonstration that has taken place in this regard.

I also want to welcome the civilised stand that was taken by Mauritius at the OAU meeting. There is no better way of telling some people how one feels about things than by demonstrating it in the way Mauritius did, and I hope that that Mauritian spirit will permeate the larger African society and that they will start to think instead of being led by their noses and embarrassing themselves in all the councils of the world with the double standards many of their colleagues maintain. If one is so principled, one must stand by one’s principles. However, one cannot have a set of principles which one pulls out of one’s pocket and presents on different occasions to reply to different questions.

I want to pay particular attention to the ongoing meetings that are taking place between the South African Government and the Government of Mozambique. I believe we had a wonderful relationship with that country in the post-independence era, to the mutual benefit of the communities of both countries. We had agreements which ensured that their ports would be active and I believe that the South African Government is committed to restoring all those agreements provided we can have mutually acceptable agreements and understanding. It is my sincere hope and prayer that the signals that have been forthcoming will not merely end there, but will represent merely the beginning of a new era for the well-being of both countries.

I believe that so much can be done. We can help them with our technology and our expertise because they are so near to us. South Africa is the natural business partner and Mozambique should look to and cement relations with this country, having regard to the fact that their political philosophy may be different from ours. That does not mean, however, that we cannot work and prosper together. That is the challenge which both of the nations face and I believe that we have taken the first steps in that direction. Sometimes it takes many years for people to find out who their real friends are but I hope that when they do find out, there will be a lasting and a permanent relationship, notwithstanding differences in political philosophy.

I also want to say that we need to expand trade with Southern Africa, even if it is clandestine. If people do not want to be listed or identified, that does not matter, but as long as they wish to trade with us we must trade with them and business must expand. I believe that business relationships will create the pathway for the course we have to adopt in finding one another. If in that process we have to help, as we have tried to do in some other countries, and even if this has political repercussions, we must not be deterred because ultimately the truth will prevail.

I think the truth is dawning on the major part of Africa, and that the reality is that politics are a thing of the past. We need to get down, roll up our sleeves and work hard to prosper and to feed our people. In that process we shall be aligning ourselves with anybody who is prepared to cooperate with us, irrespective of their political affiliations. I get that message. I believe that that curtain is beginning to open, and the truth will ultimately prevail. We need to take advantage of that. I want to commend the hon the Minister for the way in which he has been trying to keep his doors open and to extend the hand of friendship to potential friends.

We also have to live with the immediate problem that is manifested in Angola, namely the presence of Cuban troops which have moved very close to the South West African border. Reports indicate that the situation could be grave. However, I am very pleased—I want to commend the hon the Minister and the hon the Minister of Defence on this—about the calm that is prevailing in our country, because we do not want to do anything which may put back the process of negotiation. I am certain that the intentions of the USSR and the United States, following upon their recent meeting in Moscow, coupled with the good intentions on Mrs Thatcher’s part, will have a sobering effect on all those people who want to cause mischief. I also hope that in the next few weeks we may see some signs heralding the dawn of a new era whereby the issues can be resolved to the satisfaction of all the parties concerned.

With these words I want to come back to one issue, namely the matter of sanctions, a matter involving the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs. I believe that there are those people who understand South Africa, its problems and its challenges, and who have sympathy for the efforts that are being made. They may not agree with all the things that are being done or the manner in which we do them, but they certainly accept the realities of the situation. They acknowledge the changes that have been made; maybe we are not going fast enough.

On the other hand we have those people who just do not want to see, and to them we can do nothing. Some people do not want to see; they will not see anything positive and there are none so blind as those that will not see. One meets them all over the world; a more ignorant bunch of people one will not find. One encounters them in the United States—people who should study geography just to find out where Cape Town is, where Durban is and, for that matter, where Casablanca is. Such people do not know the difference between these places and yet they are the people who are pronouncing on history. They are the people who are judging, and yet they are not qualified to judge because they are ignorant of the truth. This has been my experience.

On the other hand, in many other countries we have people who show understanding; who disagree with what is wrong in this country and would like us to make changes but who are prepared to show understanding. We cannot afford to lose these friends, and therefore my plea is simply this: Despite all the challenges we face on so many fronts, we have a duty to address the main issues that confront our country. That involves getting together around the table people from all walks of life across the barriers of colour so that we can sit down and peacefully work out a solution to the constitutional impasse that our nation faces. Unless and until we can arrive at that solution, all the other issues take second place and in fact become a means that people use to hurt all the people in South Africa, including those they claim they are helping.

Mr Chairman, I believe I speak not only on behalf of the PFP in this House, but certainly for all feminists in Parliament, when I take this opportunity of commending the hon the Minister on his recent appointment of the two ladies in their postings to foreign countries. I believe it was last year that the hon the Deputy Minister assured me that the department was in fact colourblind in regard to appointments in the service. I am very pleased that he is now also giving us evidence that sex does not play a part in appointments. I can testify to the fact that both of these ladies are certainly very capable and very able and I am absolutely sure that their appointments were made on merit as well.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition made the point that he would like to commend the hon the Minister and his department for the initiative they have taken in trying to boost not only the flagging Nkomati Accord, thereby trying to bring about a peace summit between Pres Chissano and our hon State President, but also for trying to bring about peace for an unhappy Angola and independence for an uncertain South West Africa. I would like to say to the hon the Minister that this is what diplomacy is all about. After all, the functions of the hon the Minister’s department, I believe, are to persuade people and to change their thinking, certainly as far as this country is concerned.

If one looks at this against the background of the hon the Minister’s “do your damnedest” speech, I believe that speech sticks in the gullet. It does not do the hon the Minister any credit and more than that I believe it is counter-productive to the interests of all South Africans. I want to say this as a loyal South African, because we naturally understand the frustrations which the hon the Minister has to endure—particularly at a time when economic sanctions are looming on the horizon. However, I would like to say to the hon the Minister this afternoon that saying that to the rest of the world does not go to the heart of the problem.

The problem is apartheid and this is why we are regarded as the polecats of the world. The world needs to know that this so-called outmoded concept cannot be tinkered with and cannot be improved, but most certainly it needs to be buried. I believe it was the hon the Minister who made that point several years ago and it behoves the hon the Minister now to persuade his colleagues in the Cabinet in fact to bury this outmoded policy of apartheid.

I would also like to offer the hon the Minister, who is here with us this afternoon, something which Sir Robert Menzies had to say on the art of diplomacy. That hon gentleman contended that the art of diplomacy was how to give your antagonist a ladder that he may climb down. I believe that is exactly what the alliance in this House was trying to offer the hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council the other day. Of course this failed.

I would like to deal with an issue that concerns me, namely the amount of money that the department has budgeted for maintenance and support of our so-called independent TBVC states. All hon members know that last year more than R1,93 billion in aid and a further amount of R612 million in guarantees for overdraft facilities were granted to the TBVC states. This was an increase of about R620 million over the previous year. These staggering statistics show the extent to which these TBVC states are dependent on the generosity not only of this Government, but also of the taxpayer of this country. What I find particularly disturbing is the fact that these massive credit guarantees have been extended by the department. This alone indicates the state of near bankruptcy of these former homelands’ economies. It is obvious that without the security given by the South African Government these states are unable to raise substantial loans of their own.

During a parliamentary visit organised last year by the department to the Transkei and the Ciskei we found that despite the considerable development that was taking place there, the economic viability in those states was far from being achieved. If one looks at this development against the background of the February coup in Bophuthatswana, another perspective emerges.

This is the perspective that, as I believe, this country’s crushing of the coup in Bophuthatswana highlighted the foolhardiness of the policy of attempting to set up tribal homelands as sovereign states. Thus, for example, until independence in 1977, Bophuthatswana was a collection of Tswana homelands, fragmented areas of desolate countryside totalling some 40 000 square kilometres, which were part and parcel of, and totally dependent on, South Africa. After the extraordinary events of the coup, any hope that the world would ever accept the sovereignty of these mini-states has disappeared into the High-veld bush.

I believe it is clear that the homeland policy is a farce, and it is a matter of concern that the ineptitude of government in these states and the allegations of corruption on a vast scale that appears to have taken place in those states, exacerbates the issue further. Bophuthatswana and the Transkei are not the only problem areas. The ongoing violence in the Ciskei, KwaNdebele and Lebowa have created a range of festering political sores on the face of South Africa. They spell out very clearly that the so-called sovereign states are politically, economically, socially and geographically impractical and undesirable.

I believe that it is high time that the Government accepted that a rethink was called for. The Balkanisation process must be replaced by a policy designed to develop greater unity and a more effective geographic integration on the basis of a federation or even a true confederation, and not the federation about which the hon the State President keeps talking. Should this happen, the hon the Minister can then truly devote his attention and his energies to foreign affairs as the world understands it.

Before I resume my seat, I would also like to take this opportunity of asking the hon the Minister a question in regard to the licence of the Islamic bank he spoke about when he was last in this House. I would like to ask him exactly how far that application has proceeded, particularly in the light of the fact that I understand that there were two applicants for such a licence and in the light of the fact that members of one of the applicants are in fact totally against any kind of engagement with the policies of this Government.

Mr Chairman, it is indeed a pleasure to see the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs with us this afternoon. He is a man we rarely see because of his high profile. One does not even see him in the precincts of Parliament. Whenever one looks for him, he is out of the country, doing good work and changing the image of South Africa.

I want to touch on a few points which are topical today. One is the significant change in the deployment of Cuban troops in the military region of Angola which is taking place at the moment. We know from reports that there are two Cuban units, mechanised regiments and an anti-aircraft brigade at the port of Namibia. We know that they are at the base of this region. The latest confirmed intelligence reports indicate a substantial modification of the situation. I hope the hon the Minister, who is involved with the present talks regarding Angola, will give us the latest position as far as the Cuban situation in Angola is concerned, since it is worrying South Africa today.

An equally disturbing new dimension has been the formation of three new integral Swapo-Cuban battalions. Each of these battalions are comprised of about 200 Cuban troops and 250 Swapo terrorists and based about 60 kilometres from the South West Africa-Namibia border. That is very frightening.

The other aspect which is also topical is the present talks in the USA regarding sanctions. If this new policy regarding sanctions against South Africa is carried out, it will be alarming for South Africa. For more than seven years, Dr Chester Crocker, the USA Assistant Secretary of State for Africa, has executed the Reagan administration’s policy towards South Africa and its neighbours in the subcontinent.

We know that the relationship between South Africa and the United States improved dramatically after President Carter’s departure from the White House. It remained in good shape well into President Reagan’s second term of office. Since late 1984 Americans have been witnessing every night the spectacle of Black South Africans’ revolt and White South Africans’ harsh response.

Then came the Rubicon speech in which the hon the State President crushed Western hopes that he would introduce far-reaching political reform. Soon after that the state of emergency was declared. In mid-1986, during the midterm of the United States congress elections, the Senate passed into the hands of the Democrats, giving them control over both houses of congress. Sanction support, which Dr Crocker could not have foreseen, became a reality and disinvestment was given a dramatic shot in the arm by Chase Manhattan’s refusal to roll over its loans to South Africa.

Why did they do that?

Relationships between the two countries appear extremely poor, so much so that some notions are being punted in South Africa’s diplomatic circles about a regional deal with the Soviets. In the meanwhile Dr Crocker presides over a policy which many claim has failed. I am not going to go into too much detail. The hon member for Reservoir Hills asked a question that I do not think is relevant to what I am saying.

The hon member does not know the answer!

I am talking about sanctions. The reason why sanctions against South Africa are proposed, is because of the internal policies of the Government. I think that answers the hon member’s question.

The voice of the ordinary Black South African is rarely heard in the anti-apartheid movement. The wording of questions can be tricky, but a careful evaluation of a number of surveys shows that Black opinion is frequently misrepresented. We have all heard that Black South Africans support sanctions. A good start would be to shatter this myth. As it turns out, most Blacks oppose trade boycotts and the pull-out of foreign companies from South Africa. Despite what some of the widely quoted leaders proclaim, the average Black appears to be unwilling to support policies that could threaten the economy and leave people without work.

Here I can quote Professor Lawrence Schlemmer of the University of the Witwatersrand, Centre for Political Studies. He carried out a survey among 451 Black manufacturers in the Johannesburg and Pretoria area, as well as the Port Elizabeth area where multi-national companies have built their factories. The most unionised workers are concentrated in these areas. One question that was asked reads as follows: “There are groups of people in America and England who try to encourage banks and organisations not to invest money in South Africa, but to put their money in factories which are in South Africa. Do you think this is a good or bad thing?” A total of 26% said that this was a good thing, and 74% said that disinvestment was a bad thing. When asked why, they said that the policy would lead to fewer jobs, harm Blacks and make the country poorer. Two other questions in the survey showed similar results.

Other hon members spoke about the Nkomati Accord. I want to ask the hon the Minister a question this afternoon: How far are we in our investment in the Cahora Bassa project? We know that the South African Government at that time, together with the Portuguese Government, invested a lot of money. I want to know whether there are any benefits now that there is dialogue again between the Chissano Government and the South African Government. I hope the hon the Minister will improve these relations with our neighbouring states.

The image-building of South Africa overseas is very important. I do not have much time left, but I would like to ask the hon the Minister what positive steps are being taken by the Department of Foreign Affairs in building a new image for South Africa overseas.

Mr Chairman, we heard this afternoon that the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs frequently visited other countries. Suddenly there is a shortage of carrots in our own country and I trust that the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs in his sojourns will buy some carrots. [Interjections.]

Unlike Edith Cavell, I do not believe in “my country, my country, right or wrong, my country”. When we go abroad we are put in a very difficult position by the Government’s policies because once a South African goes abroad, he instinctively wants to defend his country. We find ourselves in a very difficult position. It is not that we defend the policies of the Government but we find it impossible to accept the criticism of our country. The hon the Minister is therefore indirectly assisted by South Africans who go abroad.

However, the hon the Minister is here as a representative of the very Government that makes it so difficult for his officials, his ambassadors and his consuls properly to represent their country abroad. Why does any country have ambassadors and consuls? It is to facilitate trade. That is the primary purpose of having representatives abroad. A secondary purpose that arises from the desire to maintain trade, is to maintain political and military alliances. That is purely the function of diplomats.

The hon member for Rylands spoke of “selling” the country, but regrettably no amount of packaging or all the eau-de-cologne in the world can make a bad product smell good. And if a product smells bad, one cannot sell it. The product that stinks to high heaven is the commodity called “apartheid” which rests on the Group Areas Act, the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act and the racial classification factor within the Population Registration Act. If we remove those things, we will find that the Western democratic world will become the friends of South Africa overnight.

The magnates in the USA are not stupid—they want to make money. South Africa has a population of 30 million. At long last Black people are being paid much better wages than they were before. Money is here for the making in South Africa and the industrialists of Europe, the USA and the East want to make money. Why then do they pull out? They pull out for the same reason that they ought to have pulled out of Nazi Germany in the 1930’s. If the world had taken the kind of attitude vis-á-vis Hitler that the world takes vis-á-vis South Africa today, the holocaust may well have not occurred.

The policies of South Africa affront the dignity of perhaps 1,5 billion people in the world. Actually it is more than that because every person whose skin colour is not White finds his dignity assaulted by the policies of South Africa.

We have the idiotic situation that our own country’s ambassador to the European Community—I mentioned this to the House the other day—can go and live anywhere in Europe but in his own country he can only live in certain demarcated areas. We, having been bom and brought up here, have put up with the indignities caused by the stupidity of our Government, but outsiders do not have to do so. They can declare their abhorrence and the easiest way in which they can make that declaration is the manner in which they are doing it.

The capitalist world does not want to see communism taking over in South Africa. Unfortunately the NP has been the best friend of the communists. Why then, in this period of reform, do we have the united opposition of the world to the policies of South Africa?

We know that the communists never like liberals or peaceful political reform, yet that communist element is being aided by the USA, by West Germany and by France. Why is that so? It is because they dare not be seen giving countenance to the policies of the Government of South Africa. Unfortunately they do not distinguish between the country and the Government which regrettably, by force of arms, controls the country. Unfortunately it was the White people who put this Government into power and it was done by force of arms.

There are countries which isolated themselves, such as Albania and Burma, and look at the poverty and the penury in those countries. In South Africa, because poverty is interrelated with race, the Blacks are by definition the poorest. This poverty cannot be allowed to continue and the Government recognises this. Therefore when we have this sea of rage against us we have to examine why and take remedial measures.

I want to tell the hon the Minister that he was perfectly right when he said that it was possible for South Africa one day to have a Black Prime Minister. I can tell this House that we will have a Black President of this country. It is not a question of whether—we will quite definitely have one—the question is when. The other question is how. If the change comes through violence then we may have a Black President with a red hue. If the change comes peacefully then we will have a Black President who will uphold the values of democracy and might even be able to teach these values to some of the White people in this country.

I want to recognise the sensitivity concerning the issue of Namibia. We disagree with the attitude and conduct of the Government vis-à-vis Namibia, but because negotiations are taking place at the present time we do not want to say anything that may embarrass our negotiators. However, I want to remind the hon the Minister of one thing and that is that Namibia will also be free and independent in the not too distant future. The South African soldiers will have to be brought back home and this country will save the R1 million a day that it is spending—so the hon the State President tells us—in Namibia and Angola.

However, when Namibia is free that independent country will also join forces with the rest of the world in condemning apartheid. If Mr Jonas Savimbi becomes a member of the Angolan Government, as all of us must hope he will, he too will join in condemning this country because of the policy of apartheid. No person who has any self-respect could fail to condemn this country and that makes the task of our officials more difficult. Who makes it more difficult? It is the Government of the country to which the hon the Minister and his hon Deputy Minister belong. They must take this matter up at their Cabinet meetings within their caucus and make their own Government understand that the biggest enemy of South Africa at the present time is really the Government of South Africa because of the wrong policies it pursues.

The hon the Minister said that he would not die for apartheid in a lift. Unfortunately many of our young people are dying because of the policy of apartheid. I do not differentiate between petty apartheid and “groot apartheid” or complete apartheid. Apartheid is racialism and once one has a racist Government it sticks in the gullet as the hon member for Springfield said. It is completely and totally unacceptable.

Why are we still in SWA more than 40 years after the UN passed its resolution requiring South Africa to vacate that country? Rössing is no longer of any particular use. Strategically I doubt whether SWA has any great value. Surely the borders of SWA, with their sand dunes and wastelands, will be easier to oversee by helicopter than would be heavily forested borders.

The Oranjemund Diamond Fields have almost been worked out, and so there is not much benefit being derived at the present time from being a colonialist exploiter, which South Africa has been, of that mandated territory. Why, then, are we still there? Is it just to protect a relatively small handful of Afrikaner farmers who support the National Party? Is that why our young men have to go and lay down their lives? It is not a matter of pride.

Therefore, the sooner the transitional government in that country—and I have said before in this House that I am not particularly enamoured of United Nations Resolution 435 …

Order! The hon member’s foreign time has expired! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister deserves our congratulations for creating a positive image of South Africa overseas in spite of opposition from the anti-forces.

The well-known and respected British philosopher, Michael Oakshott, once wrote: “It is better for a nation to move together than for it to move too quickly or too slowly”. In saying this he was naturally referring to the importance of different and opposing opinions which, taken together, would lead to peace and prosperity. Likewise, the fact of differing opinions among various sectors of the South African community is not opposed. In fact, it is encouraged where these differing opinions are promoted in a spirit of goodwill and where a desire exists to promote peaceful change in the country. In other words, South Africa needs a common ground of goodwill and consensus to establish peaceful change.

Actions of violence and death do not form part of this peaceful change, no matter how one tries to justify them. Violence is destructive and changes nothing.

The general impression exists among outsiders in the world that South Africa is not unified in its desire for change. We need to present a united front to the world that this is not the case, but that South Africans have the will and the desire to establish peaceful and real change in this region.

The foreign onslaught on this country is contained in the calls for economic sanctions and the promotion of violence in order to force and coerce South Africa into achieving what the world sees as an acceptable dispensation in this country. Even some South Africans are calling upon the world to take measures to isolate the Republic of South Africa economically and politically in the hope that this might force change in South Africa. The fact of the matter is that South Africa is changing, not because of international pressure but rather in spite of it.

Let us turn to the first of these two elements. Proponents of sanctions do not know the implications of their actions against the inhabitants of Africa. Sanctions cannot be targeted against one group of people or even be isolated to one country. There is a growing realisation of this fact.

There exist literally dozens of anti-South African organisations around the globe acting, they say, in the interests of this country by promoting sanctions and for whom it has become a livelihood, rather than a matter of persuasion or conviction, to propagate sanctions. At the UN alone there are more than 200 people whose full-time job it is to promote sanctions against South Africa and to further anti-South African sentiments. Anti-South African activities in the United Nations cost an estimated R113 million in 1987. How many mouths could this money not have fed?

I want to express my gratitude to all those South Africans, irrespective of their party affiliation or political philosophy, who have openly opposed sanctions. Many of them are right here in this House and are also in the opposition parties. I salute these hon members for they, despite partypolitical differences, have put the interests of South Africa first and in the end, that is what counts. It cannot be expected that everyone will agree on everything in this country, but common loyalty will be proof positive of the goodwill and desire for peaceful change that exists.

The external bodies that have proposed measures against this country will not in the end be the ones who have to live in this country or even experience the effects of the sanctions they so easily propose. Surely the degree to which foreign countries, and even some South Africans, are truly concerned with promoting peace, stability and prosperity in this country will be reflected in the extent of their investment here and more specifically, their interest in the prosperity of the people of South Africa. Sanctions, as a matter of course, cannot achieve this goal, but if South Africans put the interests of their country first then all conflicting opinions can be accommodated, and it would appear as if they are the most qualified to do so.

On the matter of violence almost every major country in the world has abhorrence for the indiscriminate killings by terrorist organisations, and yet the picture that is created abroad is that the funding and support of this organisation will bring about peace in the Republic of South Africa. Nothing could be further from the truth. Were any of these international terrorist groups to come to power in their respective countries, the chances of them establishing peace and unity are too remote to even consider. After all, it is they who have sown the seeds of destruction, disunity and death, and in the end it is impossible to sow in blood in the hope that one will reap laughter and prosperity.

South Africans have been made to feel as if once they have succumbed to the arbitratory pressures of the international community, which are exerted through various groups in the various countries, all will be well and everyone will prosper. This is an illusion and a myth and an unrealisable goal. The hope that these bodies will rally to support the new dispensation and that it will be acceptable to them, is an idle one, and a gamble that South Africa cannot easily venture. After all, one’s future is not something that should be considered as lightly as the roll of dice in the hope that the dice is loaded in favour of what our critics say will be the outcome. I repeat Oakshott’s quote from the beginning of my speech:

That is our goal, namely that the dynamics of change already existing in this country will increase, and that the South African people will want of their own free will to move together for their own good and to reach a dispensation that they have hammered out, opposing opinions included. All of this will be the recipe for successful change in South Africa. It is the attitude of the participants in this prospect of change that will determine the type of society we will live in. We owe it to our children to move together so that we can live together in harmony and under a dispensation that we have worked out, not because we are forced into it but because the will was there.

Unity, then, is the attitude and we shall have to undertake this evolutionary change. As such it is the key to achieving peace and greater prosperity. If South Africans agree on a system that is acceptable to them, there is no gamble involved, and unity is assured.

Mr Chairman, I just want to refer to the comment by the hon member for Springfield when he said that sex did not play a part. On the contrary, the power of sex in politics is very great, particularly in foreign affairs. If one looks at the power of sex as used by the KGB one will be surprised at the amount of damage that power can do!

Be that as it may, I want to say that my colleague, the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, and the hon the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, as well as the Ministry as a whole, deserve the appreciation of all Parliamentarians for the task that lies ahead of them and the manner in which they go about performing such tasks in the face of hostility from most parts of the world.

We need not, as I said in an earlier debate, close our eyes to the reform process in this country. We must admit that that which was yesterday, was very different to what is today. What is about to come tomorrow, will be very different to what is today. That will certainly require our input as negotiating politicians to see what we require in the best interests of South Africa. Here we have a tremendous responsibility.

Of course it is to the credit of our hon Minister of Foreign Affairs that there are ongoing discussions on Angola, Mozambique and the other regions in Southern Africa. What will come of this is friendly relations and dialogue composite to the issue of what is best for the South African situation. Therefore we in South Africa must deem ourselves blessed indeed that we can go to bed at night—most of us, almost all the population groups—sleeping in peace whilst on the borders of South Africa our Defence Force is performing a magnificent task to see to it that we have peace. However, we must not be forgetful of the fact that all is not well in South Africa. My colleague the hon the Minister is the first one to admit this. He realises, as we realise, that all is not well in South Africa. However, that does not fill us with pessimism. We should be positive in our approach as to how we can arrest the situation and assist.

I would like to refer very briefly to the forthcoming American elections. The Americans are partly fighting their election issues by using South Africa. This is simply because of misconceptions among the electorate in the USA. This is similar to what happened with our by-elections in Schweizer-Reneke and Randfontein, where the elections were fought on the Durban beach issue. That was a major issue by opposition standards in relation to those by-elections. This is how it goes.

I would like to state that we as South Africans have a task similar to that of the hon the Minister when we go overseas, to project the correct situation in South Africa. We need not hide the facts where we ourselves find that things are not as they should be. We should speak about that, but we should also speak of the positive side. Here I would like to appeal to my colleague the hon the Minister, as I did last year, that the projection of our accomplishments in this country and the propagation of what we are doing is very much lacking. This came out very clearly when Ted Koppel conducted an interview with the hon the Minister and Bishop Desmond Tutu. I would like to make the point here that sanctions, boycotts and disinvestment … [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is very pleasing to note that the Department of Foreign Affairs is flexing its muscles, if I may say so, in the interests of finding a peaceful solution to the Angola-Cuba problem. We are of Africa and Africa is where the solutions to South Africa’s many problems are to be found. It is for this reason, if no other, that I believe that we, as a House, should recognise, and give credit to, this hon Minister for having taken the initiative in taking up the cudgels to find the solution by bringing together the party that hitherto were believed not prepared to come to the negotiating table, ie the Cubans.

The hon member for Rylands spoke about the much-travelled hon Minister, but he forgot to mention the much-travelled shoes that fetched R20 000 at a charity auction very recently. If the shoes of this hon Minister could fetch R20 000, hon members can imagine what he would fetch!

I would like to refer to a matter which I raised once before during a debate in this House. I sometimes wonder, when ministerial decisions are taken—decisions which affect the daily lives of the people of South Africa—whether the different hon Ministers are consulted and whether they have discussions regarding legislation which is proposed. Here I refer specifically to the question of land matters which affect the people of South Africa. In this case I have to talk as a member of this House and of the Indian community. It is no secret—everybody knows this—that in South Africa we have large tracts of land which remain unused, but immediately they are asked for by the Indian community to house its many homeless peoples, objections are raised that the land is required to house the White community.

Here I would like to point out two cases in particular. This we have to answer for. It is the Department of Foreign Affairs which brings foreign guests here. Let us not kid ourselves. These people who come from abroad are very well informed about South Africa. We cannot paint glowing pictures of South Africa when we talk to them. [Time expired]

Mr Chairman, I want to place on record our appreciation for the excellent work done in the field of foreign relations by the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the hon the Deputy Minister. I also want to take this opportunity to extend our best wishes to the Director-General and all the officials of the Department of Foreign Affairs.

Recently we had the opportunity of gaining insight into the findings of the attitude survey conducted by the HSRC. Second to the hon the State President, our hon Minister of Foreign Affairs is regarded as the most popular person, not only amongst the White electorate, but amongst all sections of South Africa’s population. Even in the Indian community, second to the hon the State President, he is regarded more popular than the Transvaal Indian Congress, the Natal Indian Congress and even the United Democratic Front.

As hon members have already stated, we are in a very significant and critical period in the history of the Southern African region. The hon member Mr Seedat quite correctly said that Africa’s problems must be sorted out by Africans themselves. We are part of Africa; we are Africans; we are an important part of the African continent. I think the West, in particular, must realise that South Africa is the only country where it can have a gateway for Western influence in the African continent. The hon the State President indicated that despite what was happening in Angola and the rest of the Southern African region, there was no doubt about the fact that South Africa most certainly did not have any territorial or colonial ambitions in that region.

The world should learn from the mistakes of the past. The world should learn from the lessons in history, but unfortunately the world is full of hypocrisy and double standards. When, for example, Idi Amin gave all the Indians in Uganda short notice to get out, there was no special session of the Security Council of the United Nations. It has been conceded that apartheid does exist in South Africa. Historically this country was at fault, but the hon the State President officially declared that the old colonial system of apartheid was outdated.

Let us look at some significant events. Today the West is using communism as a threat to world peace and stability. What happened immediately after World War II, the Korean War and immediately after the Chinese subcontinent became communist and expelled the nationalists? The world was surprised to find that the United Kingdom was trading with communist China even though communist China was regarded as the pariah of the world.

Throughout the reasonable world, most people with reasonable minds will realise that economic sanctions are designed to hurt the people they are supposed to protect and develop. I am glad that as far as the international debate is concerned, this is beginning to make sense. Of course, there is always the exception. Certain people in the United States of America would not agree with this, but this is mainly because of the presidential election in the USA. They do not think of the welfare of the Black community in this country, and therefore the sanctions issue appears to be alive and well in America.

Let us take World War II as an example. We had a situation where the Americans and the British and the rest of the Western world were dropping arms, ammunition and supplies behind the Russian lines to destroy Germany. Today the same Americans and the rest of the Western world have missiles and all the latest weapons on German soil, aimed at the Russians! Even at that time the world was asked whether they were not slaughtering the wrong pig. Somebody in Germany even remarked that the allied forces would live to regret that day.

Anybody who wants to destroy South Africa or the economic base in South Africa, would be doing tremendous harm to this country. The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs is a very hardworking man. He is always in one or other part of the world. On certain Wednesdays he comes back to Cape Town to join other Cabinet Ministers. Second to the hon the State President, the diary of the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning should be put in the archives. When successes are achieved in African or foreign diplomacy, South Africa will reap tremendous benefits from the excellent work that they are doing.

Let us look at our internal situation. I personally believe that while we are presenting our case on the international diplomatic front, it is equally important internally. Internally we have our own diplomacy. Recently, six or eight months ago, there was a rising concern amongst the silent majority and the moderates in this country. There is no doubt about it. Even the findings of the Human Sciences Research Council survey confirm this. There is a concern over violence and the revolutionary climate amongst the Black masses in this country.

I had the opportunity of meeting the former foreign minister of India, Mr Swaran Singh, when he was here on the EPG mission. There are, of course, people who have the deliberate habit of presenting a slanted picture of South Africa. Certain so-called community leaders took them to Black schools under trees. They were given the false picture that this was the scenario of Black education in South Africa. Sometimes there are people who wear blinkers and they refuse to see the true picture. They see only what they intend to see.

We are also appreciative of the fact that members of the Indian community, through their meetings with foreign visitors and through their visits to other countries, play a role in presenting South Africa’s case. We are appreciative of the fact that members of the Indian community have recently been employed in the Foreign Service. We expressed the wish that more opportunities could be given to members of the Indian community.

It has been conceded that all is not well in South Africa. Even in India all is not well. I read the Illustrated Weekly of India regularly and I found that children are detained in India. I saw pictures of little children who were detained for 8 to 10 years and who were forgotten in the Indian prisons. This is happening under the rule of Rashid Gandhi.

Nobody can deny the fact that South Africa is changing and moving away from apartheid. Even the hon the State President conceded on television the other night that he wished that the reform programme could move faster. The world wanted South Africa to have non-racial sport. When South Africa did have non-racial sport, the world said that we could not have normal sport in an abnormal society. Even if a Black government is installed in South Africa it will not satisfy the world until the time when a government that is the puppet of Russia is installed in this country. This is what happened in Zimbabwe when Ian Smith handed over the reins of his government to a Black government. He was not acceptable until he did that.

Until such times as the ANC, dictated to by the SA Communist Party, has success in this country one can bring about changes to satisfy all the cries of the world, but ultimately it will not be acceptable to the world in the same way that mixed sport was unacceptable to them at a time when they cried for mixed sport.

Mr Chairman, I would like to thank the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council for his very kind words addressed to the Department of Foreign Affairs and especially to the hon the Minister. I agree wholeheartedly with him in his admiration of the energy of this hon Minister who has an extremely full programme but deals with his department in an admirable way. I have been listening with great interest to many very good speeches regarding our department. I would just like to mention a few specific points to which I listened with great interest.

The hon member for Actonville referred to the arrangements regarding the pilgrims to Mecca. I am very pleased that it has been possible to make certain changes to make it easier for these people to go to Mecca. I had further discussions this morning in regard to the possibility of improved transport. I sincerely hope that it will be possible in the near future.

The hon member also made an interesting point regarding sanctions. He asked who suffers the most under sanctions. There can be no doubt whatsoever about the answer and I can only hope that that idea is filtering through, even to the House of Representatives in the USA. It is of no use to apply sanctions.

I have some very interesting figures here of what is happening as far as mineral purchases by the USA are concerned. They are now buying from the USSR and up to a hundred times what they bought in the past. However, it is of absolutely no avail to the people in this country who they really want to help. It is an absolutely useless exercise.

The hon member for Rylands made a very important point, namely that the department must convince the world that it is serious about reform. I find it amazing—and I hope to share this idea with hon members—that the same party that came into power 40 years ago is in fact now applying these changes and is intent on carrying those changes right through. It is my job in the Department of Foreign Affairs to see many foreign visitors and every time one receives someone who visited here five or ten years ago he will tell one that the change and reform he has seen since he was here last is amazing. I am very happy about that proof because there is no better proof than someone who has not been here for five or ten years who now comes to South Africa and sees for himself what changes there are.

That brings me to the very point that the best way that we can prove to the world that things are in fact changing and that we are implementing reform and that we are intent on building a new happy South Africa for all its 30 million people is to bring opinion-formers and leaders to this country who can come and see for themselves. They can come and speak to hon members here—and there are many hon members here in this House who are willing to help us to talk to visitors and to tell them exactly what is going on. I should like to thank hon members for the assistance that they are giving us.

However, perhaps the most important point is that in our job in my department I have to do quite a lot of travelling in Africa. If one sees what is happening in Africa—the destitution, the poverty and hunger in so many African countries where reform has taken place—I say to hon members we can never allow that sort of thing to happen in South Africa. We can never only have one sort of reform. All the countries north of us had political reform, but they never coupled it to economic reform, social reform and educational reform. Unless we can combine all of those things we are not going to succeed with our reform. That sort of reform unfortunately—and I am sure hon members will agree with me and understand that—cannot take place overnight. It will take some time and I think that we have made good progress. I have no doubt that our success leads through Africa and that it is linked to co-operation with Africa.

The hon member for Laudium specifically referred to the Cahora Bassa situation. That I think is a classic example of co-operation and if we can succeed in replacing political rhetoric with a practical case of co-operation we are going to succeed in improving the relations between South Africa and Mozambique, as we are doing right at this point. The best example here is Lesotho. I was in Lesotho last week as a guest of the chairman of the Military Council and the relationship between South Africa and Lesotho at this moment is very good simply as a result of the fact that we are going to build the Lesotho Highland Water Scheme together.

However, to return to the Cahora Bassa scheme I want to say that it is directly influenced by the Nkomati Accord and the discussions that took place at the end of last year between my Minister and Gen Veloso and the Minister in the State President’s Office in Mozambique. As a result a delegation from South Africa consisting of the Departments of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Industry, Mineral and Energy Affairs, Defence and Eskom have been talking to Mozambique. The first talks took place in November in Pretoria and the second talks took place at the dam in Mozambique. The important point is that on 20 and 21 June this year—that is in two weeks’ time—the third round-table discussions on the Cahora Bassa dam will take place in Lisbon. We sincerely hope that we can make further progress on that point.

I have no doubt that if we can get power from Cahora Bassa flowing to Johannesburg and the Apollo power station again it will help us with our power supply in this country. It will help Portugal to pay for that dam. They have R2,5 billion invested in that dam. It will help Mozambique, too, but there are certain conditions. We shall have to have security in regard to the situation. We shall have to have peace in Mozambique. We need the money, of course, but I sincerely hope that we shall be able to obtain the money from the IMF countries. I therefore quote this example of an excellent possibility of replacing political rhetoric with a good practical case of co-operation between this country and one of its neighbouring countries.

One hon member spoke about image-building. That was also the hon member for Laudium, and various other hon members referred to it. Last week—and I am so sorry about this; I do not know whether it was due to a misunderstanding—an invitation was extended to hon members of this House to attend a presentation by our department here in Parliament regarding the efforts by this department in regard to building the image of this country. Many hon members of the other House were present, but unfortunately no hon members of this House attended. As I say, there could have been a misunderstanding, and if necessary we shall try to set up that presentation again in order to afford hon members the opportunity to see exactly what we are doing in this regard.

As regards those who criticise us on this score, although there is no doubt about the fact that there is always room for improvement, I believe that we are doing as good a job as can reasonably be expected in the present climate and under the current circumstances. Unfortunately, there is one big problem, and that is money. It is the same problem many departments have and which most of us probably have. Out of the total budget of this country only 4,4% forms the budget for the Department of Foreign Affairs, and 87% of that budget is due to, and is actually channelled through our department to the TBVC countries.

The hon member for Springfield spoke about the money that is purportedly being wasted. I want to give him the assurance that I believe that that money probably represents the best investment by this country. Can hon members imagine what would have happened if those areas were still backward areas and even more people were streaming to the cities? I believe that that really was money well invested.

The point is that those countries started from a base which was too low. I discussed this with the Standing Committee on Finance, some hon members of which are sitting here, and put it to them that this Government has taken a decision to try to increase the assistance given by this department to the TBVC states by at least 20% to 25% per annum. That is exactly what is happening at this stage.

As I have said, however, approximately 87% of our department’s total budget is given in the form of aid to the TBVC states. Only R350 million is left of a total budget of this country of close on R50 billion, which is only 0,6%. With that 0,6% of the total budget of this country we have to maintain missions overseas, we have to pay our staff, and we have to build our image. I think hon members will agree with me that it is an almost superhuman task to do so with the money available, but we are doing our best and I do not think we are making too bad a job of it.

For instance, more than 10 million copies of regularly issued publications are distributed world-wide. Six hundred thousand further copies of publications containing other information are also distributed, and so one could go on. Videos are being prepared and given to people who leave this country on vacation or after a visit to this country. A well co-ordinated programme exists to ensure that South Africa’s official representatives abroad are at all times equipped with the latest information to enable them to put South Africa’s standpoint immediately and effectively. This includes the daily electronic transmission of important news events and editorial comment as well as ad hoc background news, at an average of more than one transmission per working day, on the burning issues at any particular time.

I have the highest admiration for our people working overseas in our missions who, very often under extremely difficult circumstances, have to carry the flag of this country, tell the world that we are engaged in reform and disseminate the very important news that this country and this Government are intent on building a new and happy South Africa for all 30 million of its people.

Mr Chairman, to begin with I want to thank my colleague the hon the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs for his response here today to some of the important matters raised by hon members, thereby making my task easier.

I can say that in general the standard of debate in this House today is certainly commendable. It is a high standard, with one or two exceptions—and there must always be exceptions. It was like the curate’s egg—good in parts and bad in parts. I shall come to those that were not so commendable.

I believe that the single most important theme that I heard hon members discuss here today concerned the whole issue surrounding the conflict in Angola and the implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 435 as a basis for independence for South West Africa/Namibia. I am grateful to note the degree of unanimity amongst hon members on this issue, a unanimity which I believe is essential for us if we are to stand any chance of resolving complex issues of this nature. I say this because this matter is very complex. On the one hand there are superpower interests and involvement in this matter. There are foreign troops from Cuba in large numbers—our estimate is that there are probably in excess of 45 000 of them at this stage.

I believe that hon members must be aware of how the present government in Luanda came into being with the assistance of the Cuban forces. That enabled them to kick out of Luanda the two other parties to the Alvor Agreement, namely Unita and the FNLA, way back in March 1975. It would be pointless to dwell too long on the past. What we are trying to do is to see whether there is a realistic basis for a solution of this problem which the South African Government believes can be achieved if Cuban forces could be persuaded to withdraw from Angola altogether, or at least in such large numbers as to make it impossible for them to act as a source of intimidation or a threat to the people of Namibia and the region as a whole.

The question of the Cuban presence in Angola is, as far as the South African Government is concerned, not tied exclusively to the implementation of Resolution 435. It is tied and there is linkage, and at last all parties have apparently come to agree that there is this linkage. I remember well how our political opponents in and outside Parliament blamed us, saying: “Why did you introduce a linkage of Cuban troop withdrawal to the implementation of Resolution 435?”

We consistently stood by our point of view that it was sheer nonsense to talk of a fair and free election in Namibia while there were 40-plus thousand Cuban troops immediately north of the border which could undo the result of any election in Namibia or act as a source of intimidation. I am glad that we were eventually vindicated in this point of view, together with the United States Government which, since Pres Reagan came to power, has supported this viewpoint. As a matter of fact they were to a large extent responsible for regaining South Africa’s co-operation to implement Resolution 435 on condition that the Cubans withdrew from Angola.

Quite apart from that, in addition to this important reason for Cuban withdrawal, namely to implement Resolution 435 of the Security Council, South Africa’s security interest in the region as a whole, in our opinion, also entitles this country to demand their withdrawal. We are not stationing any forces hostile to our neighbouring states on our territory. We expect the same behaviour from them—no more, no less. I believe we are entitled to this—after all South Africa is the power-house not only of Africa, but in particular of the Southern Africa region.

However, it is to be regretted and it is causing me a lot of distress to have to say today that the fact that the Angolan Government—obviously under pressure from the Cuban Government—have now reneged on a categorical—I repeat, categorical—approval of Brazzaville as the next venue is now jeopardizing further discussions. I must say that that is a very distressing development. In the meantime we have proposed either Luanda, Cape Town or Pretoria, because if Brazzaville is not good enough for them, I would hope that at least their own capital Luanda would be good enough for them. If it is not, then I say that Cape Town or Pretoria would be good enough as two African venues. [Interjections.] No, this Government does not apologise for its point of view that African problems ought to be resolved on the African continent by African leaders.

Hear, hear! [Interjections.]

I do not expect the PFP to support that, because they always want our country’s problems to be resolved by others. [Interjections.] They would invite the United Nations or anybody they can get from outside the country to come and resolve our problems. [Interjections.] That is their track record. We know it from the past and they cannot escape from it.

We do not mind who kills apartheid, as long as it is killed.

I have not yet had a reply to our latest proposals which we sent through to the Angolan Government and the United States Government over the weekend, proposing instead of Brazzaville either Luanda, Cape Town or Pretoria. We trust that it will be possible for the other parties now to accept one of these venues on our continent. I may add that it must be a slap in the face of President Sassou Nguesso, the President of the Republic of the Congo, because this gentleman offered his capital as a venue. Both the hon the Minister of Defence and myself met there a little while ago with the Angolan Government representatives. We were well received and excellent facilities were made available to us. We were greeted with great courtesy, as was Angola. The MPLA movement, in the days of Portuguese rule, had one of their most important headquarters in Brazzaville and for years enjoyed the hospitality of Congo-Brazzaville.

I again want to point out that we, the Angolan Government representative and myself, agreed on Brazzaville as a venue, and we made it public at the time, that after President Sassou Nguesso offered Brazzaville as a venue, we accepted it. We stated publicly that the next meeting would be there. It is very discouraging if a negotiating partner reneges on such a clear-cut, categorical, almost uncontentious issue such as the venue of a meeting. I must admit today here a feeling of pessimism that any good can come of talks with such a government. It is no good trying to beat about the bush.

During the London talks, our delegation there gained the impression that there was a change in style, in attitude and in approach on the part of the Angolans and the Cubans. We accepted that. However, look what has happened! They reneged on a categorical agreement on an African venue which they ought to have welcomed. Hon members can draw their own conclusions.

Secondly, at the very time when one of the most important items on the agenda is Cuban withdrawal, they increase the Cuban presence, not only in numbers, but by spreading them out over a wider area in the southern part of Angola, approaching the border. I suppose I need not tell hon members in this House that if opposing forces get too close to one another and they are armed, one is looking for trouble. I hope I need not explain this. Therefore this second shadow has now been cast over the prospect of fruitful negotiations. As I said, it is no good beating about the bush.

Even if the meeting still takes place—and I do not know whether it will—it will have to take place in Africa. That is definite. We have had enough of being told that we have to meet in some European capital. It is more expensive, it is not our continent, and the Europeans do not understand the problems of Africa. I get along with my African brothers far better than with White Europeans or White Americans. I want to make that clear to this House today. We, Africans, live in the reality of our environment, which Europeans or Americans do not. America got to know about Black people by bringing them into the United States as slaves. They uprooted them. We met the Black nations of Africa as peoples with their own cultural, economic and social systems, with their own form of government, their own lifestyles, legal systems and so on.

This Government and the National Party have never endeavoured to suppress the cultural, social and legal systems of any community in Southern Africa. As a matter of fact, we have gone out of our way to respect the values of others. We see in the diversity and disparities that we are faced with, a challenge to unite in respect of those matters on which we can be united, because if we stand united we will be strong.

To conclude my remarks on the Brazzaville talks, I regret that the Angolan Government, obviously under pressure from the Cuban Government, has reneged on a clear, categorical agreement. I notice that some of our media reports that South Africa now suddenly ‘insists’ on this or that venue. It is this kind of distortion which harms South Africa.

South Africa did not insist on Brazzaville. Both the Angolan and South African delegations were invited by the President of the Republic of Congo, to hold the next meeting in Brazzaville. I then discussed this with the Angolan representative. We both agreed simultaneously that we would accept this. Now even some of our own newspapers report that we insisted on meeting in Brazzaville. They are portraying us as being obstinate.

What are the facts? The other party reneged on a categorical agreement, but South Africa is blamed. This is an indication of the extent of distortion when anything involving South Africa is reported.

Hon members also referred to Mozambique. Yes, I believe that President Chissano’s recent initiative in sending a special emissary to the hon the State President, was a positive and constructive step. We have followed that up. A meeting took place recently—only last week, in fact—between South African and Mozambican representatives. At that meeting, we made various proposals to the Mozambican government concerning forms of border control and development. I do not want to elaborate on this, but I believe there are projects which we could launch together with the Mozambican Government in the interest of our peoples.

Secondly, the Joint Security Commission created by the Nkomati Accord, which had been shelved for the past two years or more, has now been reactivated. We trust the first meeting of this commission will take place within this month. They will deal with security matters, as well as charges, counter-charges and accusations that both governments have made. The Commission is going to deal with that.

At the same time, we are looking at possible forms of economic co-operation and also cooperation in the labour field. I see the hon the Minister of Manpower is present here. I wish to express my appreciation to him for offering training facilities to Mozambique citizens. My colleague, the hon the Minister of National Health has made an offer of co-operation in medical matters. We are already co-operating in the medical field. We are doing this in our own interest, because a mosquito does not distinguish between different colours or ideologies.

Hear, hear! That is why health should not be an own affair! [Interjections.]

A mosquito is not going to pass by the hon member for Reservoir Hills to come and get at me, for instance! [Interjections.] I wish to give the hon member that assurance. Malaria is spreading. Of course, many diseases are spreading in Africa, and they are spreading to an alarming extent. The health situation in Africa is very disconcerting, as is the situation regarding economic development, food production, maintenance of infrastructure, airfields, airports, clinics, hospitals, schools, railway lines, power supply, the provision of water and so on.

As regards our talks with the Mozambican Government, there are promising indications that we could move ahead. A very complex problem is Cahora Bassa. My colleague, the hon the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, has done excellent work in this respect. Of course, if we can get that power to flow to South Africa, the Portuguese Government, the South African Government and the Mozambique Government will benefit from that. The power which is generated at Cahora Bassa is relatively inexpensive. If the power flows, the Portuguese Government, the Mozambican Government and the South African Government will reap tremendous benefits from this form of shared electric power.

This form of power sharing does not get off the ground because the damage done to the pylons is in the order of $30 million. I trust that some of the European countries would be prepared to make contributions towards the cost of repairing the line. However, it will only be possible if we can resolve the security problem. We are working on this in various ways. It is sensitive at this stage and I do not want to make any further comments.

The hon member for Actonville made a positive speech. He said that we should tell the world about the reform and changes in this country. Yes, we are doing that and hon members of this House are making a valuable contribution in this respect. Hon members know that many foreign guests are received here. As a result of the meetings that visitors have with hon members of this House, they depart from South Africa with a far more positive attitude than the one they had on their arrival in South Africa. Our guest programme is one of our most effective programmes. Why? It is because when a person comes to this country he sees with his own eyes for the first time what is in fact the truth. Visitors who have visited other parts of Africa or the world can then compare the situations.

It is not popular with certain parties in this House and elsewhere to say that we must compare South Africa with the rest of Africa but I insist that we are an African country. Comparison with Africa is not only inevitable but it is the only way in which the correct perspective can be obtained. We are not situated somewhere between the Netherlands and Belgium—we are simply not there. We are here in Africa. When South Africa is judged I insist that we must look at the problems confronting us from the African point of view and within the African context. We must then compare what has happened south of the Limpopo River to what is happening north of that river. Without that comparison, any debate on South African matters is futile, unbalanced and serves no purpose.

The hon member for Rylands said that we must look at reform in its totality. He made a positive contribution for which I want to thank him. He referred to the statement of our ambassador in the United Nations when he invited the members of that council to do their damnedest. Yes, those words were used but not out of the blue as the hon member for Springfield—I think it was he—suggested. The hon member obviously did not read the remarks I recently made in the House of Assembly on this same subject, explaining that there was a specific tactical consideration involved in using that particular phrase.

The hon member for Springfield probably did not read our ambassador’s statement either. I am almost sure that he did not because if he did, he would not have said what he said today. He could not have read it, because in that speech he would have noticed that the South African ambassador first drew the attention of the Security Council of the United Nations to the fact that the Security Council has on numerous occasions been informed of all the measures of reform in South Africa.

Despite the fact that we have undertaken all these reforms and despite the fact that the NP has lost considerable support within the White electorate on account of its reform policies, the Security Council simply continues like a prerecording to condemn anything that is happening in South Africa in the harshest and crudest terms. It is done without taking into account any of the difficulties that had to be overcome. The facts of South Africa are never taken into account.

They blindly condemn. Then he said: Now look, what more must we do? I have tried to explain to you the truth about my country and the truth about the ANC objectives, ie that they demand a one party state, that they intend to nationalise private businesses, prohibit freedom of religion and that they are bent on reducing this country to chaos, tyranny and totalitarian rule.

Against this background our ambassador said: “I invite you to do your utmost or damnedest.” What else could he have said? Which hon member of this House who, after repeated efforts to try to inform the world body about the facts of South Africa, is slapped in the face and kicked in the teeth, will just sit back and say: “Just do it again.” One can lean over backwards, but one must be careful because one can sometimes fall backwards so far that they trample on one. I therefore do not apologise and I am glad that my friend the hon member for Rylands dealt with this matter in an understanding way. Of course, this was not the case with the hon member for Springfield.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition once more—I have learnt to expect it of him—made a constructive contribution and I thank him. I have come to know him as an outstanding patriot of South Africa. He also referred to the Southern Angolan situation as a grave situation. I agree.

With regard to sanctions I share his viewpoint that the less developed peoples of Southern Africa will suffer most as a result of sanctions, a factor to which the American Congress has turned a blind eye. They could not care less. As a matter of fact they outvoted a proposal, which was made in 1986 when they first adopted sanctions legislation against South Africa, making it clear that Black South Africans did not matter at all. It was proposed in the House of Representatives of the USA that the opinions of Black South Africans should be tested through scientifically conducted opinion polls. That proposal was outvoted as if the opinion of Black South Africans did not count. They were not interested.

Some hon members here today referred to the political motivation for dragging the South African situation into the American political debate. Yes, I agree, politicians in the USA believe that they can gain votes in America by robbing Black South Africans of jobs through sanctions.

I nevertheless want to thank the hon member for Springfield for his complimentary remarks concerning the ladies who were appointed in our department. I can assure him that these appointments were made strictly on merit. However, he says our problem is apartheid. He quoted Sir Robert Menzies and attacked the TBVC states. I see the hon member is not here now, but I am sure his hon colleague next to him will convey this to him. I want to caution him and ask him when last he visited Mmabatho, Thohoyandou, Bisho or Umtata? When last did he visit these four capitals? When last did he have discussions with my department or with the governments of these states to hear about their aspirations, their problems and difficulties? When last did he ask about the many positive developments that have taken place there? Why not go to Mmabatho and see the housing projects that have arisen there? Go to Thohoyandou and see how the place is developing and jobs are being created for people. Of course mistakes were made but in which country of Africa are mistakes not made? As a matter of fact, I should like to ask him and the hon member for Reservoir Hills the African models which they want me to follow or the models within the UN membership that they want us to follow in South Africa. It would be very interesting to see their list.

What is wrong with Botswana and Kenya? They are democracies.

The PFP is forever running away from the facts and realities of South Africa. That is what they are doing, but the fact of the matter is we have up to 2 million foreign workers from our neighbouring states here in this country. They cross our borders illegally at the risk of being arrested to come to this racial cauldron which the hon member for Reservoir Hills depicted here today.

I think the hon member must go home this evening and reflect on his negative attitude. [Interjections.] He says it is the Government that is causing all this trouble for us abroad. No, no; it is the type of statements he and his hon colleague delivered here today in this House which make life difficult for my diplomats abroad. [Interjections.]

Are you defending apartheid?

Your negative statements make life difficult abroad. Visitors who come here, irrespective of the colour of their skin, go back with a far more positive attitude than he is displaying. What is more, I am prepared to prove it to him.

Hundreds of thousands of Africans are coming to South Africa. The hon member does not even know how many of them come here to make their purchases, to receive medical treatment, or to spend their holidays or receive training here. They return with a far more positive attitude than this hon member displayed here today.

We still hate apartheid.

It is an irresistible temptation for me today to believe that I have merely heard the echo of the PFP in the other House. [Interjections.] It is the same language, the same style, the same nonsense. [Interjections.] They have become irrelevant in terms of South African politics, and they know it. They are like little dogs that feel they have been chased out. They no longer have a task or a purpose and so they bite and bark whenever they see a shadow move. [Interjections.] However, they are totally irrelevant to South African politics.

Whether the PFP operates within the ranks of this House or any other House, I predict that in not a single society of South Africa will they ever achieve a majority. [Interjections.] They have no hope because they have no policy except that of capitulation and opportunism, knowing full well that they can make no positive contribution towards the national well-being of South Africa. [Interjections.]

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

How much time do I have, Mr Chairman?

We shall give you enough time. [Interjections.]

Very well.

Order! The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, will the hon the Minister concede that his party is now articulating what the PFP articulated 20 years ago?

Then why is the hon member cross with the NP? [Interjections.] He has just contradicted himself in the most remarkable manner! [Interjections.] The NP has always been a dynamic party adapting to changing circumstances. No less a person than the present hon State President said: “Adapt or die”. Who has done more for reform in this country than the hon the State President?

Pieter Dirk Uys! [Interjections.]

Who has done more for reform? Who has risked more? Who has made himself unpopular among certain sections of our population because of what he really′believed? How many times has our hon State President stood up, not in front of foreign audiences but before meetings of his own people in the Transvaal and elsewhere, and faced the realities and replied to questions put to him?

However, have hon members ever heard anything positive about South Africa from the PFP, either here or in the other House? No; one would not, and I know why.

Why do you not listen to them overseas? [Interjections]

I know why. They believe that the South African ship cannot survive or reach its destination, and so they are preparing to jump ship. What they do not know, however, is that the sharks in the sea do not distinguish on ideological grounds either. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Springfield asked me about the licence for the Islamic Bank. I personally worked hard to have this licence approved. I do not apologise for it. Over a number of years I endeavoured to persuade our financial authorities who deal with these matters, in particular the Reserve Bank, to approve such a licence. Why? It was because I knew that under Islamic faith interest is not to be charged in respect of loans or investments. I thought it was only right that this important element in the faith of our Islamic community should be respected.

We appreciate it.

Eventually, when I succeeded in persuading the Reserve Bank to support my point of view and when I thought we could go ahead and establish the Islamic Bank, I found myself in a position in which I often find myself. There is a lack of unity in our Islamic community. I have often appealed to them that we need unity in this country. I have told the Afrikaners that we need unity. In that spirit and against that background, I am also telling my Islamic friends that they also need unity. We all need unity.

At this stage all I can say about the licence is that it is a sensitive matter. I believe that at least one bank will be created and if I can have it my way, perhaps two, in an attempt to resolve the difference of opinion between two applicants. However, I should like to ask hon colleagues and members here to let the matter stand at present; I am dealing with it and am trying to find a solution for the problem. I think it can be resolved.

The hon member for Springfield referred to the TBVC states as if they were generally corrupt, miserable mini-states. I want to urge him not to do so. Does he realise that in the case of Bophuthatswana, that country generates 70% of its own budgetary income? Which African state does the same? I should like to urge him to check his facts before making the wild statements he made today.

Secondly, they are very much aware of what we say about them. They know what is happening in the various Houses of Parliament. I am in constant contact with them and I believe that we should avoid creating the impression with our Black brothers in these states that we, in any of the Houses of Parliament, refer to them in derogatory terms. It is in our interests to do so. Derogatory terms and vituperative remarks bring about greater polarisation in Southern Africa, and we can do without greater polarisation. I would rather urge hon members, particularly the PFP representatives, to look at the positive results that have been achieved in these states.

Are you not overstating the case?

Try and encourage them and try and help us to get more private investment in these countries so that jobs can be created for the people closer to their homes. This is the way to deal with these states. Go and visit them! I urge those hon members to go and visit them and find out for themselves; I shall make the arrangements for those two hon members if they want to go to these states. They can then go and see the heads of states in these countries and members of their governments. They can then repeat their views in their offices.

We did.

I urge them to do that; to go and repeat their views in their presence and then give them a chance to show those hon members what has been achieved.

The hon member for Laudium referred to the Swapo-Cuban situation in Namibia and Angola. He made a constructive contribution again confirming that he is well aware of the main events affecting Southern Africa. I share his sentiments about sanctions. He indicated that Cahora Bassa was an important project. I have dealt with that subject. He emphasised the desirability of positive image-building. I agree that if we can obtain more funds we can improve our image-building activities, but I invite hon members of this House to my department’s next briefing session for parliamentarians. They must please come and acquaint themselves with the activities of the Department of Foreign Affairs in this field.

I have already dealt with some of the remarks of the hon member for Reservoir Hills. I want to say to him today, with respect, that his indignation is not credible because it is selective. He persists with harmful statements, using terms like “the product stinks” …

Apartheid does stink.

No, Mr Chairman, he declines to propagate the positive events. The sincerity of a government that wishes to live in peace with all its neighbours and the sincerity of a government that has withdrawn a large number of laws and regulations which discriminated on the basis of colour, is above any doubt or argument.

Surely there is an abundance of positive achievements in this country. In this country to date more than 600 hospitals with 110 000 beds for patients have been established. We have 45 000 km of hard-top roads and 35 000 km of railway line, half of which is electrified. Eskom has built more than 112 000 km of electric powerlines. We have 20 million km of mainline telephone connections—including microwave connections. Looking at the students and children at school of any population group, we are by far the best off in Africa. Looking at the medical treatment received by all South Africa’s communities, irrespective of the colour of their skin, it is a positive story. It was also positively striking to see Mrs Botha, the wife of our hon the State President, visiting the Siamese twins that were separated—Mpho and Mphonjane—positive to see how the one baby took her hand and to see her praying for them. It was also positive to see the spontaneous reaction of those Black nurses vis-á-vis the wife of our hon State President. That does not stink, Mr Chairman. These instances are a source of pride and encouragement for all of us.

I would like to urge the hon member for Reservoir Hills to perceive that he is not going to gain anything from his negative attitude, apart from the fact that he is distorting the facts. He is selective in his choice of his facts, doing his best to discredit his country. I do not care what the colour of his skin is—for me it is South Africa first. We are trying to put together a new constitutional dispensation in terms of which all communities will share in decisions affecting their interests. All communities will have a say in matters of national interest while community and group interests are protected. [Interjections.] There is no other way this country can be peacefully governed, because of the diversity of our peoples. The hon member knows that. Our problem is those persons who gloss over the truth and who pretend that there is no diversity or ethnicity. Of course it is a lie to say that there is no ethnicity. We are all aware of it, but to create racism out of ethnicity is wrong and we condemn it.

The hon member for Newholme delivered a positive speech …

Mr Chairman, will the hon the Minister take a question?

How much time have I left, Mr Chairman?

Unlimited.

Order! The hon the Minister may proceed.

Then I am prepared to take a question, Mr Chairman.

Mr Chairman, to which ethnic group, would the hon the Minister say, does the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Representatives belong?

Mr Chairman, I only reply to sensible questions.

The hon member for Newholme …

You cannot answer that question. [Interjections.]

… emphasised the necessity of unity and I agree with him. I also agree that we can only have peaceful change if violence is abandoned as a means of achieving political power. I would like to thank him for his contribution. I would also like to thank the hon the Minister of the Budget for his complimentary remarks apropos the manner in which my department and its officials are doing their work.

The hon Mr Seedat also dealt with the Angola-Namibia issue as well as land matters. Yes, it is important. I can give the hon member the assurance, although this does not fall under my department, that my hon colleague dealing with these matters—and here I am a witness—often expresses his serious concern about the availability of land, emphasising that we should make adequate land available. This is a complex issue. Information often trickles through to profiteers that a certain area is earmarked for development. They then quickly jump in and buy the land in order to make huge profits. This can lead to long delays in acquiring land for urban development. But basically I agree wholeheartedly that we must make ample land available for community development and the Government is giving top priority to this issue.

I would like to put on record here today that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has been and continues to be of valuable assistance to me personally and to my department in our foreign relations. He deals with sensitive issues in a dignified manner. I can say here with gratitude that seldom have I received so much support and has South Africa in its external relations received as much support as from the work of this gentleman, who goes out of his way at all times to be of assistance, to handle foreign guests efficiently. His suggestions on how to improve relations with states to which he has more access than I have, have been invaluable. I also want to convey to him my department’s gratitude for the way in which he personally has assisted us in improving South Africa’s image and in handling complex foreign relations questions.

I would like to conclude, if the Chairman would allow me, with a word or two on the new strategy of the UDF and the ANC to win White support by exploiting divisions in the ranks of the Whites. In the publication New Era of November 1987 and also in the publication Work in Progress, this strategy of the radical left is clearly spelled out. They say they want to break the present Government and the ruling mob. They include this House in the structures which they would like to see eliminated or destroyed Their new strategy is based on alleged alliance politics and negotiation politics. They say in these articles that a special effort must be made to gain the support of a section of the White community of South Africa in order to achieve their goals. It is revealing how they phrase it.

I thought I should give the House the advantage of their thinking. They say here, and I quote:

Of course, I believe that they are following the same strategy in blocs other than the White bloc as well. They further say, and I quote:

What is most interesting is the following thought, and I quote:

By this they mean capitalism. I continue:

They remain silent on the fate of the business sector once their communist goals have been achieved. They further say, and I quote:

I continue to quote:

There is the key to their hidden agenda. They will not forsake or abandon their goals. Their goals remain the same. Only the strategy for achieving their goals should be adapted.

What are their goals? Nationalisation, the end to freedom of religion, the demise of newspapers that criticise the government in power, a one-party state and tyrannical communist rule. People, in their language, are only those persons who are members of the Communist Party or the ANC. Transfer of power to the people therefore means transfer of power to the Communist Party and the ANC. After they come into power, there will be no more trade unions in this country. There will be no free Press. A small tyrannical clique will rule this country. This is what transfer of power to the people means.

It is clear from their new strategy that they want to present a very amenable, friendly face, particularly to White businessmen in this country. I suppose they are doing the same in respect of the Indian, Black and Coloured businessmen, to persuade them of the desirability of joining their ranks, by presenting a reasonable face—a face of democracy and sharing. I have enough faith in hon members of this House to know that they will not be misled. I also believe that our other communities will not be misled into believing that we can save ourselves by committing suicide. We will not do so. I want to thank hon members for the contribution that they are making in this House and outside towards our national life. They are helping to make South Africa stronger in extending democracy, and in putting South Africa’s interest before their own individual interests.

Debate concluded.

Order! Before we proceed to the next item on the Order Paper, I wish to advise hon members that with regard to the notice given by the hon member for Camperdown earlier this afternoon, I have had consultations with the hon member, as well as the hon leaders of the parties. I will be in a position to give a ruling tomorrow afternoon. I trust that the House accepts this for the time being. I also wish to advise hon members that with the concurrence of the hon member for Camperdown, the notice will not be published on the Order Paper tomorrow.

Mr Chairman, the Labour Relations Amendment Bill has been the subject of much controversy. In fact, a whole lot of developments have followed upon this piece of legislation.

I would like to suggest to hon members that, in view of pronouncements labour leaders have made—much of which was given wide publicity by the media—the Bill in question should be referred to the standing committee for further examination in order to see whether the objections that were raised, could be met. To engage in any debate on this Bill will not serve any purpose if hon members agree that the Bill ought to be re-examined. The committee will do its utmost in examining the objections and the submissions that have been made. They should be prepared, even at this stage, to go out of their way to seek some measure of understanding and accommodation with the parties involved.

We on this side of the House are of the opinion that the Labour Relations Amendment Bill should be recommitted so that certain provisions can be scrutinised once again. In terms of the Standing Rules that will happen as soon as the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill has been concluded in this House, as certain amendments of the Bill have been placed on the Order Paper of the House of Assembly. As we do not want to delay the recommittal of this Bill unnecessarily, we on this side of the House will not engage in a lengthy debate and I speak for the majority of the hon members of this House.

Mr Chairman, I listened very attentively to what the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition had to say. I must say to him and to this House that quite obviously we will support his intention to have the Bill recommitted to the standing committee that dealt with this Bill. I merely want to make the point that the PFP, who are represented on that standing committee, has in fact put forward various amendments to the Bill and the amendments will be reconsidered by the standing committee. Quite obviously, however, only those amendments will be considered. We will therefore go along with the suggestion made by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition that the entire Bill be recommitted because quite obviously that will serve a greater purpose.

I must say to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition that I am surprised that, having two members on that committee, the suggestions that he may have made regarding this particular Bill were not put to that standing committee. The amendments ought to have been moved in that standing committee.

All the parties agreed. There was no objection from any hon member at that meeting. Not even the PFP disagreed.

No, all I am saying applies to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is that his party never moved any amendment to this Bill.

But we never stopped thinking! At least we think for ourselves!

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition says that he thinks for himself. Well, I doubt that because I believe that the alliance thinks for him.

But the alliance is crumbling! [Interjections.]

No one, certainly not in the PFP, will disagree that the Labour Relations Bill is a highly contentious piece of legislation and evidence of this can be found in the fact that whilst we debate the Bill inside Parliament, the leading trade unions are involved in a call for a workers’ stay-away for three days, beginning today, as a protest against this Bill. Already various applications have been made to several courts for urgent interdicts restraining workers and the unions. I trust that that was not the only reason why the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has now decided to recommit the Bill to the standing committee.

I believe that this is sad because in less than a decade the face of labour relations in South Africa has changed beyond recognition and has been a source of constructive and hopeful change in this country. It can be said that South Africa’s labour relations system has become an integral part of our economy and of our society. In this time, management has found that it can no longer be paternalistic, and the workers have discovered that trade unionism is not simply a question of asking for more.

It has been said that labour relations are a battleground but hopefully the combatants will emerge at the end of the day in a tie with no winners and no losers. Accordingly, the rules that shape the conflicts must allow both sides to engage their strength even-handedly.

It has been suggested in some quarters that unions have become too politicised and that this is not in the best interests of workers or employers. I would like to examine this argument more fully, especially against the background of this Bill.

We are aware that this Bill had its origin in the National Manpower Commission and despite all the good intentions behind it, the mistrust and the misunderstanding with which it has been received, particularly by the Black union movement generally, can be traced in part to the fact that they are not represented on the councils which designed and developed this Bill. The Blacks of this country are not represented on the expert body …

Mr Chairman, may I interrupt the hon member? Is he saying that they are not represented on the National Manpower Commission?

The Blacks themselves are not represented on the councils which formulated the National Manpower Commission.

But the hon member does not dispute the fact that they are represented on the National Manpower Commission per se?

Yes, they do have representation on the National Manpower Commission. What I am saying, is that they are not represented on the councils that fashion the National Manpower Commission.

They are not represented in the Government.

Yes, not in the Government. For this the Government must take its fair share of the blame. If it is the aim of the Government to take politics out of labour relations it will achieve this only by tackling the political demands by workers head on. The fact of the matter is that until this Government devises an acceptable method for millions of hopeless workers to express their political opinions trade unions well remain lightening conductors for politically frustrated people to give vent to these frustrations in whatever form they have available to them.

The Bill before us today is a highly technical piece of legislation with many important implications for both employers and trade unions. Accordingly when the Labour Relations Bill was first published it caused a storm of protest from all quarters affected by labour relations, and quite rightly so too.

I am not a member of the Standing Committee on Manpower, as I indicated, but I am informed that the submissions and evidence submitted to the Standing Committee by employer organisations, trade unions, the legal profession and not least by the Industrial Court itself, have led to substantial improvements to the Bill. We welcome these submissions and improvements. It serves to prove a point that proposals put forward by government can be improved upon and that government is not infallible. Nevertheless, we believe that the main thrust of this legislation remains bad and the dangers created by it, as well as the anomalies in the ill-considered provisions far outweigh the benefits that will result from amending the existing legislation. In short, we believe that the Bill will disrupt, as indeed it has begun to do, the progressive development of labour relations since the Wiehahn Commission.

We believe that it will undermine collective bargaining and will therefore increase, rather than regulate, industrial unrest. No one can deny that increased industrial unrest is the last thing that we need in this country. This applies not only in the labour field, but also in the fractious political climate, for labour power needs no excuse to fill the vacuum created by a White-dominated democracy. For these reasons my colleagues, the hon members for Groote Schuur and Johannesburg North have opposed the Bill in the House of Assembly and we intend to do so in this Chamber.

My hon colleague the member for Groote Schuur has tabled amendments, as I have indicated, which if they were to be accepted by the hon the Minister and the committee would swing the balance in favour of this legislation. We believe that the Bill cannot be supported in its present form by anyone who seeks to promote industrial order and political stability.

In spite of the shortcomings of the present structures and provisions we believe that the process of collective bargaining and conflict resolution through the structures made available under the Act have developed remarkedly well and have largely been acceptable to employers and trade unions alike. We believe that the Bill before us introduces limitations and prescriptive law which will disrupt the progressive development of industrial relations in this country.

My hon colleagues have dealt very ably with clauses that cause us concern in the PFP. In the short time that is available to me this afternoon I intend to deal with only a few of these. Firstly, the existing definition of unfair labour practice, while by no means perfect, is nevertheless wide enough to leave our courts with an unfettered discretion to decide what is and what is not an unfair labour practice in any given situation. What is fair and what is not fair must surely depend on the facts of each particular case. A definition that attempts to describe in watertight fashion each and every act or omission that constitutes an unfair labour practice is not only impossible, but will inevitably lead to inequitable and unjust results.

In the same way that our courts have never attempted a prescriptive definition of reasonable conduct, unfair conduct defies precise definition. The Bill as originally published attempted to do just this. The amendment restores a measure of the court’s discretion, but the definition remains prescriptive and all the most important categories of labour practice or conduct remain precisely defined in restrictive straitjackets.

Furthermore, the termination of employment, which I believe is the most common form of unfair labour practice, has been so restrictively defined, that the court has virtually no discretion at all to decide whether particular circumstances affect the fairness of a dismissal. The hon the Minister’s reason for doing so, I am told, is to create certainty. On the contrary, I believe that it will have the opposite effect. Secondly, the Bill also introduces product boycotts, sympathy strikes and intermittent or grasshopper strikes as unfair labour practices.

What strikes?

Grasshopper strikes. Hon members of this House will know exactly what that means. [Interjections.]

Do they strike?

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Southern Natal is an expert on those matters. [Interjections.]

Their inclusion as unfair labour practices is preferable to visiting criminal sanction upon these actions, as was originally envisaged. The court’s discretion is, however, completely removed with regard to deciding whether or not the use of this kind of bargaining pressure is justified under the particular circumstances.

Finally, clause 26 of the Bill substitutes a new section 79 in the original Act. The proposed new section 79(2) on page 51 is, we believe, in need of serious reconsideration. The first portion of the section up to the word “delict” in line 37 is probably no more than a restatement of the common law. However, from there onwards, where a presumption of delictual liability follows in the words “until the contrary is proved, be deemed to have been acting with due authority on behalf of the trade union …” is, I believe, directly at variance with convention and legal standards and is therefore inequitable. It is highly unacceptable in our law that a person is deemed to be acting on some authority merely because one interferes with a contractual relationship. It is a provision that undermines the acceptability of the amending Bill and it needs to be removed.

In conclusion we would like to say that the Bill is not without some redeeming qualities. In principle, the formation of a special labour court to reconcile conflicting industrial court decisions at regional level and to lend status to the adjudicative process is generally to be welcomed. Once again, the proposals regarding the streamlining of conciliation boards’ applications through the removal of Ministerial discretion, in our view represents a salutary development. Nevertheless, the overall impact of the provisions touched on by my hon colleagues and myself, is retrogressive and ultimately self-defeating.

Mr Chairman, the Labour Relations Amendment Bill, has actually been under review and subject to representations for the past 18 months, and I want the hon members of this House to know that we have gone through this Bill with a very fine-tooth comb.

Are you happy with it?

In reply to the hon member for Stanger, I should just like to say that he wants to run before he can walk.

How?

The hon member asked whether I was happy. I have not even expressed any opinion. I am merely trying to say …

Answer the question. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, we have a very difficult situation where we have to deal with workers, employers and the economy of the country and we have been searching along the lines of amending the old principal Act which, as I have said, necessitated our spending some 18 months on it, with the result that the principal Act had to be amended to incorporate the representations, suggestions, and proposals to make improvements to this Bill in order that any outdated concepts existing in the principal Act should be removed and improved.

We advertised this Bill extensively and many organisations, including the employer section, the employee section, the Secretary for the Treasury, the Secretary of the Commission for Administration, the South African Police, the Department of Justice, the Industrial Court, the National Manpower Commission, employer organisations, trade unions, the legal profession, universities and local authorities, came and gave evidence before this committee. That included the law professionals and everyone else.

They said to us that in view of the shortcomings of what the original, older legislation provided, it was outdated and many things were misunderstood, and that therefore they needed clarity. With their representations, in which they were critical of the old Bill, they also gave us a new version of what should be incorporated in this. Among the things that came out of this was the significant growth in the number of applications for the establishment of conciliation boards from 23 in 1980 to 2 312 in 1987.

The other one concerned the establishment of a labour appeal court and its powers and functions. Judges of the Supreme Court will act as judges of the labour appeal court. Furthermore, there is the matter of the more detailed and comprehensive definition of an unfair labour practice. These are some of the things that the legal team themselves have told us, and they contributed to establishing how the new Bill should come about and what its new face should look like.

Another object is the adjustment and streamlining of procedures concerning the publication of judgments of the Industrial Court. One of those facts is that we then put our heads together with the Law Society and everybody else, as well as the Bar Council, to see how best we could achieve this. Although I agree that this might not be the best—as a labour man and one who is quite closely associated with what goes on at grassroots level, and at the factory floor level—my comment is that to provide legislation that will be fully accepted and supported by all concerned, is difficult, because any legislation does two things. It protects you on one hand, and then it affects you on the other hand. So if it affects you it is no good, but if it protects you, it is good.

In this situation one has the employer and the employee. We must be able to find a middle path whereby we can satisfy these two groups. Between these two is the economy of this country. I agree with the hon member for Springfield—I think he spoke out of some sort of experience in this matter when he spoke about the “grasshopper strike”. What he forgot to tell us about was the sympathy strike. This is also something that can snowball. A manufacturer of bread in Durban can have a problem there, but a retailer of bread in Johannesburg who sells bread over the counter will have a sympathy strike. What is the tie between these two groups who do this?

Therefore, as regards the drafting of this legislation I want to compliment this department and the hon the Minister. [Interjections.] I also wish to say that we have done our utmost to satisfy the needs. This has also been taken up in newspapers. Let us look at one aspect of this. Clauses 9 to 14 of the Labour Relations Amendment Bill—

This is a positive change. If we are not going to allow the employer and the employee to have their ball game then I would say that we have slipped up. However I go along with what the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has said, namely that in the light of the representations that have been put before us, some people have cast new light on the subject and contributed further ideas. I believe that although the other two Houses of Parliament have passed this legislation, we in this House have been caught up in that web. However, I believe that in terms of Rule 150(4), this Bill should now be recommitted to the standing committee so that we can tie up the loose ends and add whatever we can in this regard, so that we can look at this again and make it acceptable to all the people.

We do not want to hurry this Bill through, and therefore we have spent 18 months, if not more, trying to put these things together. We have had the employers, and even Cosatu, making representations, and we are very appreciative of the fact that everybody came forward to give us their grouses and grumbles, and tell us what the shortcomings were and what was not right, so that we could attempt to rectify it.

As a member of the standing committee right from the outset and a spokesman on manpower, I should like to express my appreciation to the standing committee in particular, as well as other members and the department, for the hours that they have spent on this Bill. There was not one thing that we were not satisfied with or that we just pushed through. [Interjections.] I want to say this in all fairness and those people who think that we just pushed this through, I believe, have got it all wrong. We met in Pretoria and here and we met at awkward times in order to look at this legislation. We gave everybody a very fair opportunity to come and give evidence. They came personally as well as sending written representations. After they finished their representations we even afforded them the opportunity to communicate with us if there was any further problem. Therefore I want to be very appreciative of the fact that we have done everything possible.

I would like to make an appeal to this House that we are dealing, as other hon members have said, with a very sensitive issue. This piece of legislation is indeed very technical and difficult. [Interjections.] We are dealing with human beings and workers who, as I have said in the past and I say again, form a very important integral part of South Africa irrespective of their colour or what jobs they do.

I want to appeal that we should take away the tags placed on different kinds of jobs. Sometimes one asks a child what his father is doing and he will gladly answer that his father is an attorney or a doctor. However, if the father happens to be a plumber or a street sweeper the child appears a bit disturbed to admit this. However, let us assume that the plumbing or the toilet gives problems. If that plumber does not appear, what will happen? [Interjections.] His job is just as important as that of an attorney or a doctor or anybody else. [Interjections.] In that situation he is the man for the job. Therefore I believe that we should accord our respect to every type of employee who has a job and does an honest day’s work. [Interjections.] I do not wish to elaborate on this any longer, but I hope that this House will bear with us and give us a little more time so that we will be able to look at this and return with whatever we can.

Mr Chairman, obviously the proposal made by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is entirely four-square with what the PFP wants. Naturally we will support that, because the PFP is the only party in the whole of Parliament which has proposed substantive amendments to this Bill. A recommittal of the Bill to a committee will give an opportunity for the committee in a leisurely, unemotional, sensible and intelligent sort of way to consider those amendments.

Unfortunately, starting today, there is a three-day work stoppage by employees. Two federations of trade unions, clearly with a view to demonstrating their muscle, have called for this stay-away and they have demonstrated that. Coming from Durban this morning there was a fairly well-known industrialist on the plane with us, whose family controls a number of businesses and several factories. He told us that in one factory early this morning out of a work force of 600 only five turned up for work. Therefore they had no alternative but to close down that factory for three days. Therefore both Nactu and Cosatu have demonstrated their power, in the same way as somebody in this House tried to demonstrate a little bit of power by moving a motion upon which the Chairman of the House will give a ruling tomorrow. That was a little bit of muscle flexing. The trade unions have now flexed their muscles demonstrating their strength.

Why did they do this? Trade unions are not all so irresponsible as to want to deprive their supporters of three days’ pay. If a factory employee is earning R100 per week, this week he will only take home R40. His family will be deprived of three days’ wages. Why do they do that? They have done that clearly because of objections to certain provisions in this Bill. However, I would suggest that more importantly it was done as an act of political demonstration, to the nation and to the world at large. Because they are not allowed proper political representation in South Africa, where they can stand and sit and argue over legislation, they have to use the extra-parliamentary method. This is a perfectly reasonable form of extraparliamentary demonstration of their political power.

We hear a great deal of argument to the effect that politics should not intrude in trade unions. That argument is absolute balderdash. Without the Trade Unions Congress, the Labour Party in England would be a damp squib. Without the All-India Trade Union Congress Mr Rajiv Gandhi would not be able to retain his political power. At election time, to whom do the American presidential aspirants try to kowtow? It is the AFL and the CIO, the American Federation of Labour and the Congress of Industrial Organisations. They kowtow to those organisations, because the workers who are affiliated to those organisations will be able to deliver a certain number of votes and, of course, the unions themselves are in a position to make substantial donations. This is political interference.

I am not suggesting that all trade unions should be like the dockworkers used to be in London not so long ago, when it was said that a dockworker in London could strike faster than a black mamba. We do not believe that all the fault lies with this hon Minister. We do not even believe that all the fault lies with the present Government. The fault really came about in, I think, 1923. I believe the person really responsible for that was Gen Smuts. It was then that Blacks—Natives as they were called then—were deliberately excluded from the definition of “employee” in the Industrial Conciliation Act. I am sure that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, who thinks for himself, knows the Industrial Conciliation Act well, as he obviously must have studied the present Bill as well. Certainly the Industrial Conciliation Act is probably one of the best pieces of labour legislation, not only for this part of the world, but for other parts of the world as well. However, by deliberately excluding Blacks from the ambit of the definition of employee, our Black South Africans were dealt a severe blow.

We have to thank a former member of the present Government, Mr Fanie Botha, and Mr Wiehahn and others, for the fact that something sensible was done to bring Black employees within the ambit of the system of collective bargaining so as to obviate unnecessary and ruinous wild-cat strikes and bring them into that system which attempts to bring about conciliation between employer and employee.

Any of us who know anything at all will understand that there will always be tension between capital and labour. It is understandable in a capitalistic system that the employers will try and get away with the maximising of profits. In order to maximise profits, one obviously has to reduce costs and one of the biggest cost factors in any industrial establishment is salaries and wages, so obviously employers will try to keep salaries and wages as low as they can possibly get away with.

Employees, on the other hand, will inevitably try and force their employers into paying as much as they can. In such a situation, the mechanism for conciliation is absolutely essential. The period for cooling off is also absolutely essential, notwithstanding the fact that some hon Ministers say we never give credit. We shall give credit where credit is due. What we do say, however, is this: Because the Black South Africans had no part in the creation of the present Act, and because they have no legislative role whatsoever in the consideration of the present Bill, they are obliged to take industrial action to express their will. The fault for that lies exclusively and entirely with the Government.

One hopes that while the standing committee reconsiders, it will also bear in mind that the standing committee and Parliament regrettably legislate for workers who are the most directly affected, not in consultation with, but in insultation from the workers. That, too, must be remedied.

Mr Chairman, I gain the impression that the general feeling in this House is that the amending Bill should be recommitted to the standing committee. I therefore believe it would serve no useful purpose for me to reply in detail to the arguments that were raised here.

†However, for the sake of the record, I would like to make a few points in order to restore the balance as far as labour relations are concerned. I would also like to react to some of the statements that were made and which were, as far as I am concerned, incorrect and far-fetched. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said that the Bill should be referred back to the standing committee to be reconsidered. If my memory serves me correctly, I think it was the hon member for Springfield who said that Blacks had no opportunity of making inputs into this new amending legislation before the House.

It was not I who said that.

At this point in time it is necessary for me to emphasise certain aspects. The first point I want to make is that the chief advisory body to the hon the Minister of Manpower is the National Manpower Commission. The National Manpower Commission consists of Blacks, Indians, Coloureds and Whites. It is a truly representative body. Recently—and this is a very important point—I reappointed the National Manpower Commission after their three year term had expired. My department wrote letters of invitation to most of these radical trade unions, who are now opposing the Bill, to nominate members to the National Manpower Commission. I did not even receive a reply from them, let alone a nomination! I received nominations from responsible Black trade unions. They are prepared to serve on the National Manpower Commission where they can make real inputs as trade unionists, as well as employers.

Virtually all the amendments emanated from a report by the National Manpower Commission and that National Manpower Commission consisted of all the population groups in our country. This legislation mainly emanates from the recommendations contained in the report.

The National Manpower Commission went further and published their report, asking for comments on the report. Many individuals and organisations commented on it. This report of the National Manpower Commission, as well as the viewpoints of the people who commented on the recommendations, were taken into account when the first draft Amendment Bill was published in the Government Gazette in December 1986 with an invitation to all interested parties to give their comments on the Bill. The department received no less than 150 memorandums and recommendations from interest parties.

What did the department do then? They included most of those representations in a redrafted Bill. They also went further. They invited some of the people who had given their comments to come to Pretoria and to state their point of view clearly where it was not clearly stated in their memorandums. They even went so far as to discuss the merits of the recommendations made by the interested parties.

Afterwards another draft Bill was published for general information and that draft Bill was referred to the standing committee. Again the standing committee invited people to come and give evidence before the committee. If I am correct, this standing committee sat for approximately 71 hours, listening to evidence and discussing it. They also came up with more than 100 amendments to the Bill.

It is publicly known that I invited people who had doubts or fears about this piece of legislation to come and see me personally. My track record is there for everyone to check. In all my life, including my nine years in the Cabinet, I have never refused to see an individual or an organisation who wanted to see me. My policy is one of an open door. [Interjections.]

I also saw trade unions in regard to this Bill. What amazes me today, is that Cosatu and Nactu organised a stay-away protest for three days and they used the Labour Relations Amendment Bill as the main reason for their stay-away. I want to put it on record for the interest of this House that neither Cosatu nor Nactu ever approached me or tried to convey their personal problems about this Bill to me.

In all fairness, they did give evidence to the standing committee—they sent their legal representative there. My door was open all the time. If they were still dissatisfied with the Bill before the standing committee after it was published, they could just have picked up the telephone and arranged for an interview to see me and to explain their problems. If they could have convinced me some of their objections were valid and substantial, I would have considered amending that piece of legislation in Parliament. I may mention that there are amendments in my name right now.

However, what did they do? They should have followed the reasonable way—if it was so important for them to change the Bill, and the amendments, before us—and they should have come to see me. We would have had a civilised discussion based on facts and then they would have stood a very good chance of convincing me, because I am a reasonable man and my whole record shows that. However, what are they doing now? They are organising the ordinary worker of this country to stay away from his job.

Why must the ordinary worker in this country always suffer? He is the victim of boycotts, stay-aways and intimidation. He is the victim of overseas disinvestment and boycotts being propagated by certain gentlemen of the cloth and trade union and other leaders whose income is not dependent on what happens in South Africa; they get their income from outside this country. They are not going to suffer, but the poor worker in this country must suffer. I am sick and tired of the exploitation of the ordinary law-abiding family man and worker in South Africa. They must now be protected against these reckless opportunists who are propagating revolution and hatred and racial prejudices in this country.

The ordinary man—the ordinary law-abiding worker—is only trying to house and feed his family and to get an opportunity for his children. Why must he pay the price for the political ideals of other people who want to disrupt and overthrow the existing order in this country?

Let me say that it was mentioned here that Blacks are not part and parcel of the legislative set-up in this Parliament or in the present Government. That is true. I do not claim that we are a perfect society—not at all—but nobody can question our intentions. We have started with the regional services councils on which Blacks are included. We have included Blacks as members of the executive councils of the provincial administrations. Our hon State President and Government, the Cabinet and the hon leader of this House are on record that we want to broaden the base of democracy in South Africa and that we want to include the Blacks at all levels of decision-making and government in this country.

However, this cannot be done in one day. It must be done in an evolutionary way and in these times when we need men of character, who are not exploiting every little incident for their own selfish political aims, we must really stand together. We must serve the interests of this country and all the peoples of this country. We need time—we do not need hotheads—and we need wise men. That is why I want to say today that I am not going to stand for it any longer that the ordinary worker is intimidated and exploited by radical opportunists who are working for themselves. We must not allow this country of ours to deteriorate and be ruined by power-drunk Marxists and a small elite as they have ruined Mozambique right next-door to us and as they have ruined Angola and the rest of Africa.

While in this House I must say in reply to the hon member for Reservoir Hills that while I think I accept him as my fellow South African of Indian origin, that is not the case in Uganda.

I was not born in Uganda, so why do you use Uganda as an example?

If we let go in this country, South Africa will follow the path of Uganda. I want us to take notice of that.

Talking about Uganda when we live in this country is a very silly argument from you, Mr Minister.

I now want to go further. I have made the point that any trade union can still come and see me. My door is open and I have nothing to hide. However, the point I want to make is that the Labour Relations Legislation in this country, this present legislation as well as the amendments, is—and I can state this categorically—one of the most modern and enlightened pieces of labour legislation in the world. I will prove that. The worker in South Africa—and I can challenge anyone to show me a country where the worker gets more protection in terms of the Labour Relations Act than in South Africa—is better protected against being discharged than is the case in the USA and that is a fact. They do not dispute that because it is true. Show me the countries that have legislation stating categorically that discrimination on the basis of creed, colour or sex is an unfair labour practice.

That is contained in this new amending Bill, and those people who are voting against this Bill—those people who have a great many things to say every day about discrimination—must please remember one thing, namely that they are voting against an amending Bill with a clause which states that discrimination on the basis of creed, race, sex or colour is an unfair labour practice. How many countries in the world have legislation which includes such a clause?

I want to take this further insofar as the definition of an unfair labour practice is concerned. That brings about more legal certainty in this case. I must say that the whole description of the unfair labour practice emanates from recommendations by the National Manpower Commission and rulings of the industrial court.

I am prepared to defend this amending Bill anywhere, against anyone, because it is fair legislation. Virtually every new clause contained in this amending Bill does not apply only to the trade unions. The question of damages and compensation and the question of cost orders do not apply only to the trade unions. They apply equally to the employers.

What is more, the principle of equity, which has been entrenched in our legislation since 1979 and 1980, is upheld and respected, and is even further entrenched in this amending Bill, as I can prove by way of the definition insofar as racial discrimination is concerned. The golden thread running through this amending Bill is that of equity and reasonableness, and I defy anyone to show me in which respects it is discriminatory.

What I find most interesting, however, is that generally speaking, the House of Representatives supports this Bill. In the House of Assembly, the NP supported the Bill. I am not sure what the position will be in this House, but I am now asking myself who is opposing this Bill.

The ANC issued a statement in Lusaka last week, calling for a stay-away and putting forward its strongest objections to this “repressive” amending Bill before the Houses of Parliament. The ANC opposed it. The CP opposed it, and the PFP opposed it.

Nonsense! [Interjections.]

Yes, they opposed it in the House of Assembly. They are on record as having done so. Hon members need only go and read the Hansard record. [Interjections.] If those hon members say it is not true, I say that what they are saying now, is not true.

[Inaudible.]

The hon member for Reservoir Hills cannot come forward with a piece of gossip today, Sir. He may refer to Hansard if he wants proof. He is a chap who is in favour of commissions of enquiry and things like that. [Interjections.] Let us appoint a commission of enquiry to test the integrity of that hon member. [Interjections.] We can have such a commission; I will support it. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is it correct for someone to call an hon member of this House a “chap”?

It is all right. [Interjections.]

*There is no problem.

Order! I think that, in the spirit in which it was said, the hon the Minister may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I will withdraw that, because I sometimes call myself old chap. That is the way in which I meant it. [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon member that cowboys do not cry, especially not in front of their horses. [Interjections.]

I just want to say that the CP, the ANC, the PFP and this business which is breaking up before it got started—the Democratic Movement—all oppose this Bill. Any doubts I had before I came to Parliament about whether I am right or wrong with this Bill were completely wiped away the moment I realised that the radical left and the radical right were against this Bill. I now know that I am quite correct. That is how it works. [Interjections.]

That is a good test.

That is the test. [Interjections.] I would like to say to hon members participating in this debate that I hope they will proceed with their participation in the standing committee. In general I just want to say that the standing committee system is one of the finest systems I have ever seen. I have been in politics for 23 years and I have lived through many committee stages. An opposition member can consider himself very lucky if he gets one amendment accepted by a Minister during a committee stage. This takes place in public and a Minister and his department will not readily agree that they made a mistake or that it could have been done better. However, in this case we had a committee stage for a couple of hours with constructive debate. Now at the standing committee level witnesses are called who have experts to advise them and I believe that we are now making better laws than ever before in this country. We have the viewpoint of the Indian community, the Coloured community and the White community. There is also the benefit that one may call in expert witnesses …

Except the Black community—they are missing.

No, I have said that we will take care of the Blacks. I will give the hon member the attention he deserves. I have now seen him and I have said: Okay, he has made a good point.

Thank you.

Mr Chairman, I just want to say that I believe this is very good legislation and I hope when it returns from the standing committee once again it may be even better.

Debate concluded.

Bill recommitted.