Mr Speaker, when the debate was adjourned yesterday, I was in the process of replying to speeches made by various hon members. The hon member for Barberton mentioned election matters. He asked what we had to do with that. When the functions of local governments are transferred to this Administration we shall have the primary responsibility for arranging that election. The hon member also spoke of the so-called malpractices in regard to housing subsidies. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members must speak more softly so that the Chair can at least hear the hon the Minister. The hon the Minister may proceed.

The so-called malpractices actually involved a misinterpretation of the formula. I just want to tell that hon member that the housing formula is extremely complicated. It is very susceptible to misinterpretation, so much so that the Commission for Administration, in conjunction with building societies, is engaged in designing a simpler, more easily comprehensible formula which would be less susceptible to misinterpretation.

I just want to tell that hon member that as far as this Administration is concerned, since 1 April 1987 there have been no deviations from the provisions laid down. In the past year we have consequently had no problems. What he spoke about involved the ex post facto situation, but we hope that when we introduce a much simpler formula, that will also finally clear up the matter.

†The hon member for Yeoville, as well as the hon members for Caledon and Wynberg, spoke on similar themes. The hon member for Yeoville spoke about Groot Constantia, the report of the Auditor-General and the new board. The hon member for Wynberg also alluded to Groot Constantia, as did the hon member for Caledon and he asked me a question in that regard.

*I merely want to say that since 3 October 19861 have been dealing with this matter. In my former position as Deputy Minister of Finance I held discussions with the erstwhile board and the erstwhile Minister, Mr Sarel Hayward, and his successor, and also with the present hon Minister of Environment Affairs when he was there. In approving an interest-free State loan of R4,7 million for the Groot Constantia estate, we granted some relief. We said at the time that bearing in mind the administrative problems with which the control board was faced, the interest-free loan should only be regarded as a first step in a more comprehensive administrative campaign for placing business arrangements on a sound footing. That was done, and I am very glad to be able to report to the hon members who spoke about this that the following steps have been taken: Firstly a new board has been appointed with a new chairman. Secondly there has been some relief as far as the interest burden is concerned, thus placing less pressure on the management of the farm. Thirdly a satisfactory division of responsibilities has been facilitated, with the historico-cultural elements on the one hand and the agricultural activities on the other. Financial consultants have been appointed to advise the control board about financial control, keeping books …[Interjections] …

Order! The hon the Minister may proceed.

…and financial planning. With a view to promoting the process of rationalisation and also extending the image and exclusive quality of Constantia wines, as a first step it has been decided to reduce the series of 17 wines to 13 and also to sell older wines. As in the case of the Premier estates in Europe, who only begin selling wine when they are older, Groot Constantia has now also decided only to sell red wine after four years.

†I just want to say to the hon member who spoke about this particular matter that privatisation is not my responsibility. The possible privatisation of the estate is being investigated. However, whatever happens the public interest will be looked after. We can ask ourselves what the public interest is. The public interest is access to and the protection of the buildings, the architectural heritage, and then the maintenance of integrity of the agricultural environment in that part of the world. Those are the things which need to be protected. I think there was an English Prime Minister who once said that everybody is in favour of general saving, but particular expenditure. That is true about privatisation. Everybody is generally in favour of privatisation, but when one wants to privatise anything in particular, they are against it.

I want to say it should not prove difficult, but I do not want to express an opinion on the matter. I am sure that my hon colleague will deal properly with the matter. I just want to say that it cannot be that a national asset can only be protected if it is in public ownership. That cannot be so, because if it were, we would be on a nationalisation trail and not on a privatisation trail. We should then go and nationalise Vergelegen and a few other buildings and farms.

The fact is, we should be able to protect the public interest without necessarily controlling the farm.

Mr Speaker, while privatisation is not the hon the Minister’s responsibility, Groot Constantia is. May I ask him specifically whether, if at any stage Groot Constantia or any portion of Groot Constantia is to be privatised, he will ensure that this is done properly according to a public tender type of procedure?

The hon member will have the opportunity to address his question during the debate on the supplementary budget or during the Third Reading Debate to my colleague the hon the Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply who has the primary responsibility for the farm.

The hon member for Yeoville spoke about cattle being stolen. As far as I am aware they were stolen by the private sector.

*The hon member for Kuruman made a very interesting speech. He spoke about the fact that in the rural areas we should make use of local contractors for the maintenance of State property, as is done in the provinces, as agents of the Administration: House of Assembly. I am certain that we shall adopt the same policy being adopted by the provinces at present.

The Department of Finance has also introduced amendments in regard to regional tender boards. These new boards will, on a regional basis, look after the interests of the region they serve, and the own affairs chairmen of the three Houses have made proposals about suitable persons to the hon the Minister of Finance, who constituted the regional tender boards, so that people who were highly regarded by this House and the other Houses, ds far as tenders are concerned, could look after the interests of the region and of the relevant group. That is a positive step forward. The Department of Local Government, Housing and Works’ policy will therefore be the same as it is in the province at present.

†The hon member spoke about the more rational and productive use of our existing assets with regard to buildings such as schools and hospitals. We totally agree with him. We are trying to rationalise hospitals and schools where we can, to reduce expenditure. The hon member is absolutely correct that one of the big challenges facing South Africa is the optimal use of our existing capital base. One thing is certain about the future and that is that our fantastic infrastructure is one of the great national assets we have. We must use that infrastructure incrementally. We must use what we have before we erect new buildings. Yet, it is not always so easy.

*People say, for example that a school which is no longer in use should be changed into a home for the aged. The fact is that it is sometimes impossible to convert a building, and in other cases it could prove very expensive. A school, for example, is frequently a double-storey building, whilst a home for the aged has to be a single-storey building. It is therefore not always possible, but we agree with the hon member, and we shall make it our job to give the necessary attention to that aspect.

The hon member also said that when in alienating State property, we should not necessarily always do so at market value. He said that there could possibly be deserving cases in which we should relinquish some of our assets at less than the market value. Our policy does, in fact, allow us to do so in deserving cases. There are a few bodies which do, in fact, qualify to obtain land in that way at lower prices. Examples of such bodies are provincial administrations, local authorities, semi-State institutions, for example, Armscor, the CSIR, the Tourism Board, universities, churches, cultural organisations, welfare organisations, housing companies, etc.

I thank the hon member for his support and I am glad to be able to tell him that we do adopt the policy he advocated.

†When I was dealing with macro tax matters yesterday, the hon member for Parktown was rather upset that I had said that he had made a wrong statement on whether or not the Margo Commission had accepted that post-graduate travel expenses to conferences should be taxdeductible.

The fact of the matter is that when one reads the Margo Commission’s report, and I have checked it, one will see that Margo contradicted his basic philosophy on tax expending in this particular instance when he said that research and development should be tax-deductible. However, he then prescribed severe constraints as to how permission should be sought and given—it must be certificated in the case of a doctor by his medical association or by one’s engineering association if one is an engineer, and so on.

The fact of the matter is that the Government did not accept the recommendation of the Margo Report regarding that matter, and if the hon member will look at page 55 of the White Paper, he will see that the Government said it would consider the matter only for medical practitioners and only for post-graduate study and that, secondly, it would do so only for overseas travel and that proof would be required—there would be quite a lot of control so that the privilege is not abused. We do not want to go back to where we were before when there was widespread abuse of this kind of privilege. It is therefore restrictive—it only applies to the medical profession and only to overseas visits under constraints which the Commissioner for Inland Revenue is still at the moment devising.

Just to put it on record: If the hon member wants to discuss the matter further, I suggest he talks to the Commissioner for Inland Revenue or the Department of Finance.

*The hon member for Losberg talked a bit of politics, and we can again do so during the Third Reading. I do not want to react now to what he said, but he said he was very concerned about the resignations amongst teachers. Let me tell him that we are also concerned. We are also as concerned as he is about the fortunes of teachers, amongst others. We are as interested in them as he is, but people do not only resign because of dissatisfaction, Sir. There are numerous other reasons—reasons involving their marriages, retirement, medical reasons, dismissal, deaths and the reasons relating to the fact that people want to study. There are numerous reasons, and there are other people who leave the profession in order to obtain a better post elsewhere. How many ex-teachers do we not have in this House, amongst our Ministers too? So, there are quite a few other reasons as well; it is not only dissatisfaction that causes people to resign.

The hon member for Pinetown also broached that aspect, but the fact of the matter is that both the hon member for Pinetown and the hon member for Losberg know how salaries are determined.

†They know it is the hon the Minister of National Education who sits in a committee with the other Education Ministers and the Minister of Finance …

I said all that!

That is right, but why does he raise it now?

Because it is a sensitive matter and you now have the chance to say something about it!

That hon member always has the same old refrain. The fact is that if he wants to make a political issue out of it …

I said it was not a political issue!

… he should address himself …. I am being held accountable on behalf of the Government for this Vote under discussion. If the hon member wants to have a wider discussion on educational matters, we can have a chat during the third reading.

[Inaudible.]

Are you going to spend R45 million on teachers’ salaries?

The hon member for Losberg said that we, this own affairs Administration, stood here cap in hand. Surely the hon member knows that that is not true. He knows that we have certain procedures in accordance with which we negotiate for our rightful share. We do not ask for more, and we have every opportunity to put our case and to get our rightful share. The hon member also asked whether the own affairs administrations received donations. The answer is “yes”. If he were to look at page 28 of the Auditor General’s report, he would see that there were two columns depicting two amounts for donations which have, in fact, been received from universities, agricultural colleges and Groot Constantia. I think the amount involved is approximately R527 000.

I just want to tell the hon member very nicely—we can fight about this on Thursday, if he wants to—that we are not here to introduce CP policy into this Administration. That is not what we are here for. We are not surreptitiously going to introduce a policy at local level which we oppose at the highest level. I also want to tell the hon member for Pinetown that we are likewise not here to implement PFP policy. [Interjections.]

†On behalf of every hon member in this House—I believe on behalf of all parties represented here—I want to express my deepest sympathy with the hon member for Rosettenville on the sad passing of her father, our former colleague Mr Bob Badenhorst Durrant. He was a worthy fighter. I remember how he loved this Parliament. We will all remember him with affection and with a sense of loss. To the hon member, her mother and family we extend our deepest sympathy.

The hon member spoke about the Raadsaal. I found it very interesting. She happens to be a Raadsaal old girl. The Raadsaal is beautiful. If any hon member has not seen it yet since it has been restored I recommend they do so. It is a very fine example of Victorian architecture. It has been very beautifully restored. My office has not been moved there primarily for cultural reasons; my office is there for business reasons, the reason for that being that I cannot administer a department that is situated on the other side of town. So, when I was shown my offices in the De Bruyn Park Building I decided that was not where they were going to be. I decided they should be moved to the Raadsaal.

I follow an open-door policy. I like to be close to the people for whom I am responsible. That is why I moved to the Raadsaal. By way of a bonus I now have the privilege of the wonderful atmosphere of that old building.

The hon member for Pinelands spoke about private consultants and said they should deal with problems identified by the Auditor General. I want to tell him that the development of financial systems is at present undertaken by private consultants who are contracted by the Department of Finance. The inspection within the administration itself cannot of course be carried out by private consultants. The hon member also says we should really give account in greater detail than we are doing now. It is clear to me, Sir, that hon member has firstly not read the Auditor General’s report, and that secondly he has not talked with his colleague the hon member for Yeoville. If he had done that he would not be saying such outrageous things. He says we must now explain in greater detail. The hon member surely knows how Parliament works. There is a Select Committee on Public Accounts, and hon members of the PFP serve on that committee—with distinction, if I may say so. The hon member for Yeoville serves on that committee with great distinction.

The hon member for Yeoville did not let a single opportunity pass on that committee. He made the fullest use of every opportunity there, as is becoming of a senior parliamentarian who wants to get at the facts. Therefore, Sir, for the hon member for Pinelands to say we should explain things more fully now, I believe, is a lot of nonsense. [Interjections.] I raised the matter in a perfectly proper manner because I cannot allow the Auditor General’s report to pass unmentioned. The hon member for Yeoville mentioned that same report earlier. There have also been Press reports on the contents of the report. One of the major functions of Parliament is after all that of accountability. I am giving account now, and I have a responsibility to do so.

Mr Chairman, can the hon the Minister explain to us whether he thinks it is correct that we should actually have debated the report of the Auditor General without the report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts? Can he also tell us what actually went wrong and why we did not have that report to debate so that everything could be disclosed here?

I would have been delighted, Mr Chairman, if we had had access to that report. The fact is, however, that I have no responsibility for that report. That is a matter which is in the hands of the officers of Parliament. I believe the hon member should raise the matter with Mr Speaker. The fact is, however, that if I had not raised the matter the hon member for Yeoville would have done so anyway. He would have accused me of ducking the debate. He already had a speech prepared on the issue, as had the hon member for Barberton. [Interjections.] You see, Sir, it is a no-win situation. Fact is, nevertheless, I did the proper thing by allowing the discussion on the whole issue and by putting the facts before this House.

The hon member for Pietermaritzburg South spoke about the importance of the Victorian architecture in Pietermaritzburg. I want to tell the hon member that Pietermaritzburg is one of the best kept secrets in South Africa. It is a beautiful city. I am glad he has drawn our attention to it. There are people interested in Victorian architecture who travel half-way around the world in order to come and look at the beautiful building lines and fine filigree work, brickwork and so on in Pietermaritzburg. I am glad that the hon member is acting as a custodian of that great heritage, and I am also pleased—as I am sure he will be—to see the work that has been done at Cedara.

The hon member for Pinetown once again raised the question of teachers’ salaries. I do not have to go through that again.

Go through it again? You haven’t even touched it!

I told the hon member how teachers’ salaries are arrived at …

I asked about the amount of R45 million.

Order! The hon member for Pinetown must contain himself.

Mr Chairman, may I in closing thank hon members who participated in the debate once again for their contributions. I am grateful to them and I am particularly grateful to those hon members who extended their good wishes and congratulations to me. Their remarks are very much appreciated and I shall try to be worthy of the remarks addressed to me.

Debate concluded.

Debate on supplementary estimate:

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, the Official Opposition has no questions in this connection. The supplementary amounts are required, in the main, for flood damage, for Groot Constantia, for which money is urgently needed, and in respect of a supplementary grant for the aged, disabled and child care. We have pleasure in supporting this.

Mr Chairman, on these supplementary estimates we have an item in respect of own affairs agriculture of R100 million. I want to take this opportunity of saying that neither I nor my party can in any way agree, once again, to a system that provides for Government assistance as a result of disasters caused by floods or droughts or whatever they may be to one section of the population only. While I know that money is being made available to other race groups as well, I think we must make sure when money of this nature is made available that it is not channelled through the own affairs system.

When a disaster strikes the results of that disaster are not felt only by one section of the population. They are felt by all sections of the population—Black, White, Coloured and Indian alike. We take the strongest exception to making this sort of sum available to one section of the population only. Why should this be? I think that this is a question that the hon the Minister should answer. Why should it happen that this money is being made available through the medium of an own affairs budgetary Vote?

I realise that this is largely in respect of assistance to farmers in this instance, which is why it is being allocated through agriculture. However, it is not only the farmers who suffer in these circumstances. If a farmer goes bankrupt or is likely to go bankrupt, the first thing he does is to lay off staff, and I am sure the hon the Minister himself has knowledge of many instances where individuals who are not White have suffered. When it comes to disasters of this nature, one should not only think of the farmers; one has also to think of those people who live on the farms and people who live in small settlements and towns. Assistance must also be made available to them.

I am not convinced that by being specific under a Vote of this nature—by specifically pushing an amount of R100 million through own affairs agriculture—we are doing the right thing. I believe that we should in fact be channelling this money through a general affairs Vote of one sort or another so that there would be more latitude in granting assistance wherever it is required. I should like the hon the Minister to comment specifically on this question and tell us whether he really believes that this particular Vote is the right one through which this amount of R100 million should be made available.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure and a privilege for me to be able to differ with the hon member for Bryanston. We are talking here about more than R100 million for flood-ravaged farmers. On the other hand, there is also a flood disaster fund which provides more for the personal needs of individuals in towns along the rivers who suffered damage.

It is also a pleasure and a privilege for me to extend my thanks on behalf of these people who are to be assisted. I think too little thanks is expressed for the help which is basically granted by the taxpayer to these people who have suffered.

South African agriculture has experienced very difficult times, through many years of drought and now the flood disaster, and there are people who are in the direst need. When the State provides R100 million to help these specific farmers, it is also helping their workers. Therefore, on behalf of those farmers who are to receive assistance, as well as their workers, I want to extend my thanks for this emergency help.

I just want to refer briefly to Groot Constantia. The question of the privatisation or otherwise of Groot Constantia does not form part of my speech, but Groot Constantia has brought great fame to South Africa. The hon member for Wynberg referred to this yesterday. It is a fact that Constantia produced wine which graced the tables of the royal houses of Europe and were a great source of pleasure. Groot Constantia wines were also a great source of pleasure to Napoleon during his years in exile. It was my privilege to taste that wine in a very small glass …

Order! The hon member for Wellington is dwelling on a very pleasant matter, but I am not convinced that it falls within the scope of the subject under discussion.

Mr Chairman, may I address you on that? There are two amounts under discussion, one for R100 million for flood disaster aid and the other for R5,7 million for Groot Constantia.

Order! The hon member may proceed.

I was referring to the enjoyment of a few drops of this wine which Napoleon could have enjoyed. I want to tell hon members that that wine is just as good after all these years. It is a wine which lubricates both one’s tonsils. [Interjections.]

However, that glory has faded. One is grateful that in the end the State purchased Groot Constantia, but hon members will appreciate that it was a tremendous process of reconstruction, on the one hand of the historical section and on the other the vineyards which cost a great deal per ha to re-establish.

The old control board did very good work, but I think the new system is the best system because it separates the historico-cultural aspect from the agricultural aspects. I believe the new board established to care for the agricultural aspects will do a good job of work, and I wish them everything of the best.

From the point of view of the wine industry, we are especially grateful for this. I should also like to express my thanks for the State’s co-operation in giving the board a free rein to go ahead and make Groot Constantia great again, to the glory of South Africa and its wine industry.

Mr Chairman, I would like, if I may, to discuss the question of Groot Constantia too. Unlike the hon member for Wellington, I do not have the requisite personal experience to refer to the quality of the wine, so I am going to talk about the question of what this money will be used for and return to the matter of privatisation. This is obviously relevant because a large amount of money is going to be voted here and we want to know what it is really going to be used for and what controls there are going to be.

Having said that, I want to tell the hon the Minister, as his reply has been conveyed to me, that if he has any idea whatsoever of privatising the historical part of Groot Constantia in any way, he will probably have the whole House against him. It is not a political matter, but one which I feel we should agree on.

In regard to the property itself, I think what we ought to be doing is calling for tenders to lease out the property so it can be run on a business basis. I am referring here to the vineyards, and not to the part which is actually a historical monument. That part must be retained, and we must pay the price.

There are some things in life which one has to pay a price for. One of them is this kind of historical monument which is of value to us and important to us. I would like to leave this question at that and just convey to the hon the Minister that tenders for the vineyards are fine, but that the actual property belongs to the nation.

Secondly, with regard to flood relief, which is also dealt with here, one of the things one has to be very careful of is the control of these funds. I do not want to have to get up in this House and point to irregularities with regard to the handling of the fund, and there are already reports about it seeping in. This is a humanitarian cause where the whole community participates in helping each other and we must not spoil it with inadequate control and consequently end up in a debate when something has gone wrong. Unfortunately there are already indications of this and I hope it will be put an end to.

The last point with regard to the question of the social welfare programme is that one could have a classic example here of what privatisation is about. The homes for the aged, the homes for the handicapped and the homes for children in need of care can be run by private institutions whether they be of a religious nature, of a charitable nature or of a purely humanitarian nature.

For example, I can speak of the experience in my own constituency where, in fact, we have probably the most outstanding institutions which cater for people who are in some form or other unable to look after themselves. It does not only concern homes for the aged. When one looks at what is done in my constituency in respect of handicapped children, that is where private institutions are, that is where private money is raised and that is where the State’s help in order to run those institutions is invaluable. That, to my mind, is the way in which one should really be privatising this kind of activity which is so important to our nation.

Mr Chairman, I just want to respond to the hon member for Bryanston. The amount specifically budgeted for is for services which are the responsibility of this House of Assembly. Of course, there are other amounts which have been voted and are on the budgets of other departments for other activities. Since agriculture is dealt with in the own affairs administration, the fact that these great swollen rivers in the nature of things—in the least populated part of our country—had the biggest impact on the farming community, makes it an own affairs matter. It is quite natural that this amount should be on the budget and it would be quite unnatural for us to give money to a general affairs department for something which is the primary responsibility of an own affairs department. If the hon member does not agree with us on own affairs, that is a different debate.

Mr Chairman, could the hon the Minister tell us how much the other own affairs departments have been granted for this purpose?

I do not know; I am not a walking encyclopaedia, but I will get the information to the hon member.

*The hon member for Wellington made a very fine speech about the improvement of the Constantia estate. The hon member for Yeoville said it should not be privatised. I do not wish to elaborate on whether or not it should be privatised. It is not my responsibility. He is welcome to discuss this with my friend, the hon the Minister of Administration and Privatisation.

† just want to say this: What we are addressing here and what this money is being used for is to get at the primary problem which has been latent in that estate from the time the first board was established. What happened was that the farm was in terrible trouble. The vineyards were diseased, the buildings were falling down and there was high density development flooding around that particular property.

At that time I was MPC in the Constantia Valley and was intimately involved with trying to arrest that decay. We did. We succeeded. Sometimes we had to go to court. We had to go to the Supreme Court—Alfred McCarthy and I went to the Supreme Court. The Administrator said that he would reconsider if we could get his decision overturned in the Supreme Court. We did.

What happened was that, for want of anybody else to act as custodian on behalf of the nation, the Groot Constantia Control Board had to buy the land—it was threatened by high density development which would have given that area a higher density than Rondebosch—at residential prices and at the same time undergo huge development costs in order to bring the land into production.

The fact of the matter is that the best guarantee Groot Constantia can have is to be a living museum which functions properly as the premier wine estate of our country. The hon member for Wynberg was quite right in what he said in a previous debate. The fundamental problem we had at Groot Constantia was that it was undercapitalised. They were carrying a debt burden which they should not have carried. The State should have bought the land and given it to them. Then, of course, in the eighties when interest rates started shooting through the roof they were capitalising interest, and that is why these amounts escalated in the way they did. What we have done now is to put the matter straight. Groot Constantia is safe. The buildings are safe and the farm is economically viable. We can all be intensely proud of it.

It is not economically viable.

Oh, yes, it is absolutely. The hon member must understand. I say it is economically viable and that it is a living museum producing wine. They are now going to age the wine as some of the great cellars in Europe do. It is a shrine every South African can be proud of. I can tell that hon member that there is no way this Government is ever going to do anything other than protect that estate to the maximum.

That is a strange definition of “economic viability”.

No, economic viability depends entirely on the price of the land. Then one can work out the rates of return. However, if one takes into consideration the land at residential values in the Constantia Valley, it is not a viable proposition if one puts the land in toto in a law and values it as viable.

The question of viability or not is of no consequence. What is important is that the land be used as a living museum where the children of Bonteheuwel and the city can see the guineafowl, the tractors working and the horses walking around. The people can use the area for recreation and can take guests and visitors there.

They will quite soon put a fence around it! [Interjections.]

I can only assure hon members that this administration is proud of Groot Constantia. That is why we have done what we have done and why we have voted these considerable amounts of money, namely that we want to keep it inviolate.

Order! As the debate on the Schedule has now been concluded and the supplementary amounts have been considered, the Votes and Schedule will be put before the House for approval.

I wish to point out to hon members that Vote No 2—-“Agriculture and Water Supply” and Vote No 3—“Education and Culture” have already been agreed to on 29 March and 29 April respectively in terms of the old Rules. Since a supplementary amount was voted in respect to Vote No 2—“Agriculture and Water Supply”, I still have to put this supplementary amount.

I now put Vote No 1—“Chairman of the Ministers’ Council of the House of Assembly”.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May I enquire whether in terms of the new Rules one does not have to have a specific voting day put aside for the putting of Votes? In that regard this is not the proper occasion for doing so. As you will recall, in the new Rules, there is no quorum necessary for debates, but when a meeting is called specifically to vote on a matter, then a quorum is necessary and members should be properly advised. Thus I submit that we have not as yet had a voting day in Parliament. The proper time to put these Votes I would suggest would be on a voting day.

Order! I am advised that there is no specific provision requiring that procedure to be followed.

May I ask, in terms of which Rule that is so?

Order! Rule 172 reads as follows:

That seems to be the position at the moment.

Vote No 1, supplementary amount in respect of Vote No 2, and Votes Nos 4-8 agreed to.

Schedule agreed to.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: In terms of the Rules, I believe one is entitled to make a declaratory statement. When will the opportunity be given for that to be done?

Order! That opportunity was available just a few seconds ago.

Mr Chairman, in what respect?

If a party decides to call for a division, it can then state its position in respect of the division.

Only in the case of a division?

Only in the case of a division. As the PFP decided to have its opposition noted, it did not avail itself of the opportunity.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, the CP has pleasure in supporting this amending Bill. It only amends a few non-related provisions of the Companies Act, Act 61 of 1973.

At present only a judge or senior advocate of the Supreme Court may be appointed as Chairman of the Standing Advisory Committee on Company Law. In the past a judge was always appointed. This amending Bill also provides that prior to the expiry of his term of office and his retirement on pension, a judge may be reappointed should the advisory committee wish to retain him as chairman.

There is also a difference of opinion in regard to the corporate existence of close corporations which are converted into companies. The amendment to section 29D removes this problem.

The amendment to section 29D makes it clear that the conversion will have no effect on the continued existence of the company in question. All negative effects can be avoided in this way. This provision is also being made retrospective to protect companies which have been converted into close corporations in the past. It is being introduced with retrospective effect to the date of the commencement of the Close Corporations Act. The amendment to section 394 relates to the powers of liquidators to open company bank accounts. In the first place, the type of current account which a liquidator has to open with a financial institution is described more accurately. At present the Act requires that the liquidator of a company must obtain the consent of the Master before he opens a savings account or places money on interest-bearing deposits. Practice has shown that this requirement is unnecessary and it is therefore being abolished. The amendment to section 394 will also bring the relevant provisions of the Companies Act, 1973, into line with the corresponding provisions in the Insolvency Act, 1936.

The CP has pleasure in supporting these amendments to the Act.

Mr Chairman, we on this side of the House not only support the amendments to the Companies Act, 1973, but we also welcome them. I shall not again refer to all the proposed amendments. However, I just want to refer to two of them.

One of them involves the fact that a retired judge may now be appointed as chairman of the Standing Advisory Committee. The motivation we find in the proposed legislation for this is, inter alia, that it is being done to bring about continuity. I want to tell the hon the Deputy Minister that I have a very important reason for thinking it necessary that this should be done. I think we are all aware that a judge’s work programme involves one of tremendous pressure, and all the members of the legal profession in this House can confirm that. This Standing Advisory Committee does enormously important work in making recommendations to the Government to introduce certain amendments to the Companies Act, which is a difficult Act, something we all know. In fact, speaking of this Standing Advisory Committee, I think it is only right that we should today record our sincere gratitude and appreciation for the tremendous task they perform in advising the Government in this connection.

I say we should welcome the appointment of a retired judge because the task performed by this Standing Advisory Committee is of such importance. Such a judge would then have much more time to devote to the proceedings of this committee. I think this could only be to the advantage of companies and the implementation of the Companies Act.

Another aspect which is amended in this proposed legislation and which I think will really be welcomed, specifically by the small registered companies in our country, is that a special resolution can be passed at a meeting for which it is not necessary to give prior notice, provided the shareholders, of course, have given consent to such notice being dispensed with. I think this will really be welcomed by all small companies which have only one or two directors.

While on the issue of the Companies Act, I should like to ask the hon the Deputy Minister if they would not consider the possible amendment of section 45. It so often happens that a business undertaking is run by one man under a specific name—I am not referring here to a registered company—and then along comes someone else and forms a company using the same name, or a similar name. The latter is, however, a registered company.

Section 45 provides that such a person can only lodge an objection within 12 months with the Registrar of Companies or the Supreme Court against the name of the registered company. It often happens that two or three years elapse before such a person becomes aware of the formation of that company under that name, and he then has no legal remedy. I now ask the hon the Minister to consider an amendment to that section so that such a person may, within a certain period after it has come to his notice, lodge a complaint with the Registrar or the Supreme Court. In most instances one only finds out a year after the company has been registered that there is a company trading under a similar name to that of one’s own company.

With those few remarks I have pleasure in supporting the legislation on behalf of this side of the House.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of the PFP I am pleased to say that we shall also be supporting this Bill.

We are impressed by the fact that it comes with the support of the Standing Advisory Committee on Company Law. They obviously applied their minds to it and we were satisfied in the standing committee that the various amendments were well motivated.

In particular the retrospectivity confirming that the conversion of a close corporation to a company is not a break in legal identity or personality, is necessary. There has been some confusion arising from that and we fully accept the extension from one year to two years of the registration of the defensive name. That eliminates a bit of unnecessary red tape in that regard.

The point that gives me a little difficulty is the provision to allow a special resolution to be passed at a meeting without notice if all the members agree to that step. On the one hand it is positive in the sense that a one-man company or a small company with two or three members in which the members are perhaps the directors can decide at a meeting to take a step on a 100% consent basis.

On the one hand it is positive and one welcomes it, but will it not also to some extent be a more onerous step in that in the past a small company with, say, 25 to 30 members could consent at a short notice to a special meeting being held if 95% of the members consented to the shortening of the notice? Will this provision not eliminate that possibility? Will it now in fact be necessary for companies that wish to have a shorter notice period or no notice period at all, always to have to have 100% consent, failing which they must go through the full notice period?

In any number beyond a very small number, 100% consent is practically impossible whereas in the past the 95% provision made it possible for speedy decisions to be taken. I would be grateful if the hon the Minister would clarify that point. I hope the query that I am raising is not in one respect a step backwards. Beyond that, we have no further comment and we support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank the hon members for Standerton, Benoni and Constantia for their support for this Bill. The hon member for Standerton emphasised quite a few facets, but he did not ask any specific questions, and I want to thank him specially for his support.

The hon member for Benoni referred to the Permanent Advisory Committee on Company Law, and specifically to the position of a retired judge as chairman. We know that Mr Justice Margo is a retired judge. He is a person of great status and he imparts a great deal of lustre to the proceedings.

The Permanent Advisory Committee, under his chairmanship, furnishes the Government and consequently Parliament with advice of inestimable value, and as far as I am concerned this amendment was to a large extent introduced to accommodate him. The statement that the hon member for Benoni made was valid—that retired judges have more time at their disposal to help us with these matters.

The hon member for Benoni then referred to the possible amendment of section 45, and he motivated his reasons for thinking that we could consider it. It is a pleasure for me to tell him—I happen to know this—that the Permanent Advisory Committee on Company Law is in fact considering the specific points he raised, and later this year recommendations on that matter will be submitted to me.

I also want to refer to Press reports in which it has recently been rumoured that a further amending Bill on Company Law is under preparation. This is the Company Amendment Bill which relates to inside information transactions and is a measure of considerable scope. The document submitted to me was quite bulky. Unfortunately it only reached me in April this year—too late for the present session. The speculation in the financial Press that the Government is dragging its feet with that very important piece of legislation is not true. Usually we have up to October of a specific year to prepare legislation for the next year. I am not referring now to special constitutional legislation, but to normal legislation of this nature, which must be ready by the end of October of this year for next year, and if legislation only reaches us by the end of April it is too late. However, I worked through the draft legislation on inside information transactions and approved it. It is on its way to the Cabinet, from whence it will go to law advisers and I hope it will soon be on the Order Paper for 1989. I just wanted to make that point on the further development of company law.

†The hon member for Constantia also supported this piece of legislation, and I thank him for that. He referred to the issue regarding a special resolution. It is not possible for me to answer him off the cuff. I have been advised by our legal adviser that his question will require some further investigation. I will also refer it to the standing committee and then provide the hon member with a suitable answer in writing. I hope he will be satisfied with my answer.

Mr Chairman, I wish to conclude by thanking, from my side, the Standing Advisory Committee on Company Law. As I have said, they render invaluable services to the community.

*This Permanent Advisory Committee on Company Law is also a model for us. In the Department of Trade and Industry we are at present re-considering all our advisory bodies, and we are studying the example of the Permanent Advisory Committee on Company Law, because it is a very successful committee. We are looking to see whether we cannot apply that model in other areas as well. Mr Chairman, with these words I should like to support this legislation.

Debate concluded.

Order! I put the question: That the Bill be now read a second time.

Quorum

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: In terms of Rule 30: “A House may decide a question only when a quorum of members is present”. A quorum for these purposes, in terms of section 61 of the Constitution, has to be 50 members in the House of Assembly, and I submit, with respect, that there are not 50 members in the House at present.

Order! Is it the hon member’s contention that there are not 50 members in the House at the moment?

Correct.

Order! As there are fewer than 50 members in the House at the present moment, the question will be put at a later stage.

Mr Chairman, on a further point of order: In terms of the Rule quoted, if there is not a quorum present, the bells of the House will be rung for three minutes.

Where is the NP?

Order! The further point of order relating to a quorum is a separate issue. My ruling related to the putting of the question, and was that in view of the fact that were there fewer than 50 members present the question would be put at a later stage. Since there are fewer than 50 members present there is not a quorum in the House. Therefore the bells will be rung to call members to the House.

Division bells rung.

A quorum being present,

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, the amendments contained in the legislation under discussion are very meaningful. The CP normally always supports meaningful amendments when they are introduced.

I should like to deal with certain of these meaningful amendments. They concern provisions which have created certain problems in the existing legislation, but which are now being removed. The first of these relates to the amendment of section 7 of the principal Act, which is aimed at the removal of the uncertainty which arose as to which court had jurisdiction to liquidate a close corporation. The respective courts in our country experienced difficulties in this regard. Various judgments within the jurisdiction of the Transvaal Division of the Supreme Court differed from those of the Witwatersrand Local Division, and from those of the Provincial Divisions of Natal and the Cape Province. This situation gave rise to much legal uncertainty.

The initial objective of section 7 of the principal Act was not to encroach upon the inherent jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, but rather to give jurisdiction to magistrate’s courts. However, judgments in the various courts nullified this objective.

The proposed amendment now makes it clear that both the Supreme Court and a magistrate’s court have the necessary jurisdiction to decide all matters referred to in the Act, including liquidation proceedings. The relevant parties will therefore be in a position to choose the most suitable court for a particular case.

Order! No, hon members must talk more quietly. I can hardly hear what the hon member for Standerton is saying.

Mr Chairman, a difference of opinion has also arisen in legal circles as to the corporate existence of companies converted into close corporations. The amendment to section 27 of the Act now makes it clear that such a conversion has no effect on the corporate existence of a close corporation. Any possible negative results can therefore be avoided.

Lastly, I just want to refer to the amendment to section 58. Section 58(3) refers to the approval and signing of the annual financial statements of close corporations. At present the principal Act requires the annual financial statements of a corporation to be approved and signed by or on behalf of every member of the corporation. Clause 4 now introduces an amendment to section 58(3) in terms of which these unnecessary provisions are no longer applicable.

The CP therefore supports this meaningful amendment.

Mr Chairman, once again, we have pleasure in supporting this Bill. Once again too we note that it comes with the support of the Standing Advisory Committee on Company Law.

The one provision which we really must support is the companion amendment to the one we have just agreed to in the Companies Amendment Bill, namely confirmation of the continuity of a juristic person when a close corporation converts to a company. We obviously have no arguments with that.

However, we do have some difficulty in regard to the question of representation on a close corporation by an inter vivos trust. The amendment here attempts to exclude completely any representation by an inter vivos trust. We have a problem in this regard and my colleague, the hon member for Yeoville, will be dealing with this issue in due course.

The other point we welcome is the relaxation of the requirement that 100% of the members of a close corporation have to sign the annual accounts. This was a very onerous provision and, sooner or later, was bound to give rise to problems. Close corporations are ideally designed for small numbers of people, often members of a family unit, and it is frequently very difficult to get 100% consensus among any group of people, particularly a group of people in an intimate relationship which can go wrong. Therefore, we certainly welcome the idea that the annual accounts can now be accepted and signed by a majority of the members and not by 100% of them.

In the spirit of this amendment, I should like to make the request, as I did in the standing committee, that the remaining provisions of the Close Corporations Act also be examined so as to exclude any requirement of a 100% majority situation. I do not think it is at all necessary to specify such an onerous percentage. I believe that there are still some aspects that require the agreement of 100% of the members. I am advised that a change in the principal business of a close corporation requires 100% agreement, and the disposal of the whole or the greater portion of the assets of a close corporation requires a similar percentage. Moreover, any acquisition or disposal of immovable property also requires 100% consensus, if I am advised correctly.

Let us take the practical example of a close corporation in which a husband and wife are partners and which owns a dwelling. What happens if there is disagreement or even a divorce between those two members of that close corporation and they disagree on the sale of that property? What happens in such a case if one has to have 100% consensus as opposed to a majority? The Companies Act requires a 50% plus 1 majority in normal situations of trading and normal activities, and for special resolutions requires 75%. I am not aware of any absolute requirement of 100% consensus except in the special variation which we have just adopted in respect of the Companies Act. Therefore, I cannot see the need for a close corporation to have to comply with more onerous provisions than are required under the Companies Act, especially as there are ample legal provisions to protect minorities in a company situation which presumably apply just as forcefully to a close corporation situation.

While welcoming the relaxation in the case of the annual accounts, I appeal to the department and the relevant experts to consider the rest of the Close Corporations Act in the same light, particularly in view of the fact that close corporations are much less sophisticated bodies and often have access to advice less sophisticated than that available to companies.

With that caveat, we are happy to support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I am very grateful for the support of the hon member for Constantia, as well as that of the Official Opposition. The hon member for Constantia referred to a very fundamental point when he said he was satisfied that when financial statements were signed, members with only a 51% interest could sign the statements so that they could be approved.

He was also correct when he said that other problems could arise if it were specified that there should be full agreement, problems relevant to this situation which he sketched. The standing committee also asked that the registrar should consider all the legislation applicable to close corporations and also examine other areas where this full agreement rule applied to ascertain if its application in those circumstances also gave rise to problems. To me this seems to be a point which was overlooked when this legislation was amended.

Four years ago I was in the privileged position of being one of the hon members who discussed the introduction of this legislation. At that stage I said that this legislation made it much simpler and easier for the small man to acquire funds and as the hon member for Constantia has said, all the provisions which have to be complied with are much simpler.

One of the things for which I was very grateful at that stage was the fact that liquidations of close corporations could also be dealt with in the magistrate’s court. However, there were certain legal problems, as previous speakers have pointed out, and these have now been ironed out, which clearly indicates that the magistrate’s court is still the first court to which recourse must be had when dealing with liquidations. Only when the magistrate’s court rules preclude it from hearing a specific case can recourse be had to another court instead.

Now I want to ask if the hon the Deputy Minister will refer briefly to his second reading speech in connection with this matter. He put it rather differently there. He said that this legislation enabled the parties to choose which court was the most suitable to decide the matter.

Because a Minister’s Second Reading speech can, in exceptional circumstances, also be taken into consideration when there is a lack of clarity in deciding what the intention of the legislator was, it is essential for the Minister to state clearly that the first court to which a matter must be referred is the magistrate’s court, as set out, in fact, in the legislation before us.

I want to conclude by saying that the principal Act was one of the starting points in the programme of the NP and the Government to promote and protect small business undertakings and the small man’s interests in South Africa, because research has shown in America, for example, that the small company is less favoured than the large companies in the financial analyses in business circles.

The success of this form of business is apparent from the fact that since 1984 no fewer than 82 970 close corporations have been formed, while in the farming sector alone 1 844 close corporations have been formed.

If all the legislation introduced by the Government were as successful as this legislation, I am sure we would succeed in our aim of having small businesses which flourish to the benefit of all and of ensuring that we do not have an excess of restrictions on free competition in the country because our economy is completely dominated by large companies. I should like to support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I do not propose to follow on the point which the hon member has dealt with. To me the proposed new section 7 is clear and I have no problems with it.

I have a slight problem with the hon member’s submission that the hon the Deputy Minister’s introductory speech will be used in interpretation of this section as my recollection of the law is such that the debates of Hansard are not to be used in the interpretation of statutes. A very difficult situation could arise if the debates of Hansard were used in interpreting the law, particularly in view of some of the things which are said in this House in regard to particular statutes. I think our courts have taken a very reasonable attitude in ignoring what is actually said in this House in interpreting a statute in accordance with the wording of it and the intention of the legislator as evidenced by the wording.

Except for an introductory speech.

No, an introductory speech is not taken into account.

There is an Appellate Division decision which actually deals with this very point. I think it would be unfortunate if it were otherwise, and I hope I am right. If I am wrong, I think something ought to be done about it. I do not think I am wrong. I think there is an Appellate Division decision which actually deals with it. We have tried. I must tell hon members that I myself have tried to use a speech of a Minister in order to assist in the interpretation of a statute but I have been put right in that regard by the court.

I want to get to the real issue I want to deal with. Firstly, I want to deal with the question of the Standing Committee on Company Law. I have as much respect as anyone in this House for that committee and I have gratitude for the work they do. I regard the chairman with great respect—he is a very able person. What has been happening in the past few years, however, is that one actually cannot get anything amended in regard to company or close corporation legislation unless one first goes to this committee. It is an almost infallible rule.

The people sitting on that committee are only human beings and we have to look at their view of a matter in the light of what we consider to be public policy. In that respect that is the function of that committee—it is an advisory committee, and I would deplore the fact, as has been developing over a period of time now, if this Parliament becomes a rubber stamp for company and close corporation legislation and if we merely always do something because the advisory committee says so, or if we cannot change anything because an advisory committee has taken a particular point of view. We are not a rubber stamp! It is for us to make the laws which are to be enforced in South Africa.

It is in that light that I would like to deal with the question of inter vivos trusts. I have given considerable thought to and I have done a considerable amount of research into this whole question of inter vivos trusts. There is a fundamental misconception as to the use and function of inter vivos trusts. That has started to become prevalent because certain people have used inter vivos trusts as business trusts—as if they are companies and corporations.

However, the real basic use of a trust is completely different. There is a function for those trusts in our law which should not be ignored.

Let me give hon members an example which springs to my mind immediately. One could establish a trust for a child who is unable to look after himself or for someone who is aged—someone who needs attention and somebody to care for them. There are a variety of functions for an inter vivos trust which are important in the development of our law.

In this particular provision we are in fact drawing a line which prevents the further development and use of inter vivos trusts in our community and in our legal system. To my mind the purpose of the Close Corporations Act, in seeking to exclude a corporate body … I think the hon the Minister must listen to me and not to the hon member for East London North who is giving him bad legal advice. He is giving him bad legal advice—I can see it—because he does not know anything about inter vivos trusts.

Let him just listen to me and then to the hon member, but not try to listen to both of us at the same time. Is that a deal?

Yes.

Thank you. [Interjections.]

When one looks at the law concerning trusts in South Africa, one finds that we are still a considerable way behind some other jurisdictions of the world in regard to the development of these trusts. The English law, for instance, is far more developed in regard to trusts. There are developments in regard to trusts in a variety of jurisdictions where they are used in order to attract investments because of the facility which those trusts offer.

Let me give hon members an example. There is a whole industry which revolves around inter vivos trusts in the Channel Islands. It is a very profitable industry which has attracted money to that area and which has made that a financial centre. They are just a couple of little islands with a few people living there with very few resources, but they have developed a very fine trust system, and the inter vivos trust plays a very important role in it.

Let us look at what this legislation on close corporations and its relationship with inter vivos trust involves. Let us consider what happens when one decides that one does not want a company to be a member. There may be a very good reason why one does not want a company to be a member—because of the nature of the close corporation and its whole intention. Once one opens the door to a company, one can actually have a multiplicity of members of that company who in turn are interested in all the pressure that may be exercised and all the financial resources that may be made available.

An inter vivos trust is, however, a completely different legal entity. It is used in the main for completely different purposes. In these circumstances, to exclude an inter vivos trust entirely from membership of a close corporation is to my mind not in the interests of the development of a particular kind in our legal system which we should actually encourage.

If we look at the situation as it stands now, we shall find there is no way by which anyone can verify, if there is a Mr X who is a member, whether he is acting as a nominee or not. One has to interrogate him and do all sorts of things in order to ascertain that. To eliminate nominees entirely from the structure, whether it be a close corporation or a company, is an extremely difficult task. Sometimes it is very undesirable to have a nominee shareholder, because one does not know who is controlling an interview. That is why it is much better to come out into the open and say that a specific person owns beneficially this particular interest in this particular entity; and in the case we are talking about, it is a close corporation.

I should like to see a complete reconsideration of this issue as to whether the inter vivos trust may be a member. Let me give hon membeRSAsimple example. A man may have three children whom he wants to bring into his business. One of those children may not be capable of managing business affairs, or even of managing affairs entirely because of an unfortunate handicap, either physically or mentally, or because he is a spendthrift, or for any other reason. The man actually cannot make that other child a member because the risk is too great. However, he could do so if he could provide for him through the medium of an inter vivos trust. Then that would still remain a family business, a business where the various people have their interest, but because of the unfortunate situation of one child in a family who cannot be a member, one is able to cater for him financially in those particular circumstances. I mention that as just one example, but there are many more.

We are going to vote for the Second Reading because there are other provisions in this Bill which we support. However, we would ask that the hon the Deputy Minister should re-examine this whole question and should perhaps get more advice not just from the Standing Advisory Committee on Company Law, but perhaps from the South African Law Commission. Let us go into this whole issue as to whether inter vivos trusts do not have a better role to play when it comes to close corporations.

Mr Chairman, I thank hon members for their support. The hon member for Standerton highlighted a few matters. I just want to associate myself with him and show how many of these conversions have in fact, taken place. The Close Corporations Act commenced on 1 January 1985. In that year, 12 close corporations were converted into companies; in 1986, 47 and in 1987, 278. However, there were far more conversions from companies to close corporations. In 1985, 6 071 companies were converted into close corporations; in 1986, 6 650 and in 1987, 5 211. There were consequently many instances in which the corporate existence and its confirmation were very important. For that reason this provision in the Bill is also very important.

The hon member for Constantia also supported the legislation. He asked that other provisions requiring the unanimous consent of members of close corporations be considered for inclusion in the Bill. He mentioned the case of a married couple. How does one determine 51% when only two people are involved?

The legal advice I received in this connection was that it was the only provision which has thus far caused difficulty. His proposal and request were that this amendment should be examined, and I shall therefore refer it to the Standing Advisory Committee for comment. As the hon member for Yeoville argued, one also listens, of course, to other advice.

As far as I am concerned, a standing committee of Parliament is also an advisory committee. I want to thank those hon members serving on the Standing Committee on Trade and Industry for their work this year. They had a considerable work-load, because there were a large number of laws which they had to consider. The feedback I received from our law adviser and the chairman of the standing committee was that members had prepared themselves very well, had studied the Acts and had made a considerable contribution. I want to thank them for that.

I shall therefore go into the request made by the hon member for Constantia and let him know the result. I understand that the standing committee directed an identical request to one he has addressed to me to the registrar, for submission to the Standing Advisory Commission on Company Law for them to investigate the matter. The Standing Advisory Committee on Company Law is still endeavouring to simplify all legislation involving companies. That is one of the most important facets. In that sense I agree with the hon member that we must examine this.

The hon member for Heilbron referred to the jurisdiction of the magistrate’s court and the Supreme Court, and to the fact that provisions in the Close Corporations Act involving jurisdiction were interpreted differently by different courts. I said quite rightly in the second reading speech, that litigants could choose the most suitable court. That is still the case. If it is a relatively simple case, a litigant will still go to the magistrate’s court. One realises, however, that in cases in which the amount involved is very large, or which entails complicated argument, as for instance in the kubus matter, one would rather go to the Supreme Court.

The hon member said the Hansard must be read in conjunction with the wording of the Act when interpreting the Act. I do not agree with that. One can always refer to Hansard—one does so frequently, for example the second reading speech of a Minister—to see what someone’s intention was. However, what is interpreted in court, in the final analysis, is the wording of the Act.

I think the hon member for Yeoville referred specifically to that. The Act is the primary source the courts must use for interpreting the Act.

I now come to the hon member for Yeoville who supported the Act. He also said that he supported most of the provisions, but he had problems with the provision in regard to inter vivos matters. He firstly referred to the Standing Advisory Committee on Company Law and expressed the fear—if I understood him correctly—that we would slavishly follow the advice of this standing advisory committee.

In another connection—not in regard to this standing advisory committee—there have been other advisory committees which have come to see me and told me I may not do anything except on their advice. I said no. I would decide whether I wanted to recommend a certain Bill to the Cabinet. If the Cabinet accepted it with those provisions, we would submit it to the standing committees of Parliament. Parliament would make the final decision.

Any statutory advisory committee is only advisory, firstly advising the Minister responsible, but also advising Parliament. Their advice cannot be mandatory. I want to agree with the hon member for Yeoville on that. I have had a fairly long discussion in my office on this very principle, because certain advisory committees reach the stage where they feel that they alone make decisions and nobody else’s advice carry any weight.

The hon member for Yeoville also referred to the inter vivos trust. I want to tell him that I think the argument he advanced here has merit. It is the intention of the Close Corporations Act that only 10 natural persons will be members of such trust. The reason we excluded the inter vivos trust was because it has been considerably misused. If we have made mistakes with this provision, I think at least we have eliminated the considerable misuse which has occurred. If we are now to refine it and see if there are other special cases—it seemed to me the hon member was arguing about special cases—then we must investigate further. I want to tell the hon member that I shall seek the advice of the standing advisory committee as well as other law advisers on this matter. I shall also write to him about this and come back to Parliament next year when we are considering other amendments.

†I want to thank the hon member for Yeoville for his contribution. It is always a pleasure for me to listen to that hon member when he argues matters of this nature.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I am not a member of the standing committee which discussed this Bill. One of man’s primary needs is to be cared for. For the elderly person in particular, this means having the best possible and safest housing his financial means permit. This is new legislation which is being introduced as a result of exploitation over the years by people who have approached certain development schemes in an opportunistic way. This was one of the problems discussed by the Committee for Social Affairs and the President’s Council. The Venter Commission of enquiry indicated inter alia that the elderly were being exploited by certain developers of retirement villages and other facilities. The report expresses it as follows:

Moreover, the following is mentioned:

The hon the Minister also referred to this in his Second Reading speech, and identified the following four problem areas in particular:

1. (a) The protection of the interests of individuals as regards retirement resorts;
2. (b) the protection and utilisation of funds;
3. (c) facilities and services at retirement resorts;
4. (d) contracts as regards the procurement of interests in retirement resorts.

The fate of the elderly is a matter which everyone holds dear. It is a matter of profound concern to the CP and if this legislation is passed by Parliament, we ought to make provision for the proper protection of these members of the community. Measures ought to be taken to ensure that their life’s savings, which cannot be replaced easily, are protected.

Firstly I should like to point out that in the context of the definitions, the intention is that the Bill should only apply to schemes designed primarily for retired persons. Consequently the Bill will not apply to any other schemes of a similar nature.

I should like to refer to what in my opinion is the single most important matter dealt with by the Bill, namely the provision of sufficient safeguards for the money paid to developers by retired persons. In this regard clause 6 stipulates that a developer may not recieve any consideration or use such consideration for his own purposes unless a quantity surveyor or an architect has certified that the living unit in question complies with officially approved building plans, a specified town planning scheme and local authority by-laws. Furthermore, the utilisation of these funds is dependent upon the delivery to the buyer of a copy of such a certificate, as well as a copy of the signed contract in question. These provisions in the Bill are important and, in our opinion, will afford these people the necessary protection.

Another important provision is contained in clause 7. This provision is related to the assurance that the control over a particular scheme intended for occupation by retired persons will only be exercised by retired persons themselves.

I also wish to refer to clause 9 of the Bill, which provides for another necessary safeguard. It specifies the legal remedy a court may grant to a buyer who is prejudiced due to non-compliance on the part of the developer with certain specific provisions in the proposed law, or with the bylaws promulgated in terms of the law.

This Bill will undoubtedly create problems in future, but I think it has been carefully considered and it should, in any case, make temporary provision for existing needs. The CP gladly supports this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank the hon member for Standerton for his support for the measures before the House. The hon member made a significant contribution to eliciting support for these measures, and also directed our attention to the possibility that certain difficulties might arise in practice which could be corrected by subsequent amendments. Later in my speech I shall refer to certain aspects in this regard.

As background to the legislation I should merely like to suggest that we should see it as a measure by means of which the Government is trying to curtail certain types of consumer exploitation. In this case it is mainly on account of malpractices which have developed in connection with the concept of a retirement resort. Exploitation by developers with questionable intentions has occurred. I think it is necessary that this House take note that retirement, and the period of retirement, is a very important phase in everyone’s life. This phase in the life of every individual is usually associated with a change in the particular type of life-style he enjoys, and during this time certain decisions have to be made by the retired person. The most important decisions which have to be made during this phase in a person’s life are decisions concerning security and health care.

With the ageing of the South African community, and especially the White community, and the concomitant search for security and health care, the concept of retirement resorts or senior citizen housing has increased in popularity during the past decade, not only as a form of accommodation for retired persons, but also as an investment opportunity for developers. If we bear in mind that the White community in the RSA is standing on the brink of what is known genealogically as an ageing society, we cannot underestimate the importance of the retirement resort concept, for as the community becomes proportionately older—it is calculated that between now and the year 2000 almost 100 000 people over the age of 65 will find themselves in the retirement phase—we can expect the retirement resort concept to increase in importance.

Moreover an analysis of the population structure reveals that 8,4% of the population in South Africa is at present over the age of 65, whereas in other Western countries such as Sweden, Switzerland, Germany, Denmark and Norway the figure is above 19%. We can therefore expect that the search for security and for accommodation which provides certain facilities for health care will become increasingly important.

For the purposes of Hansard I should like to say that this piece of legislation which is being handled by the hon the Minister was initiated by the Department of Local Management, Housing and Works at the request of various bodies, including the National Council for the Aged, to focus upon certain elements of exploitation.

To sum up I should like to direct attention to specific problems which arise in the development of the concept of retirement resorts. The following malpractices occur. Prospective buyers make investments in development schemes without a single brick having been laid. There is no certainty whatsoever that the resort will be built or that the project will be completed.

In addition, problems have arisen concerning the certainty of obtaining finance which, as the hon member for Standerton has rightly said, is dealt with in clause 6. Another problem concerns the provision of facilities, mainly sick bay facilities, in regard to which promises are made to prospective buyers by developers who then renege and fail to provide such facilities. In a certain sense it is a pity that this legislation has been necessitated by the malpractices of individual developers. Nevertheless, I do believe that in reality the vast majority of developers are well-intentioned persons who do in fact give the prospective buyer the product as promised.

In conclusion, I should like to point out certain problems from the developer’s point of view which may possibly arise in practice. In clause 4(1)(x), (y) and (z) it is provided that an estimate, for a period of three years in advance, must be made of all expenses in regard to the control, management and administration of the scheme. In my humble opinion it will not always be possible for a developer to make such an estimate since the management and administration of a retirement resort for senior citizens is a very specialised task. The facilities offered and the expenses these might entail are not always available to the developer.

I want to refer to another aspect. In clause 4(5) it is provided that whenever a care unit is erected in terms of clause 4(5), provision must be made for its registration as an old-age home in accordance with the Aged Persons Act, 1967. The Aged Persons Act provides that a person of 65 years of age and older is an aged person, whereas the measure under discussion determines this age to be 59 or older. This is a technical problem which must be ironed out.

Another very important aspect is that this Bill provides that a development scheme must be completed. With all due respect, I should like to suggest that the period of two years provided for is not always realistic, because a development scheme for senior citizens has various aspects which entail that the determination of a two-year time-period is not always realistic. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, both the previous two speakers, the hon member for Standerton and the hon member for Bellville, have done an excellent job, I believe, in motivating their support of this very necessary Bill—a Bill in respect of which, I am sure, we will all display a considerable degree of sympathy. It provides for the objective of protecting the rights of retired or senior citizens.

Reference has been made to the fact—it is indeed regrettable—that there are instances in which developers exploit elderly or senior citizens. Obviously this must be prevented as far as possible, and the Bill before us today sets out to do that.

One could always argue, of course, that there is the principle of caveat emptor, or “let the buyer beware”, but we are dealing here with a very special group of citizens, many of whom require special protection. Foolhardy or sometimes highly speculative schemes which offer high reward may be attractive to the more adventurous, but that obviously does not apply to people whom this Bill concerns.

Elderly people are not able easily, if at all, to recover from financial loss. They are often in a situation of reasonable strength on retirement, but all too soon this is whittled away by inflation. How do such people withstand financial loss? The social impact can be enormous, and this must therefore be avoided.

Secondly, senior citizens have earned their right to a graceful and a peaceful retirement. For them to have to face disappointment because facilities do not come up to their expectations is totally unjust and can place enormous stress on aged people.

This legislation is aimed specifically at giving the necessary protection, and we welcome and support it. It offers various protective measures which have been dealt with by the previous two speakers and which I will not deal with again. I believe that this Bill should be welcomed by both retired persons and property developers. The former are given protection, and the reputation of the latter is prevented from being spoiled by the unscrupulous behaviour of a few. We have pleasure in supporting this Bill.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure and a privilege to thank all hon members who support this Bill. I also want to thank the members of the standing committee for their inputs. They made considerable inputs to this legislation. For example, there is a whole new clause as well as various other amendments for which they were responsible. We are breaking new ground here, and the standing committee has made an excellent study of and effected many improvements to this Bill. I thank them for that.

This Bill will in fact be the fourteenth Act on our Statute Book that deals with consumer protection. The hon the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology has delegated to me the responsibility for legislation relating to consumer protection.

The fact that we have come up with this legislation, should convey the message that Parliament cares for the consumer and for the aged. We support a certain economic system, but unfortunately that economic system is subject to exploitation by unscrupulous people. If this were not the case, there would be no need for consumer protection.

The basis for consumer protection in this country is provided by the Trade Practices Act. It has now become apparent that that Act is in fact defective, and yesterday our standing committee agreed to the Harmful Business Practices Bill, about which we all feel very excited. It provides the entire Statute Book with a far better basis as far as consumer protection is concerned.

If we had that legislation on the Statute Book already and could merely develop it further, it would probably not have been necessary to introduce legislation such as the legislation before us, since we would have been able to publish the provisions contained in that legislation in the form of consumer codes, in terms of the proposed Harmful Business Practices Act. If this legislation should prove to be successful, we shall consider the possible deletion of a substantial amount of consumer legislation presently on the Statute Book, in order to enable us to issue simplified consumer codes instead. We do, of course, support this Bill, because we cannot wait so long when it comes to the protection of the aged.

I should like to mention a few points in this regard to indicate how much is actually being done in this country to protect the consumer. I want to mention one other Act, the Trade Metrology Act. Last year almost 37 000 inspections were carried out by inspectors in terms of this Act. About 5 000 transgressions were brought to light and more than 1 000 prosecutions were instituted. Tests were carried out on 127 000 measuring instruments of which 90% were found to be correct and the other 10% had to be withdrawn from service. I could more quote many more statistics to show how much is actually being done in terms of Acts of Parliament to protect the consumer.

The hon member for Standerton rightly pointed out that this was new legislation and that problems were to be expected where new ground was being broken. With new legislation one usually has to come back to Parliament to address, by means of small amendments, small problems that have come to light. I agree with everything he said and I thank him for his contribution.

The hon member for Bellville is a very knowledgeable person. We know that he cares deeply for the aged and that he is personally involved in housing development for the aged. We appreciate his contribution as an expert and we thank him sincerely.

He referred to the exploitation of the consumer and the fact that the White community in South Africa is ageing rapidly. Demographically, we are becoming an ageing community. The White community happens to be the first community for which this housing development for the aged is very important percentagewise and will become increasingly important in due course. I agree with the hon member as far as that is concerned.

The hon member said the majority of developers were honest people who had good intentions and would not exploit the aged. In the same way most people are not thieves, but there are laws against theft all the same. I suppose one does need legislation.

He referred to certain problems. I want to refer to clause 5, which he mentioned. This clause provides that any facility that is primarily aimed at caring for the infirm—in terms of this legislation the age limit is 50 years—is deemed to be an old-age home in terms of other legislation. Only in this specific case will it be classified as an old-age home.

The hon member referred to the problem of the two-year period and said that this was generally, or in many cases—if I understood him correctly—too short for the completion of a housing development scheme of this nature. The two-year period was decided on after lengthy consultation with experts in the property development field, and this appeared to be the best option in these circumstances.

Parliament will, in due course, have to consider whether two years is in fact the best option. This period may one day have to be changed to two and a half or three years, but at this stage the best advice we were able to obtain was that it should be two years.

†The hon member for Pinelands also supported this piece of legislation and I want to thank him for his support.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, where there is no vision, there is retrogression. Man flourishes and achieves most when he is striving to realise a vision. South Africa’s agriculture is in trouble and is deteriorating because the Government has no vision. Statistics show that our population is increasing, whereas there is an enormous decrease in the number of White farmers who have to ensure sufficient provision of food for the growing population. In 1960 approximately 105 859 farms belonged to Whites. Last year the number of White farmers in South Africa dropped to approximately 62 247. It is estimated that there are approximately 59 000 White farmers, 17 150 Coloured farmers and 35 000 Indian farmers in the agricultural industry at present.

Agriculture forms the cornerstone of our economy, and consequently we shall have to acknowledge that economic stability will lead to political stability. Much is said these days about deregulation as part of the Government’s policy. I want to state unequivocally that the first prerequisite for deregulation should be the removal of the restrictions on obtaining and possessing land. I want to make it clear that it is impossible to talk about deregulation, while proceeding with the restrictions that exist in respect of land ownership in South Africa. That is why it is absolutely essential that the Group Areas Act be repealed. It cannot be gainsaid that agriculture in South Africa cannot be restructured while discrimination is still applied against Coloured farmers.

I want to make a serious appeal today that all discriminatory measures that restrict Coloured farmers be repealed, so that agriculture can become a viable sector in the economy once again. If the permit system with reference to the occupation of land ownership is abolished, South Africa will become the Japan of Africa. This confounded permit system is preventing our people from obtaining land, thus preventing them from making a meaningful living by means of farming. In addition the permit system is preventing Coloured farmers from participating in the free enterprise system. It also has a negative effect on the view foreign countries have of the Government’s apartheid policy which is very much alive in the agricultural industry.

Immigrants, who in many cases are not even favourably disposed towards our country, can purchase a farm in any farming area without any restrictions and settle there. Why are we, who were born in South Africa, denied the right to farm where we want to? Agriculture will be placed on a firm foundation if the permit system is repealed. It is difficult for a Coloured farmer to obtain a permit. It causes frustration and unhappiness.

I want to quote to hon members from a letter written by a legal firm, Matthis & Matthis, to Pastor Mandean in connection with obtaining a permit. He has been struggling for more than a year to get a permit to buy a smallholding at Volmoed. The letter is dated 24 May 1988 and it reads:

Pastor Mandean is sitting in the visitors’ gallery today, listening to the debate, and I want to welcome him here. He has been struggling to get this permit for more than a year, and I want to emphasise that Pastor Mandean does not hate the people who are refusing to grant him a permit. On the contrary, his congregation prayed about this matter last Sunday night. I want to state unequivocally today that no stone will be left unturned in issuing the permit to Pastor Mandean.

Agriculture will be released from its present critical situation if Coloured farmers share in the same privileges as White farmers.

There is too much control in agriculture at present, and regulation restricts the profit possibilities. This leads to absurdities such as excessively strict health measures. This is one of the major reasons for the decrease in the number of dairy farmers during the past 15 years from approximately 30 000 to 15 000. [Interjections.] Why must dairy farmers erect little five-star hotels merely to milk?

The South African ostrich farmers cannot market all their animals because of quotas which are issued by the Small Karoo-Langkloof Co-operative. The co-operative has the monopoly on the marketing of ostrich products. Sir, 85% of all ostrich products which are produced in South Africa and 30% of these exports normally go to the USA. The present USA sanctions prohibit ostrich products from South Africa, but fortunately articles of ostrich leather and ostrich feathers are still permitted at this stage. The present sanction proposals, which have already been approved by certain committees, are aimed at prohibiting all products, including articles made of feathers. These proposals also contain provisions to put an end to all loopholes that can be used to evade sanctions. [Interjections.]

There is a dark shadow hanging over the ostrich industry as well as over Oudtshoorn’s community, because the ostrich industry is one of the major providers of employment opportunities in Oudtshoorn and the surrounding area. Anyone who supports sanctions against South Africa in the present circumstances is a supporter of violence. The ripple effect of sanctions affects the worker and his family, and in the midst of the backlog and the poverty that are already being experienced, the worker cannot but sharply condemn the call for sanctions, especially in the agricultural industry.

Unemployment is on the increase in Oudtshoorn and the surrounding area, and the sanctions in the ostrich industry are aggravating the situation. I therefore want to make a serious appeal to Archbishop Tutu and Dr Allan Boesak today to come to their senses, because sanctions have a detrimental effect on those people who should be helped. Archbishop Tutu and Dr Allan Boesak, who are preaching an alien gospel at the moment, should rather confine themselves to the spiritual upliftment of our people. I want to tell these two gentlemen today that there is no biblical justification for sanctions. [Interjections.]

Sanctions have had a detrimental effect on our deciduous fruit industry. Sanctions are not the solution to South Africa’s problems, and I want to appeal to countries abroad to cease all sanctions against South Africa, because sanctions lead to poverty and misery. At present sanctions are affecting our people to an even greater extent than the Government’s policy of apartheid does, because if one has no work, one can die of starvation.

I should like to know from the hon the Minister whether the new legislation in respect of ostriches which was published in the Gazette on Tuesday, 17 May 1988, will ensure that the ostrich industry is preserved for the Small Karoo and the surrounding area as well as the rest of South Africa.

I should also like the hon the Minister to tell me what is going to be done in view of the recent developments when approximately 1 500 ostriches were transported over the Swaziland border. I also want to refer to the delaying of permits which gave rise to the mortality of approximately 1 000 ostriches. In addition I want to know what effect these abuses will have on the ostrich industry, which is a major employer in my constituency. There must be one uniform agricultural system and policy.

Since 1986 the State has granted financial assistance to the value of almost R2 billion to White farmers. Last year no less than R400 million was allocated to farmers in certain regions to prevent their being sequestrated. I want to know from the hon the Minister today whether the Government’s aid scheme of R400 million has failed, since—according to the hon the Minister of Finance—only R30 million of this money has been used so far. Is it true that the relevant aid scheme could not be implemented successfully, because the other schemes which the White farmers preferred were better than the scheme announced by the Government? At the moment no fewer than 28 different schemes are available for White farmers only. That is nothing but an injustice to the Coloured farmers who have hardly any schemes. Why must the R400 million—to the advantage of White farmers—be kept in reserve if the Government is in fact rescheduling the whole scheme? Why can the remaining R370 million not be given to our Coloured farmers, who are still living from hand to mouth? [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, in today’s debate I should like to draw the attention of the hon the Minister to Region 14 of the regional development strategy. I am aware of the fact that the hon the Minister, as well as the hon the Deputy Minister of Water Affairs, visited the area and that a decision has been taken in this connection.

Order! Hon members must please lower their voices. The hon member may proceed.

Sir, because of other interest groups, as well as the residents of the area, the regional development association of Region 14 cannot simply accept the decision taken in this connection, however. As far as we know, attempts have been made since the beginning of the century to utilise the agricultural potential of the Doring River to the benefit of the region and all its people. Over the years there have been numerous signs that a scheme would be laid on, only for us to hear later that the plans had miscarried. All these things contributed to the frustration, and even doubt, in respect of the credibility of community and political leaders.

Just as the water of the Doring River flows to the sea unutilised, our people in that area are floating unutilised down the economic stream of the country. Sir, we were so full of hope that things in our country had changed to the extent in which we could expect a sympathetic ear and positive action from the Government with regard to this matter which is really of vital importance to us.

Region 14 has no industries or mineral resources worth mentioning. Nor are there many tourist attractions. Our area relies exclusively on its agricultural potential. Unfortunately our region is also subject to periodic and often extensive droughts. Consequently we are experiencing a shortage of employment opportunities. The conditions in Region 14 are critical. Our community there is at its wits’ end; in fact, we are almost desperate. Hon members can imagine the effect of this on our region. Communities, churches and business enterprises are deteriorating by the day.

When I appeal this afternoon for this matter to receive attention, I am not doing so in the interests of a single community or population group. Nor am I the mouthpiece of one specific organisation or political entity. I am doing this in the interests of a total community—a community which is being threatened by socio-economic retrogression and poverty. It is a community which is facing almost total destruction.

When I say, therefore, that I am speaking on behalf of a total community, I should like to point out that the White schools in Region 14 have deteriorated. In the decade from 1970 to 1980, the primary schools have shown a decrease of between 24% and 51% in their number of pupils, and the high schools have shown a decrease of between 30% and 38%. One can imagine what the result of this will be. Sir, we are thinking of the depopulation of the region, which must inevitably follow. This will be reflected in a disrupted community, and will result in unutilised private properties, business premises and State property.

The number of White residents in the magistrate’s district of Calvinia, which consists of Calvinia, Loeriesfontein, Nieuwoudtville and Brandvlei, has decreased by approximately 30%. Even the number of Coloured residents in two of these towns has decreased by 10%. This decrease has not been restricted to our towns. Our farming communities have also deteriorated. The White population on the farms has decreased by 30%, and the Coloured population by 20%.

Hon members can see where this is leading to, when I say that the child mortality rate in Region 14 is more than 90%. What is more, if I present our per capita income to hon members, they will agree with me—in the case of the Whites it is R2 822, and in the case of the Coloureds, R266—that we fall in the category of paupers.

I have presented hon members with only a few of the unpleasant realities that we have to contend with. I want to point out to hon members that the development of Region 14 is absolutely essential. We must make that area economically sound, particularly with a view to the threatening economic sanctions. We must establish a community in Region 14 which can counteract anything that threatens us. I have said before that the boundaries of our country will move hundreds of kilometres to the south if South West Africa should become independent. Consequently we must also be prepared with regard to internal unrest. If, therefore, Region 14 can be a strong enough region, we can make a contribution in the interests of our country. The provision of water is our only hope for the development of the agricultural potential of Region 14. We have the land. Good agricultural land, in fact almost excellent land, is available. We have the necessary people—honest, sincere and hardworking people—and we have the will and the initiative to make a success of whatever we tackle.

Two schemes were presented to hon members. The first was the Elandsdrif Dam, of which the cost was estimated at R6,6 million by the Department of Water Affairs in 1985, and is estimated at R12,2 million by a consulting engineer at present. This fresh and silt-free water, which at present is largely unutilised, can irrigate approximately 9 500 ha of land—land where a variety of crops such as vineyards, citrus, asparagus, grain, lucerne, etc can be cultivated. The alternative scheme, which hon members know about too, will make sufficient water available to irrigate 7 000 ha of land. This alternative makes optimal use of the best available land. It will also make the water cheaper than that of the Elandsdrif Water Scheme. In my opinion the results of that kind of development in Region 14 cannot be calculated. What is being envisaged here is in correspondence with the White Paper on Urbanisation, which points out that the rural development schemes must be aimed at making the areas more viable and enhancing the people’s quality of life to such an extent that they will have no need to move to the urban areas. The new agricultural policy—a policy which envisages the balanced distribution of people and economic activities—has the wholehearted support of those of us in Region 14. Consequently the regional development association will not want to promote only the interests of one community. In fact, it has been decided to make a reasonable section of the land available to Coloured farmers or free entrepreneurs. This will mean a great deal in respect of relationships in the rural areas. I envisage a new community in a new South Africa, which all of us are heading for.

In conclusion I want to ask the hon the Minister to consider our appeals of the past and not to give primary consideration to individuals, at the expense of a whole community.

I also want to ask the hon the Minister not only to take the cost aspect into account, but to consider other values—I believe the hon the Minister knows these other values well—in particular, and to keep Region 14 in mind when planning ahead.

Mr Chairman, on page 3 of the Landbounuus of 4 April 1988 the hon the Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology stated that South Africa’s imports, as regards processed foods, had increased by 127% over the past five years, whereas our exports had increased by only 14%. During the same period, our imports of alcoholic beverages increased by 168% and our exports by only 34%. In view of the fact that the outside world is applying extensive sanctions against us, I should like to know why we are importing so much from them and exporting so little to them.

I should like to thank the Government for the subsidy of R6,66 million granted to the Rural Foundation. This, of course, is used for the upliftment of farm workers. I am able to say that the money is utilised very effectively in my constituency, since the farmers take the upliftment of their workers to heart. However, I should like to associate myself with the point raised by the hon member for Dysseldorp who said that the group areas should disappear. On the farm, the White farmer and his family and the farm workers and their families are each other’s closest neighbours and there are no unpleasant incidents. Why then should we have group areas?

In addition, I should like to say that the nonWhites who want to join the farming industry have to be assisted in order to do so. Obstacles should not be placed in their path. Most of the White farmers are farmers in name only. The actual farming is done by the non-Whites on the farm. If they want to join the industry as owners and real farmers, why should they be rejected? They are the people on whose backs the farming industry in this country rests.

This brings me to the issue of sanctions. Bishop Tutu in particular fans the flames of sanctions abroad, but in reality he is all hot air. As an ordinary man of the cloth, he was too small and insignificant to merit any attention. He desired the purple robe in order that he might gain attention, and now he is blowing the wrong bugle. Let me demonstrate the way in which my constituency is affected negatively by sanctions against our products. In the triangle between Grabouw, Villiersdorp and Botrivier, the farm population totals 41 753 people, of whom 33 709 are Coloureds and 8 044 Blacks.

The population of the three towns is approximately 8 000, and the total population for the whole area is 49 753. The number of farm labourers in the triangle in my constituency alone is approximately 10 000. The school population in the area is approximately 10 000 pupils and 300 staff members. Should sanctions be applied in the triangle in my constituency in the prescribed way, should the outside world refuse to purchase our fruit, the consequences would be severely felt. Many of the teachers are Aarons and Hurs of this world, holding aloft the arms of Bishop Tutu, but they do not realise that, should sanctions be applied, the fate of their own incomes would hang in the balance. The parents would no longer be able to earn any money because the farmers would no longer be able to give them any work, and the children would no longer be able to attend school. Where would the teachers get work? This is the chain reaction that could result from sanctions. And yet Bishop Tutu continues to fan the flames of sanctions abroad. I am talking here of only a small part of my own constituency; what about the whole country?

Over the weekend, I took a brief turn through Crossroads again. The streets abound in fruit and vegetable stalls at which the farmers’ produce is sold to the locals. I shopped about at each of the stalls and enquired around as to the price of bananas. One banana costs as much as 20 cents. The vendors have to make a living too. On whose behalf is Bishop Tutu speaking overseas? Should all the farmers produce be sold here at home?

According to the proponents of sanctions, the campaign against South Africa abroad is a direct result of the word “apartheid” appearing on our Statute Book. Could we ask the hon the Minister to request the Government simply to delete the word apartheid from our Statute Book so that the real issue upon which the outside world bases the sanctions campaign might become apparent.

I think the time has come for the Government to do something about Bishop Tutu. He conducts his sanctions campaign abroad, but here at home he lives off the fat of the land. He lives like a king. This may perhaps sound a little strange, but why do we not ask him to import his own food from his foreign friends? Since he urges the outside world not to buy our food, he does not deserve to be allowed to eat it. If our food is not good enough, he should be left without and should have to import his own food from abroad.

Mr Chairman, of all the Government departments, that of agriculture is certainly one of the most important. When tilling the soil one comes closest to one’s Creator. Agriculture is at present in a crisis worldwide, because parts of the globe yield surpluses while others experience shortages which plunge them into the most dire misery. At present, and in spite of the drought, South Africa is experiencing a surplus in the production of maize and wheat, but we are unable to export it since there is no market.

Should a market in fact be found, the exports would be sold for less than the cost of producing them. It is a worldwide tendency that the price of commodities is declining while production costs are rising—faster even than consumption. The international phenomenon of over-production and the concomitant low prices give rise to a low economic growth rate throughout the world. For this reason, the moral of the story for the farmers is that they should produce according to their market and pay special attention to the local market. Furthermore, they should strive to develop types of farming in which costs are kept in check and risks are curtailed.

By way of illustration, let me mention that I recently attended the congress of the South African Poultry Association. This branch of agriculture is the most neglected component of the industry, but it produces fantastic results. For instance, it has an annual turnover of R1,5 billion. It is a market-orientated industry. The largest consumers are the Third World markets because they are experiencing an increase in disposable income, and it is a worldwide phenomenon that the consumption of protein-rich foods is directly related to the increase in people’s standard of living.

If one examines the per capita consumption of red meat, one will find that the consumption of beef is declining and that chicken has taken its place. The most important reasons for this are that it is cheaper and that there is an awareness that unsaturated fats, which are more predominant in poultry, pose less of a risk in respect of heart disease. Poultry farming is of the greatest importance for the agricultural industry on account of the fact that it is one of the largest consumers of maize and other grain crops. The estimated total consumption of feed amounts to 2 200 000 tons, of which maize comprises 52%; 800 000 tons are used for broilers and 350 000 for egg production. That is no insignificant amount if one bears in mind that the price of maize is 2,5 times higher locally than in countries overseas. It is no wonder that poultry has recently been imported and offered for sale at R2,41 per kilogram, while production costs here amount to R2,70 per kilogram. Fortunately, the South African consumer knows what he wants and is prepared to pay more for a prime product than for an inferior and less attractive imported product.

I should like to ask the hon the Minister to keep a watchful eye on the marketing of inferior imported products in competition with the South African markets so that the employment opportunities they present will not be lost, especially as the poultry industry is not subsidised.

I should also like to ask the hon the Minister to keep a watchful eye on the price adjustments made by the Maize Board so as to prevent this industry from being compelled to become uneconomic and pricing its products beyond the reach of the consumer.

I should also like to ask whether the Coloured farmers in the rural areas ought not to be giving attention to this facet rather than agitating for community halls, electricity and so on. If organised agriculture cannot assist them, they could, I believe, approach the SBDC for assistance. In my opinion, this industry provides the solution to the poverty-stricken conditions in the rural areas.

I should like to add another important point. It concerns the Rural Foundation. Sir, I take my hat off to them for the work, the upliftment, which they have accomplished on the farms. I should like to express my thanks to Mr Okkie Bosman, Mr Herman Bailey, and Mr Swanepoel, or Oom Swannie as we know him, who hails from my home district. There are so many other people who are also involved in this laborious task, and their only complaint is that the funds are not sufficient to ensure the success of their venture. I ask the hon the Minister whether it is not possible to appropriate money for them as well. They are also asking why some farmers still refuse to allow the Foundation onto their farms. It is usually the case that, on farms such as these, the labourers have benefited least of all. Or are there still so many Whites who are prejudiced against members of other race groups?

I should also like to ask whether the Foundation is operating in the Transvaal and Free State. Furthermore, I should like to encourage them to continue with the good work.

Mr Chairman, I think the hon the Minister has had the hors d’oeuvre. I shall now present the main course.

Sir, I want to discuss a few small matters today. They may not be all that important or pleasant, but they do fall under the jurisdiction of the hon the Minister of Agriculture. Sir, allow me to begin with this big problem, viz the so-called White farming area and the so-called Coloured farming area in the RS A. Here we have to contend with two different poles, two different implementations of one agricultural law in one country.

With reference to so-called Coloured farming, I want to point out to the hon the Minister once again that because the Coloured farmers are subject to the permit system, it is extremely difficult for the bona fide Coloured farmer, who can farm productively and quite possibly to the advantage of the country’s economy, to own land, particularly in the White farming areas. Many of these extremely competent Coloured farmers have had to throw in the towel. I have personal knowledge of such cases. To give reform a bit of a boost, especially now, it is of crucial importance that the hon the Minister seriously consider abolishing this system. The attempt to get a permit to buy or rent a farm in a White farming area is the greatest tribulation and struggle one could ever come up against.

Another problem facing the Coloured farmers is their need for financial assistance. The financial capacity of private moneylenders is limited, minimal and usually out of the question, especially when money is scarce. Institutions which are supposed to help Coloured farmers either do not have the available funds, or do not see their way clear to helping these farmers.

I want to avail myself of the opportunity today to thank the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture in his absence for the fact that he has managed, under the present circumstances, to help our Coloured farmers to increase the number of farms under the control of the Administration: House of Representatives from eight to 15. We want to convey our sincere thanks to the hon the Minister. This was a very fine gesture.

I want to address a very courteous appeal to the hon the Minister of Agriculture today. I have already referred to this, but I want to ask once again whether one cannot do away with the hindrance of the permit system. Is it not possible for agriculture to become a general affair? I am aware of the fact that the hon the Minister cannot take the final decision, but nevertheless he is the person who has to deal with agricultural problems. The hon the Minister is therefore in a position to make recommendations in this connection. I know the hon the Minister would not like a situation in which there were no Coloured farmers in our country, and in which they existed only in history books. I trust that the hon the Minister will reflect on the matter and who knows, perhaps legislation in this connection will be tabled next year. I have no doubt that the hon the Minister of Agriculture will give serious consideration to this request, merely for the sake of reform.

Mr Chairman, I made notes with reference to certain points broached by hon members in today’s agricultural debate.

During the past few years we have floundered along in agriculture, in respect of both own and general affairs. When I think about where we began and where we are today, it is a fact that we have a much better understanding now of what agriculture involves than was the case in the past. This does not mean that we have always agreed about the conditions, or that we have always accepted them. We have had our differences, but during the course of time we have come to a better knowledge of one another. In this way we have highlighted certain problems, as hon members have done here today. In that respect we have addressed the needs of agriculture in South Africa with regard to its structure and its historic basis: A First, Second and Third World agriculture with various agricultural departments and an own affairs component, but also a general affairs component. The comments I am going to make today will be general comments. The most important facet of agriculture, however, is that it must be able to compete in the existing circumstances, otherwise agriculture will destroy itself. We must therefore consider the circumstances and try to answer the question as to why agriculture cannot have only one department. Even if we should assume that we had one department of agriculture which dealt with the whole of agriculture in South Africa, there would have to be certain divisions within that single department of agriculture.

There would have to be a section to accommodate the market gardeners in Natal—in other words those with a completely distinctive approach. There would also have to be a section to accommodate the communal farming of the Black populations in our country. Their problems are completely different from those in the First World countries. There would also have to be a section to give specific attention to matters concerning right of ownership, which are taking root also within the Coloured farming community.

That is why we have a division into own and general affairs today. In the end, as the respective components of agriculture in the First and Third Worlds move closer together, we shall move towards a single department with fewer divisions. As long as there is a distinction between the respective forms of agriculture, however, this distinction will also have to be maintained in the administration of agriculture. If we accept that as a basic point of departure, which in my opinion we have begun to do to a certain extent, as well as the fact that Second and Third World agriculture is moving closer to First World agriculture—naturally there are problems, such as those regarding land ownership, which hon members pointed out—it is clear that we cannot ignore these things totally. This is a subject which will systematically be broached more and more in debates.

Let us look at the question of permits. I think the hon the Minister will talk about the basis on which land ownership will rest. I do not want to take the words out of his mouth, therefore. There are problems in respect of the permit system. I know that that is a great source of irritation in the Coloured community. I want to give hon members an example of what can happen, however. Permits have been granted to Coloured farmers. They complied with the conditions attached to this by declaring themselves prepared to take part in the farming activities in a certain area. They consulted with their neighbours, and reached a point at which they could accept this. Hon members in this House can attest to that. There are also farmers, however, who have adopted a standpoint in respect of the permit system which has led to the creation of circumstances in which these conditions could not be complied with. If, for example, a Coloured farmer goes into a community to buy land, and says that he can get hold of cheap money with which he is going to buy out farms from under the White farmers, a spirit of non-co-operation and unacceptability is immediately created. When conditions of this kind prevail, there are problems in respect of permits.

I can add that the respective agricultural unions have adopted interesting standpoints in this connection. With regard to permit applications, there are district agricultural unions which say that they will not object to the economic entry of Coloured farmers who want to get hold of White land on the basis of the fact that they are Coloureds. We have made progress in this sphere, therefore. I know that this involves frustration, but we must also look at the good aspects which are systematically being established in agriculture.

I now come to the position in respect of Coloured managers on farms. This is an important factor in the agricultural economy. Circumstances in which training can take place are being created. This was an approach which was initiated by White farmers, and I think we are systematically reaping the benefits of this training programme. It causes the communities to move closer to one another, so that in future they will feel a closer affinity with one another, although problems which are forcing them apart do exist. In this respect I have a great deal of hope. I believe that we shall be able to approach the problems more rationally in future and that we shall experience fewer problems.

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon the Deputy Minister? I know the hon the Deputy Minister is a very good man …

Order! The hon member must put his question.

Mr Chairman, I merely want to know whether the hon the Deputy Minister is going to assist us in helping Pastor Mandean to obtain that permit for the smallholding. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I shall be happy to answer the hon member’s question. The answer resides only partly in the allocation of a permit, and also partly in the structures that one has to create to enable farmers, as soon as they have got those permits, to obtain finance, extension and schools. The answer is not all that simple. In that respect we have already said—I am talking about the White own affairs component, which is well-developed—that we shall make our knowledge available to grant certain assistance in respect of the Coloured community as long as we are able to do so. I repeat, however, that this can take place only on request. Otherwise there would be an element of discomfort on our part if perhaps we wanted to intervene. We are still prepared, however, to make our knowledge available to the Coloured community upon invitation.

Mr Chairman the question of obtaining agricultural land for the Coloured farmers of South Africa has been an exceptionally sensitive matter for the past three years. I have respect for the problem Coloured farmers have to contend with, and I listened attentively to the speech made by the hon member for Dysselsdorp.

I went to some trouble not only to read about the problem, but also to reflect on it a bit. I hope that what I thought can give hon members at least an indication of the good intentions the Government has in this connection. I immediately want to state the Government’s general policy that all people in all spheres should have equal opportunities. They must enjoy equal opportunities. [Interjections.] If, however, one wants to provide all people with equal opportunities, one also has to take the ability of the various groups in South Africa into account. I am not trying to express an opinion on the ability of the Coloured farmers by saying that. Hon members can judge for themselves.

We are talking about the permit system. I want to ask hon members not to attach an unnecessary stigma to the permit system. The permit system contains some good qualities. [Interjections.] We have denigrated it to such an extent, however, and we view the permit system with so much reluctance and suspicion, that we sometimes forget on what basis the permit system was instituted. There was no such thing as a permit system before the Group Areas Act. At that stage it was a free-for-all system. Anyone could buy land wherever he wanted to. It is a historic fact in South Africa that more than 90% of the land and the agricultural activities belong to the White farmers. One cannot undo that. They bought their land in a free-market system, until we came forward with the permit system and group areas in the fifties, and designated certain areas as Coloured areas. [Interjections.] Hon members must please listen now, because I am serious. There are 23 such rural areas, with a surface area of approximately 1,7 million hectares.

This is over and above what has been reserved for Coloured development in the lower Orange, the Neus-Augrabies area. The Cabinet took a decision on this two years ago and the hon the Chairman of the Minister’s Council in this House shared in that decision. These are large development areas for which capital has to be found. This is over and above land which has already been granted to Coloureds under the permit system. I am talking about approximately 2 million hectares which is in the possession of Coloured farmers in South Africa.

Let us be realistic. Coloured farmers have a land market of 2 million hectares. If one abolishes the system, one cannot simply abolish the permit in one respect; it has to be abolished in all respects. Then it is a free market. The White farmers are in the privileged position—this is a historic fact—that they have the land market. What is going to happen now? Surely the Whites are going to buy out the Coloureds. Just as a White person has to have a permit in order to buy a farm in a Coloured area, a Coloured person has to have a permit to buy a farm in a White area. It therefore cuts both ways. I want to make a general statement—hon members can differ with me on this, but I have been working with these things for years—that if one simply abolishes the permit system or throws open the reserved Coloured areas, a situation could arise in which the Coloured farmers of South Africa, and there are good Coloured farmers, might have less land over a certain period than they have at present. [Interjections.]

I shall tell hon members, however, how the Coloured farmers can obtain more land. It is common knowledge that the policy of throwing open certain areas in which Coloureds, Whites and everyone can buy land and take part in an exceptionally homogeneous farming area has been accepted. There will be absolutely free competition in these areas. The wealthy Coloured or Indian farmers can then buy land in an opened area in an open market system just like any other farmer. Certain basic requirements such as soil conservation etc go hand in hand with this. This costs money. I want to say—the Economic Advisory Council also spelt this out in its report—that we must make every possible attempt to give Coloured farmers in South Africa the opportunity to enter the agricultural industry, because this is a good thing for the agricultural industry. That is why we are giving very serious consideration to the situation.

The hon member for Dysselsdorp also launched a very interesting attack—fortunately we are in agreement in this respect—on Bishop Tutu about the question of sanctions. I agree with him wholeheartedly. To be the Minister of Agriculture today, when one’s industry is dependent upon agricultural exports to a very great extent, means that all kinds of attempts have to be made to regain markets that we have lost. This involves expense, and one has to display exceptional expertise in making a stand against the sanctions campaign against us. It is not only a matter of sanctions, however, but also of boycotts which is an almost greater problem than sanctions at the moment. Sanctions is the official policy of a specific government, but boycotts are organised by organisations which are stimulated and fuelled by the revolutionary forces that are active outside our country.

They organise strategies such as going into chain stores, filling the trolleys and then, when they get to the cashier, ostensibly realising that they have filled their trolleys with South African products, at which time they overturn the trolleys. In this way they create chaos. As a result of this kind of boycott strategy, private entrepreneurs abroad are hesitant to deal with South African products. The Deciduous Fruit Board, the Citrus Board and all our other export industries fight sanctions and boycotts abroad daily, but it costs an enormous amount of money. It seems that people like Bishop Tutu, when they come forward with their appeals for sanctions against South Africa, do not realise, as the hon member remarked, that between 5 million and 6 million people in South Africa are dependent upon agriculture alone. More or less 1,3 million people are employed in agriculture, but it seems that that does not bother him either. The hon member asked why he did not simply import whatever he needs. That was quite a thought. Perhaps one should give him a permit so that he can import all his consumer goods. I wonder what he would pay for a litre of milk if he had to import it litre by litre. It would cost him a great deal of money.

The hon member for Dysselsdorp also launched an attack on the Small Karoo Agricultural Cooperative in the ostrich area.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I did not launch an attack on the Small Karoo Agricultural Co-operative, but made an appeal on their behalf.

I concede that. The hon member did give some criticism, but we shall not call it an attack. The hon member said this was a closed co-operative and that we should throw it open. I want to argue that point with the hon member.

The hon member may still have been young, but he knows very well that the ostrich feather market abroad once collapsed totally. We have experienced the same situation with other agricultural products. This happens especially when one is dealing with a commodity that is intended exclusively for the foreign market. It causes chaos in a certain area. We know that over the years, farmers have specialised in a certain product in the Oudtshoorn area. We made the co-operative into a closed co-operative by making co-operative marketing of ostrich products compulsory. This co-operative succeeded in specialising in this particular product in this restricted area. As the hon member knows, not only the feathers, but also the skin, the biltong and almost all parts of the ostrich are utilised and marketed. This required research, however. I know, for example, that the chairman of the Small Karoo Agricultural Co-operative walked New York flat seeking a market for ostrich skins. Within a few years he had built up a market to the value of over R6 million. Then the American sanction laws were promulgated, and that was the end of that. This leader in the ostrich industry did not come home and throw his hands in the air, however. He did not spare any expense, trouble or risks in trying to find a new market, and he succeeded in recapturing the American ostrich market in other countries. He had to illustrate the exceptional quality of his products to those people, however. There are ostrich products and ostrich products. If one throws open the industry for every Tom, Dick and Harry to provide ostrich products for a market which one has built up over the years, one could destroy that market within a year or two. One could have another collapse.

In other words, one therefore markets an exclusive quality product. Because the particular quality product is manufactured in a restricted and specific area, it is essential that that region should protect the ostrich industry to a considerable extent. That is why provision is made in the Notice of 17 May 1988 for the restriction of the movement of ostriches to a great extent.

We are aware of mushroom organisations which want to develop an industry of this kind in neighbouring countries. There has even been smuggling of ostriches. We could not permit that, and I think the hon member will agree with me that we have to prevent it. It is one of the few industries which still receive protection in terms of that specific legislation, and this is done precisely because of the limited production area.

Mr Chairman, I want to know from the hon the Minister whether he thinks it is fair for ostrich skins to be marketed abroad and for the processed articles then to be imported by South Africa at great expense. Can ostrich skins not be processed in South Africa so that employment opportunities can be created for our people at the same time?

It is easy to say that. One must determine in the first place, however, whether there is a market for the total volume of ostrich products that are marketed. We are experiencing the same situation in respect of wool. We produce a large amount of wool, but South Africa does not have a local market for every manufactured wool product. One therefore also markets the untreated product abroad in order to get a market for one’s product there. This is a study facet, however.

I want to convey this important information to the hon member. The Department of Agriculture and the Department of Economic Affairs have established a joint committee since last year, and the pipeline industry is being discussed in the committee. There is no point in asking farmers to produce more cotton or ostrich feathers if no processing facilities exist in the secondary sphere. That is why we talk about a pipeline industry. It is aimed at accommodating the total industry of a particular commodity. Very good co-operation exists, and I think we are achieving very good results in this connection.

Unfortunately I have to spend some more time on the hon member. He is someone who has very interesting arguments about agriculture. He wanted to know whether we could not utilise part of the R400 million scheme for the Coloureds. He spoke as if discrimination was applied against Coloured farmers even in the sphere of financing. I am going to differ with the hon member. I have the figures here with me. The investment in land for agriculture is R32,4 billion; for implements it is R4,4 billion; for livestock it is R8,9 billion. This brings the total investment in agriculture to an amount of R45,7 billion. Ninety per cent of agriculture is in the hands of the White farmers. In other words, they produce most of the agricultural products. The debt of White agriculture amounts to approximately R14 000 million at present, however. I come into contact with this in White agriculture every day.

If we do not come forward with certain aid schemes and help the White farmers in the rural areas, depopulation is going to take place on a large scale. That is why I agree with the hon member who spoke about Region 14. We must take a look at that development, because if the rural infrastructure collapses, it will lead to further urbanisation of people from the rural areas. Further urbanisation also means additional expense, because those people have to find accommodation. Hon members are welcome to go and ask the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture in this House. He will be able to tell hon members what urbanisation costs. The people have to have water; they have to have land.

I agree with the hon member: If one sets that cost against one’s total costs, one sometimes has to think twice before developing irrigation schemes, because one has to decide whether or not one must take those costs into account and quite probably subsidise the cost of one’s water if it is too high.

What we have here, therefore, is a situation in which White agriculture is experiencing this position of debt which has built up over the past seven years. In some of these rural areas, agriculture is the industry which has maintained the total community, including even the town. They had to maintain schools for all races, for example. If cash flow for those areas is not effected, they will collapse. That is why agricultural development definitely also contains a community facet which has to be taken into account. That is why this large amount was made available.

I want to tell hon members how this amount was decided upon. This amount was not determined by my department. When there was another collapse and another failed harvest the year before last, the Government and the Cabinet decided that we would have to do something about the situation. We had a survey done. We were told that approximately 3 000 to 4 000 farmers would leave agriculture during the following season. Naturally this held immense social implications. Those figures were obtained from White agriculture itself. They themselves determined that figure. We then came forward with this scheme—the so-called sequestration scheme. When we received those farmers’ figures, we saw what their conditions really were. Some of them could not qualify for assistance, because their liabilities exceeded their assets.

What happened then, Sir? We made a certain amount available to most of those farmers. Hon members know that we had good rains last year; and they know that farmers—I am including the Coloured farmers—gain renewed courage when it rains. They simply want to get onto the land to plough and plant. Consequently we told those farmers that instead of helping them under the R400 million scheme, we would make additional funds available to them to plant a new harvest, on condition that they concluded an agreement with their creditors in terms of which the creditors were not permitted to sell them out. That is why more use was made of other schemes than of the R400 million scheme. The R400 million scheme was rescheduled. We are going to use it for other purposes. We are using it for another aid scheme this year.

Can the hon the Minister not come back to our problems for a moment?

Yes, but the hon member expressed criticism about the R400 million scheme. He wanted the money. I have now told him why we cannot give him the money. We also have our problems. In any case, the matter he broached was an own affairs matter. It is a matter which he should take up with the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture in this House. As soon as there is greater participation on the part of the Coloured farmers in agriculture in South Africa, their financing requirements will grow accordingly. I merely wanted to draw a comparison so that the hon member would not be under an erroneous impression.

The hon member for Hantam made representations about Region 14. I am aware of the representations they made about the Doring River area some time ago. When I was still the Minister of Water Affairs, we had discussions about this matter. I think that perhaps the hon member should reopen the matter with the present hon Minister of Water Affairs. The only thing I can tell the hon member in this connection, is that we shall make ourselves available immediately if the hon member needs any technical assistance. We should like to help him with the surveys. Once again it is a question of cost advantage.

According to a study that was made, if one wants to develop an irrigation area, one has to determine the cost of the water if one utilises it on land, as well as the production potential of that land. One also has to determine what products one can produce on that land, and in the last place, whether or not one has a market for those products. I want to add immediately that I wish the hon member everything of the best, because sultanas, if they can produce them in that area, will definitely be a viable commodity. Sultanas are fetching very good prices these days. This also applies to dates. It is important to study the market situation, however, because if one has a market and good prices, the viability and cost advantages of such a scheme can be determined easily. If the hon member needs any technical assistance in this connection, he is very welcome to approach me. The door to my office is always open and my department is prepared to render assistance as well.

While I am talking about the question of liaison with one another, I want to point out that I wrote to the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture earlier this year about the establishment of a committee between my department and the own affairs department, so that we can have regular discussions with one another on matters of common interest on the administrative level. If we as Ministers have to get together about anything of importance, we shall do so from time to time. We therefore have an existing committee for mutual liaison and consultation, because we have common interests in agriculture in general.

The hon member for Vredendal referred to imports and exports, as well as to the Rural Foundation. If I remember correctly, three hon members referred to the development of the Rural Foundation. The relevant Minister announced recently that the funding of the Rural Foundation was being increased from just over R4 million to just over R6 million. It is a pleasure to be able to say that the Rural Foundation is beginning to take root even in the northern areas where I farm. Farmers in South Africa are realising more and more that we must improve the quality of the communities on our farms.

We are pre-eminently an industrial country. We have rich minerals and many developed mines. In my area, for example, there are coalmines. Often, however, one sees beautiful developed areas, only to find a depressed area just outside the town. This is unbalanced development, which we in South Africa must resist. We cannot effect proper community development for all our people in this way.

Hon members covered quite a wide range of topics in talking about this particular Vote, and I want to do so as well. I know that hon members may not agree with me, but the amendment of section 15 of the Regional Services Council Act and the establishment of urban boards can make an exceptional contribution to the development of depressed areas. We are investigating the way in which we can develop rural boards—and hon members will have to help us—so that local funds, which are available in a specific region, can be utilised in the rural areas in a balanced way. In this connection I am talking about schools, roads, health services, housing etc. In my area, approximately 50% of all Black children are accommodated in farm schools which farmers have erected at their own expense.

When one takes the contribution of the South African farmer into consideration in this respect, and takes into account the advantages many of the urban industrialists enjoy, I tell hon members that the South African farmer need not take a back seat in respect of his contribution; on the contrary, I think we should afford greater recognition to the social services already rendered by the farmers. This does not apply with regard to everyone. Naturally there are always exceptions to the rule. If, however, it becomes the trend among all farmers and, with the assistance of the regional services councils, in all rural communities in South Africa to want to uplift communities, even the person who most neglects his duty in this respect may have to leave, because no one will want to work for him. He will therefore be eliminated in the process in any case.

I agree with hon members that we should grant the Rural Foundation even more support if this is at all possible—not only with the aid of State funds, but if possible with the aid of private funds. I can tell hon members what I have in mind. I want the co-operative movement, which has an important part to play in rural development—not only in agricultural development; after all, that is part of the development of the rural areas—to see whether it cannot also make a contribution, no matter how small, to supplement that which the Rural Foundation is doing.

The hon member for Diaz appears to be an expert on the poultry industry. It seems that the hon member has a slight voice problem, because I could not hear him very well, but I think he was objecting because we sometimes import broilers. [Interjections.] The hon member is quite correct; I also think it is wrong. With regard to broilers, there was a terribly high mortality rate last year. Consequently production dropped tremendously. This was just before Christmas, and the chain stores claimed that their cold stores were empty. An application followed.

I issue a permit only if it is recommended by the South African Poultry Association, and they recommended that we permit a small number of broilers to be imported. There were applications in this connection again later, but we refused these. The hon member rightly pointed out that the poultry industry is one of the greatest consumers of cereals, especially mealies. We produce a surplus of mealies which we have to export to the overseas market at a loss. The moment one imports poultry, therefore, one is causing an additional uneconomic export of cereals. Consequently we are completely opposed to this, and we are keeping a close watch on the situation.

The hon member said the poultry industry was a market-orientated organisation. That is correct. It stands on its own; it is not subsidised. It is a very sound and, in my opinion, growing industry. That is the case precisely because it competes very strongly with red meat in the first place, and secondly because chickens are the best fodder converters of all animals. Poultry is economical.

I do want to add, however, Sir, that if one takes a chicken weighing a kilogram or two and analyses it, and takes red meat with the same mass, one will see that the chicken has quite a large percentage of bones too. [Interjections.] I really do not think we shall ever reach a situation in which we shall eliminate red meat completely. I agree, however, that at the moment red meat is pricing itself out of the market. We have made very interesting studies in this connection. We found that the supply of red meat this year remained basically the same in comparison with that of the previous year. Despite the fact that the supply was the same and the consumer group remained basically the same, the prices increased by more than 20%.

Every commodity has its own character, however. As soon as the economy in South Africa improves, the demand for credit increases—and hon members heard only the other day that the demand for credit had increased tremendously. This was caused mainly by the consumer. The moment that happens, people buy red meat, and as soon as the economy is not doing too well, they do not buy red meat, with the result that surpluses arise. Then we have to subsidise slaughtering and storage. We debated this the year before last. Red meat will always be found in South Africa, however, for the simple reason that this is an industry in which one can use natural pastures properly. If one can use one’s natural pastures for meat and wool production, one has an economic advantage over those who have to feed their animals on grain in a feeding-pen. That is why red meat will always be an important product in South Africa.

The hon member said we should keep an eye on maize prices, because 62% of this product is essential for the poultry industry. I can elaborate on the maize industry at length. I merely want to say, however, that during the past two or three years we have moved towards a more market-orientated price system. Previously the Minister had to fix a price for the producer and the consumer, with a margin between the two. This still happens in the case of wheat, but we have moved in a different direction in respect of maize. We tell the maize producers at the beginning of the planting season what the market prospects are. We show them the domestic market and give them certain prices in correspondence with the size of the maize harvest. We then give them a variety of scenarios, which give them an indication of what they can expect. That is why we talk about a market-orientated production system. That market signal determines a person’s eagerness to produce more or less of a specific product. This has led to our planting half a million hectares less of maize during the past season, despite the good rainfall. Our losses on the overseas market are therefore beginning to decrease, and we could reduce the production of maize by approximately 6% this year, depending on the quantity of maize consumed by the poultry industry.

Maize is the raw material for meat, milk and wool, however. A person who eats breakfast every day has no product on his table which has not involved maize or grain at some stage. We are not all that sure that these benefits of lower prices are being transferred to the consumers, however.

No.

The farm-gate price—that is the term we use for the price the farmer gets—has always increased by less than the inflation rate. There is a very big difference between the farmgate price and that which the consumer has to pay, however. I often talk to consumers, and then they ask how this is possible, since food is always the thing that causes problems when one looks at the consumer price index. I then tell them that they must not tell me that, since I have no control over food processors; I have no control over those people who manufacture crisps. I have no control over all those people who preserve so many products, or over the clever packagings one gets in the chain stores. I have no control over that. If one looks at the profit margins and the financial reports of the large food companies, however, they talk about profits of 20% and more. Then the consumers tell me how they are struggling, whereas the processors and dealers are enlarging their profits.

Their profits are enlarging. The problem we have with the consumer price index in the food industry does not reside with primary agriculture, but with the processors of food products. That is where one must seek the problem.

The hon member for Springbok spoke once again about the question of throwing open areas and the problems with permits. He asked why agriculture was not a general affair. I think the hon the Deputy Minister gave a very clear explanation of the reason. I merely want to add something to that. Over the years in which I have been intensively involved with various agricultural activities in South Africa, I have also dealt with the development of Third World agriculture. I am talking about the national states. There is a world of difference in the way in which agricultural activities are practised. Agriculture is a way of life, no matter how one looks at it. I have been in America and in Europe. The Europeans’ agricultural practices differ from those of the Americans. I have just had talks with the Minister of Agriculture in the Republic of China. Their agriculture differs from ours.

One must look in a differentiated way at the respective methods of practising agriculture in South Africa. When one does so, one must specialise in order to comply with those particular needs. It has been placed on record—also in this House—that I said I thought our Coloured farmers should start at the very beginning by establishing their own organisational agricultural cooperatives and farming associations. I read my own Hansard of the year before last, and if hon members go and read it, they will see that I said that Coloured agriculture must develop in such a way that one will reach the stage at which Coloured agriculture will have representation on the executive of the SA Agricultural Union. They cannot get that unless they start developing at grassroots level, however. I was very serious when I said that, and I am serious in saying it today. I mean this honestly and sincerely.

We shall give them every possible assistance; it is our duty to do so. It is also the duty of my ministry of general affairs to grant the necessary assistance so that they can develop in this respect. I am just as eager for the Coloureds to get a full-fledged share, appropriate to their status, in agriculture, but it is a process of development. It is not something that can be done overnight. As I said at the beginning, what we have to contend with here is a historic fact—rightly or wrongly; we can argue this point for hours—and we must face up to it. If we accept the harsh reality, there are certain requirements which we shall have to comply with in order to overcome this problem.

Mr Chairman, since Coloureds are involved in the production of rooibos tea, I want to ask the hon the Minister what is being done to counteract the surpluses which were caused by the collapse of the export market in 1985-86. We know that agriculture is a major producer of foreign exchange, and that is why I should like to know the estimated loss in foreign exchange suffered by South Africa last year in respect of additional imports, and the loss of exports which can be ascribed to drought conditions.

I can tell the hon member that basically South Africa is still an export country of agricultural products. Our export of agricultural products is very effective because our net earnings on agricultural products are much higher in rand than the amounts we get on many other commodities. Unfortunately, however, I am not a walking encyclopaedia, and therefore I cannot give him the figures right now. I undertake to give the hon member the figures in writing, however.

The hon member’s first question dealt with rooibos tea. He will remember that over the past four or five seasons, we have given the Rooibos Tea Control Board special assistance. This was the result of a disaster that afflicted the industry when salmonella, a kind of bacteria, was discovered in rooibos tea packets on store shelves. The health people in particular analysed the tea and kicked up a big fuss. An hon member mentioned this afternoon that health regulations have an inhibiting effect on agriculture. Rightly or wrongly, they identified this bacteria, and the market of the Rooibos Tea Control Board collapsed immediately. They were stuck with a surplus supply of approximately 12 million kilograms, which they could not finance as a result of the collapse of the market. We then made attempts to finance these surplus supplies by means of a Government guarantee to the Land Bank.

The rooibos tea farmers performed wonders after the collapse, however. They themselves accepted quotas which demanded that they make financial sacrifices. In the meantime their market grew again, and it has now reached the point at which they can start working off that surplus supply. This means that the surplus supply that they had to finance with State aid is shrinking now. I think the Rooibos Tea Control Board is overcoming its problems, and that the situation will be normal within a few years.

Debate concluded.

Copies of the draft Bill and the explanatory notes have been made available to certain hon members of the three Houses of Parliament to enable them to study the contents. I must say that this is a very technical Bill and I do not believe there are actually principles at issue.

The proposed amendments to the principal Act were, in accordance with standing practice, submitted to representative bodies of commerce and industry such as the South African Association of Freight Forwarders, the Suid-Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut, Assocom and the Federated Chamber of Industries for comment.

The amendments to the Schedules to the Customs and Excise Act published during the year up to 4 February in the Gazette have been bound in book form and, together with explanatory notes, laid upon the Table in the form of a White Paper. The amendments to Schedule No 1 resulting from the taxation proposals have been included as a Schedule to this Bill.

The Bill provides inter alia for a concession regarding the disposal and usage of certain spirits; the clarification of licensing requirements in respect of certain dealers in excise duty goods; the production of documents upon clearance for export; amendments consequential to the introduction Of the Harmonized System; the inclusion of certain costs in the value for customs duty purposes and adjustments to the system of refunds of duty and fuel levy to certain users of distillate fuel.

Clause 1 amends section 34 of the Act to enable the Commissioner for Customs and Excise to allow certain agricultural distillers to use and dispose of spirits manufactured by them. Sir, this is the “mampoer” part of this Bill which is just about the only interesting aspect it contains. Requests in this regard are made to the commissioner on a regular basis. The existing legislation does not, however, provide for any concessions at all. Up to the present, these distillers could only consume the spirits on the farm themselves and the purpose of the concession is to allow them to dispose of the spirits at agricultural shows, meetings of the guild, etc. Duty will be payable on such disposals.

Section 36A of the Act is amended by clause 2 to make it clear that, in addition to all manufacturers and certain owners, dealers of a class designated by the commissioner are compelled to license their premises for the purposes of excise duty specified in Section B of Part 2 of Schedule No 1.

This section has been administered in accordance with the provisions of the proposed amendment since 9 July 1969 and it is therefore made retrospective to that date.

The words “metals clad with” are also substituted in this clause for the word “rolled” to bring the wording of the Act in line with the text of the Harmonized System which was introduced on 1 January 1988. This amendment is therefore made retrospective to that date. Both these amendments are of a technical nature and will place no additional burden on those concerned.

Clause 3 amends section 39 to enable the commissioner to combat malpractices connected with the exportation of goods. Export restrictions and certain prohibitions are increasingly circumvented by misleading descriptions of goods on export bills of entry. In terms of the amendment, the commissioner may require the production of documents in order to verify the description of such goods and transactions relating to them.

The amendment of section 47 by clause 4 is of a textual nature and is consequential to the introduction of the Harmonized System. This system was implemented on 1 January 1988 and the amendment is made retrospective to that date.

Mr Chairman, sections 66 and 67 are amended in clauses 5 and 6 to include, as was the case before July 1983, the cost of loading goods on board ship or on any vehicle, including a container, in the value for customs duty purposes. Since July 1983, these costs have not been included in the value for duty purposes owing to administrative reasons arising from problems supposedly experienced by importers in obtaining invoices specifying the apportionment of costs relating to transport, loading, etc. These problems do not in fact exist and it has been decided to reintroduce the provision making such costs dutiable as in principle they should be.

Moreover, instances have been brought to the notice of the commissioner that these charges are irregularly inflated and subtracted from the dutiable price of the goods. Although this amendment will have a negligible effect on the duties payable on imports, it will effectively prevent escalation of these malpractices.

Clause 7(a) amends section 69(1) in order to make it clear that a levy on fuel is excluded in determining a value for excise duty purposes. Section 69(4)(a) is amended by clause 7(b) by the substitution of the words “specified in” for the words “entered in terms of”. This subsection provides for the calculation or determination of a value of goods specified in Section B of Part 2 of Schedule No 1 (also known as “ad valorem excise duty goods”). Certain goods are excluded, however. As the provision now stands, the exclusion relates only to goods entered in terms of item 617.01 and to regularise the position the section is being amended to exclude all goods specified in the item and not only those entered under it.

This amendment is of a technical nature and will have no practical effect on the payment of duties. It is being made retrospective to 31 July 1985, the date on which the existing wording was introduced by the Customs and Excise Amendment Act, Act 101 of 1985.

Section 75 is amended by clause 8 in order to make provision in the Act for a system under which agricultural co-operatives and oil companies supply distillate fuel (diesel oil) to farmers at a reduced price. This system was introduced on 1 November 1987 and these amendments, with the exception of clause 8(1)(c), are made retrospective to that date. Before I deal with the specific provisions, I shall give hon membeRSAshort summary of the revised system.

The system provides for registered farmers to buy diesel oil from agricultural co-operatives and oil companies according to an estimate of intended use. The price of the diesel oil is reduced by these bodies according to that estimate. This reduction in the price is referred to in the amending Bill as a “provisional refund” which relates to the actual rate of refund applicable to the fuel used for a specific purpose. The farmer is compelled to make a declaration to the commissioner at a later stage regarding the actual use of such diesel oil. If, according to the declaration, the actual use differs from the original estimate, certain adjustments are required to be made by which any shortfall is paid to the farmer and any excess is payable to the commissioner upon demand. Obviously, if the estimate at the date of purchase was correct, no adjustment is necessary.

Mr Chairman, I shall now deal with the provisions of clause 8 in more detail.

Section 75(1)(f)(iv) is amended to provide that the extent of refund applicable shall be the rate in operation on the date of issue of the prescribed invoice. This amendment will make it possible for the purchaser and seller to establish the extent of the refund applicable. Should the extent of the refund be amended, however, and such amendment have the effect that the amounts to be refunded cannot be calculated, the commissioner is given discretion in section 75(1)(f)(v) to determine the quantities concerned. This discretion is necessary in order to finalise adjustments in cases where, for example, fuels are either mixed or where there is a balance on hand when the extent of the refund is amended.

In the 1987 Customs and Excise Amendment Act provision was made in section 75(1)(g)(i) for the refunding of duty and a fuel levy to users of distillate fuel by the Administration of South West Africa. Provision is now also being made in section 75(1)(g)(ii) for the payment of the balance of the fuel levy to that Administration in respect of distillate fuel and petrol entered or removed for consumption in that territory. The effect of this amendment is that the Administration of South West Africa now receives these payments as revenue. Such payments have been made since 1 July 1987 and the amendment is made retrospective to that date.

I have already explained the system of provisional refunds and the provisions of subclause (1A) are therefore self-explanatory. I should like to draw the attention of hon members to paragraph (i) of the subclause, however. This paragraph provides for cases where the user of the fuel fails to produce the prescribed declaration regarding the actual use of the fuel. In such cases it is deemed that the user does not qualify for any refund and any provisional refunds granted to him are repayable upon demand.

Mr Chairman, the amendment of section 76A in clause 9 makes provision for the recovery of amounts which were set off contrary to the provisions of the Act by a licensee of a customs and excise warehouse.

Section 77(1)(a) is amended in clause 10 in order to make provision inter alia for oil companies to set off amounts of provisional refunds granted to users against any amount for which they, the oil companies, are liable.

Clauses 9 and 10 are both consequential to the revised refund system of duty and fuel levy and are made retrospective to 1 November 1987.

Clause 11 provides for the Schedule to the Bill resulting from the taxation proposals which were tabled by the hon the Minister during his Budget Speech and for the date of their commencement.

As usual, clause 12 provides for the continuation of the amendments of Schedules Nos 1,2,3,4,5, 6 and 7 to the principal Act which were published in the Gazette during the past year until 4 February 1988 and on 16 March 1988.

Clause 13 is a deeming clause for the purpose of item 117.05.15 of Section A of Part 2 of Schedule No 1 to the principal Act. In this clause provision is made that any motor vehicle models cleared during certain periods, for the purposes of the item mentioned, be deemed to have been cleared during other periods. This provision is inserted to make provision for a specific case of a bona fide error which cannot be accommodated under the Act.

Mr Chairman, I should like to draw hon members’ attention to clause 14 which makes provision for payment of a fuel levy to the TB VC states and also for refunds to users of fuel in those states.

Since the introduction of a fuel levy on 1 July 1987, the fuel levy and duty have been collected in the Republic on fuel entered or removed for consumption to these states and registered users of fuel, like their counterparts in the Republic, qualify for refunds. The Administrations of these areas do not have the administrative infrastructure at their disposal to process the refunds, however, and such refunds are being paid by the commissioner.

Hon members will notice that payments of the balance, provided for in clause 14(1)(b), refer to the fuel levy only. Since the fuel levy does not form part of the Common Revenue Pool, but the excise duty does, the balance of the fuel levy only may be paid to those states.

Subclause (2) deems any application to and payment made by the commissioner in terms of subclause (1)(a) to have been made to and paid by the state concerned. This clause gives the state concerned the necessary jurisdiction to act in cases where the provisions of the respective laws are contravened. Payments to these states and refunds to users of fuel in these states have been made since 1 July 1987 and the clause is made retrospective to that date.

Mr Chairman, I should like to speak in support of the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill.

This Bill is dealt with each year, and many of the aspects covered by the relevant Bill arise out of the hon the Minister of Finance’s speech. Before I proceed I should like to thank the hon the Minister’s team, under the leadership of Mr Koleski, for the co-operation the standing committee received from them. Amending Bills on Customs and Excise are not normally submitted to standing committees, because they are tabled directly. As a result of the excellent co-operation from Mr Koleski and his team, however, we always get the necessary assistance from them. These Bills normally deal with technical aspects such as taxation or technical problems experienced in regard to customs and excise. It is interesting to note that the proposed amendments to the Bill under discussion here today have been proposed by bodies in commerce and industry, Tltey have also furnished suitable comments. Once again this is a fine example of the good co-operation between the relevant department and the various organisations specifically dealing with exports.

The Customs and Excise division of the Department of Finance covers and administeRSAwide field, for example the collection of revenue on both imported and locally manufactured goods, the classification of all imported goods for tax purposes, the protection of local industries and the combating of smuggling and drug distribution. It is common cause—the newspapers have been inundated with articles about this—that at times there are anomalies in regard to imports and exports. This reminds me of the person who exported second-hand cars. Customs and Excise is constantly having to curb such smuggling activities.

I should like to take this opportunity—even though it is fairly late in the year—of thanking the hon the Minister for the moderate increase in excise duty on beer, spirits, cigarettes and cigarette tobacco. I do not smoke, and as far as I am concerned the hon the Minister could have increased the excise duty on cigarettes fourfold or even fivefold, and that on cigarette tobacco easily tenfold. [Interjections.] The use of cigarettes and cigarette tobacco embodies a health hazard, and we would do well to consider doubling the taxation on those products, but then the tax on beer and spirits, for example, should be reduced.

As befits a good representative of a constituency, let me say that in my view we must address these aspects—particularly the question of smoking. I think the hon the Minister would agree with me. [Interjections.] From the arguments advanced by some of my hon colleagues it is clear that many of them smoke—worse than an old Ford diesel truck! [Interjections.] I think the department would find it easier to obtain the additional revenue of R170 million if we tripled the levy on tobacco and cigarettes.

Section 34 (5) of the principal Act at present provides that spirits manufactured by certain agricultural distillers from prescribed fruit shall be solely for their own private use on the farms where such fruit is produced and such spirits are manufactured. This restriction has given rise to many requests, for example, to have the spirits available for sale to the public at shows and distilling festivals. This request was also received from the Kroonstad area. That is in the Free State constituency which I represent, where one can get wonderful fruit-distilled mampoer. Sir, we also have our own red wine in Kroonstad. I can recommend it to the hon the Minister and Mr Koleski and his team, and to my hon colleagues too; it is really a top-class product. The town clerk in Kroonstad would be prepared to send it by post. [Interjections.]

Properly prepared representations have been made in this regard. To my way of thinking the importance of this section of the Republic’s culture—I do not, of course, always agree with the views about “culture”—should be borne in mind. There is always some question about the distilling of mampoer. Be that as it may, in order to promote this section of the Republic’s culture, it was decided to amend subsection 34 (1) of the Act to make it possible for the Commissioner to impose certain conditions. I hope he does not impose conditions which will prove detrimental to our mampoer industry in the Free State. Unfortunately I have noticed, however, that one of these conditions is that the relevant excise duty must be paid on this beverage. I should like the hon the Deputy Minister and Mr Koleski and his team to examine that aspect. We must not detrimentally affect this industry by levying a too heavy excise duty.

The insertion of a new subsection in section 39 of the principal Act empowers the commissioner to specify the documents to be produced by the exporter upon entry for exportation in respect of any goods. This amendment is necessary in the light of increasing export abuses. For example, claims are made for rebates on repayments which are not applicable. Attempts are also made to circumvent foreign exchange and export limits and prohibitions. This is consequently aimed at combating various malpractices. Hon members will understand what consequences such malpractices can have—inter alia in regard to our balance of payments—and that it is vital to restrict these malpractices.

The envisaged amendments will contribute to the fact that exports, which are so important to our economy, are not hampered or impeded. Hon members will understand that in these times of sanctions and boycotts the Customs and Excise division plays an important role by imposing and regulating the tax on imports and exports. They do good administrative work.

In terms of the present legislation the cost of loading of goods on board ships or in containers for export from the Republic of South Africa is not taxable. Malpractices creep in in that the prices of imported goods are decreased in certain cases, with that decrease being indicated as the cost of loading the goods on board ship or in containers. This has caused problems, and I think the hon the Deputy Minister has already detailed those problems in his speech. I shall therefore not elaborate any further on that aspect.

The amendment of sections 66 and 67 of the principal Act by clauses 5 and 6 of the Bill under discussion make provision for the fact that all the relevant costs are taxable, with the result that malpractices are eliminated.

Hon members will note that the important amendment of the principal Act in relation to the administration of the fuel levy is embodied in clauses 7 to 10 and in clause 14. Since these proposed amendments have been dealt with thoroughly by the hon the Deputy Minister, I merely want to add that in my opinion this amendment will bring about a more efficient and more just implementation of the system. In this regard we once again want to congratulate the Commissioner of Customs and Excise under the Department of Finance.

In conclusion, it is clear that the proposed amendments to the principle Act will result in the centuries-old functions of Customs and Excise being implemented more efficiently. We therefore pledge our wholehearted support to this amending Bill.

Mr Chairman, at the very outset I want to say that after having studied all the clauses of the amending Bill, we wholeheartedly support the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill.

The efficient collection of taxes, as hon members know, plays an extremely important part in our economy. The role of customs and excise is not confined solely to the collection of taxes, but also relates to the protection of manufacturing industries in the Republic of South Africa. Hon members will probably agree with me that the implementation of the country’s policy for the promotion and the protection of our industries is of the utmost importance. Since technology and human needs must keep pace with development, it goes without saying from the nature of the activities involved in customs and excise, that the Customs and Excise Act should constantly be adapted to keep pace with changing circumstances.

I note that certain of the proposed amendments are merely of a technical nature, and the purpose of these amendments is to facilitate the implementation of the Act. That is, in fact, the case with section 36A. It is being amended by clause 2 of the Bill with a view to obtaining clarity in regard to the licensing of premises as special manufacturing warehouses for ad valorem excise duty purposes. The relevant subsection has been implemented in its present form since 1969 and is now being amended to bring it in line with existing administrative procedures. The amendment is therefore retroactive to 9 July 1969.

That is the date on which the subsection came into operation. The wording of this section has also been amended to bring it in line with the Harmonised System which came into operation in the Republic on 1 January of this year. The amendment of section 47 of the Act, as contained in clause 4, is also of a technical nature and arises from the implementation of the Harmonised System.

Since the hon the Deputy Minister and my hon colleague, who spoke before me on this amending Bill, dealt thoroughly with the overall majority of the amending clauses, I should like to take the opportunity of elaborating a little further on the Harmonised System to which I have just referred. Several years ago all those involved in international trade realised that an unsatisfactory state of affairs was prevailing in that several international coding systems existed for use by customs authorities, hauliers and producers. Consequently there was a very real need to consolidate these systems into one harmonised system which would comply with all the requirements of all parties and organisations involved in international trade.

Under the auspices of the Economic Commission for Europe it was agreed in 1970 that the task of creating such a Harmonised System should be dealt with by the Customs Co-operation Council in Brussels. The task was completed in June 1983 with the approval of the Harmonised System Committees Draft International Convention on the Harmonised Commodity Description and Coding System. South Africa was one of the first members of the Customs Co-operation Council which accepted the new harmonised system, and on 1 January 1988 the system was implemented in the Republic of South Africa.

The acceptance of this system had major consequences for customs, since the South African customs tariffs had to be rewritten in to to. The task was tackled zealously, however, and there was continual liaison with the Board of Trade and Industry. The new tariffs, comprising 2 200 pages, were published on 6 November 1987 by Mr Swarts in Gazette No 2228-2234.

I am convinced that this amending Bill as a whole will lead to the better and more simplified administration of the Customs and Excise Act and, as I said earlier, the Bill enjoys my full support and that of my party.

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank the hon member for Western Free State and the hon member for Riversdal for their support. I also want to thank them for their interesting contributions. Until about 19 years ago I also smoked, as most of us do at some stage. Some days I still feel as if I have lost an old friend when someone next to me is smoking and the smoke wafts past me. So there are still people who enjoy smoking. If we are to increase the taxation fourfold—I know there are health hazards—we must remember, however, that there are tobacco farmers in Brits and people in Paarl and Stellenbosch who are working in tobacco factories.

And in Oudtshoom.

Yes, the chewing tobacco in the region of Oudtshoom. One cannot simply destroy an industry. We must maintain a balance, because if we were to tax cigarettes too heavily, people would ask: What about wine? The hon member for Western Free State spoke about the wonderful red wine in Kroonstad, and if we also had to tax that red wine, we would be very unpopular with many people.

The hon member spoke about the mampoer in the Western Free State, and I understand that we simply have to see the town clerk of Kroonstad when we drive past. Mampoer and witblits, of course, are part of our culture, but if we did not impose some tax on mampoer and witblits, we would receive complaints from those involved in making brandy, gin and vodka. One has to maintain a balance between all those responsible for placing these wonderful products on the market. I agree with the hon member for the Western Free State that we have a very good team in Mr Koleski and his people. The hon member for Riversdal mentioned the Harmonised System, and I think he has pointed out to us the tremendous task which is being carried out to enable us to be one of the foremost countries to have been able to initiate this system. As a young official in the Department of Commerce and Industry, it was frequently my task to approach Customs and Excise in order to list the names of various goods. That was still in the days of Dr Piet Riekert. It was a tremendous struggle comparing our goods with those of other countries. Today, with increasing computerisation, one is in a better position to ensure that various aspects correspond so that one can make comparisons and, of course, eliminate vague definitions and concepts. One can ensure that they correspond with the international definition of products. I agree with the hon member, however, that this must have been a tremendous task. One still encounters products, now and then, which do not quite fit in, but this is a very infrequent occurrence. I cannot but join those two hon members in taking my hat off to Mr Koleski and his people. He will soon be going overseas once again to see what is going on there. I hope he will not return with any damaging reports to make.

I thank the two hon members.

Debate concluded.

Decision of question postponed.

Mr Chairman, as chairman of the House Committee on Transport and Communications I want to congratulate the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs, on behalf of the House, on the step he has taken in removing apartheid signboards in the Western Cape. I welcome the step which means that the price of a man’s ticket, and not the colour of his skin, will determine in what coach he travels.

For the past few years now this House has made urgent representations for all discriminatory measures to be removed by the SA Transport Services. In this way, for example, all discrimination against certain race groups in the SA Transport Services and the Post Office have been removed from the Statute Book. Salary disparities are now also being corrected.

I want to encourage the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs by asking him to extend this step rapidly to the rest of the country. It is a positive step which is seemingly in accordance with the Government’s statements about wanting to eliminate discrimination.

In conclusion it is this House’s declared policy that all discrimination should be removed from the Statute Book. I nevertheless want to congratulate the hon the Minister on this positive step in the right direction.

Order! Before we proceed with the business of the House I wish to state the following. With regard to the draft resolution of which the hon member for Camperdown gave notice yesterday, I wish to inform the House that the matter has been resolved amicably and that I have been informed accordingly, and that the draft resolution will not be proceeded with.

Order! I have noticed that various hon members have been alluding to matters which have become the subject of inquiry of various committees. Although I have no intention of prohibiting references to these matters, I do want to appeal to hon members to exercise the greatest circumspection in referring to these matters, because we must be careful not to create the impression that we want to influence or pre-empt the outcome of such investigations. To do that would not serve the interests of the House.

I also want to impress upon hon members always to bear in mind that it is of paramount importance that we do not impair the dignity of the House and of Parliament as a whole through our actions. In short, I wish to appeal for the co-operation of hon members in being circumspect as regards what they refer to in the course of their speeches.

Mr Chairman, I consider this to be the first opportunity to address hon members, as Minister of the Budget, on my supplementary budget as it appears on the Order Paper. I should be failing in my duty were I not to put certain matters in their correct perspective, as I believe that there is so much misrepresentation and speculation in relation to the developments in the House of Delegates.

We in the Peoples Party of South Africa took a very decisive and considered decision when we formed the PPSA. We believed—sincerely—that our conviction demanded that we of the PPSA had a tremendous responsibility to those who elected us to this House, and conjoined to this responsibility was our duty to this House as well as to Parliament and to South Africa. Having demonstrated our decision, we entered into an alliance with the Solidarity Party. This, again, was adequately demonstrated in and outside this House. As a result of this there were some constitutional difficulties.

Those difficulties were to be resolved by the hon the State President and we adopted the correct procedure in relation to these constitutional difficulties. At the time of the appointment by the hon the State President of myself and my colleagues to the Ministers’ Council we were naturally considered on the recommendation of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council for positions on that Ministers’ Council, subject to the constitutional requirement that we enjoy the support of the majority of this House. Therefore my colleagues and I believe, and would like to be reassured by the hon members in this House, that we continue to receive the support of the majority in this House. If I do not get such an assurance from this House and my colleagues then I would be dubious about presenting a budget this afternoon which may perhaps be considered—or perhaps it may be implied—to be a budget from a Minister who does not enjoy the majority support in this House.

You do enjoy it. [Interjections.]

Thank you. I also want to say particularly to hon members of this House that the hon the State President in no uncertain terms has assured us, in the presence of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council that he appoints Ministers to the Ministers’ Council, and that he reserves the right at any time to do as he thinks proper in relation to any of those hon Ministers on the Ministers’ Council.

See section 24 (1) of the Constitution.

Because so much has reached my ears, I believe it to be the case that hon members are being baited. If any hon Ministers in the Peoples Party of South Africa are to be dispensed with and fired, that prerogative is nobody’s but the hon the State President’s. I would therefore like to say to hon members in this House that they should not be misguided.

Do not be led by the nose.

They should please not make themselves vulnerable to issues that are impertinent. This is my appeal to the hon members. In addition I would like to say to the media, and to the Sunday Tribune in particular …

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

Mr Chairman, I will do so at the end of my speech. I want to make a special appeal to the media, and in particular to the correspondent of the Sunday Tribune, not to put words into the mouths of hon members of this House. One should not infer from what is being said outside or from what is being said by mischief-makers, that there could be disunity and discord between the Peoples Party of South Africa and Solidarity… [Interjections]… simply because of positions. There has never been and never will be a dishonourable act to one another on the part of the members of the alliance. [Interjections.]

Therefore, to propagate such untruths in the Press is, I believe, doing an injustice to Parliament and to the hon members of this House. Our integrity is not such that any member of the media can purposely propagate that the leadership of Solidarity and the Peoples Party of South Africa are fighting with one another to get into positions, only to change those positions later to accommodate what would be a hidden plan.

This is indeed a sorry state of affairs that the Press should be indulging in this kind of publicity. I appeal to them that this is not the way this House should be treated by the media. I also want to say that whatever the political convictions of hon members of this House …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: With great respect to the hon the Minister of the Budget, we are discussing the supplementary Budget, which is a debate strictly confined to the actual supplementary amount. I believe the topic the hon member is discussing could be discussed in the debate of a subsequent Vote.

Mr Chairman, with respect …

Order! I think I must uphold the point of order raised by the hon member for Moorcross and appeal to the hon the Minister to come back to the matter under discussion.

With respect, Mr Chairman, I believe I prefaced what I had to say by saying that I was the Minister of the Budget in this House and my credibility, and that of my colleagues seated on this side, was being affected and therefore I stated these things.

Order! I would like to advise the hon the Minister that the motivations he is trying to give under this particular Order, can very well be made under the next Order.

Mr Chairman, we on this side of the House have no problem in supporting this supplementary Budget. However, while we do that, I have to make an observation or two about certain items for which this amount is appropriated. According to the schedule it is for the promotion of welfare, care of the aged, care of the handicapped and child welfare.

I am concerned about the care of the handicapped. Whilst some care is taken to ensure that the handicapped are provided for, I also wish to make a suggestion that this House consider providing a shelter for the handicapped where they can be employed to carry out certain occupations, which would help the community at large. The profit derived from this can be channeled into providing sheltered employment for the handicapped.

I would like the hon the Minister to think carefully and if there is any way in which we can motivate the case in order to have this realised, I would be most appreciative. With this observation, we have no problem in supporting this Vote.

Mr Chairman, in supporting the supplementary amount of R3 977 000 in the Appropriation Bill, I wish to make the following observations, on which, to some extent, we touched in the debate on the main Budget. These need the attention of the hon the Minister and the Ministers’ Council. I believe that we want to reiterate these in this House under the supplementary Vote because this amount is specifically for the care of the aged and the handicapped and for welfare.

The hon the Minister should by now be able to give us the results of representations regarding the need to pay a realistic pension and to meet the cost of living adequately. We had a long debate on this issue and I believe that we need to try and push for a compulsory pension scheme in which employer and employee will be involved together with the State.

Secondly, we need to finalise the equalisation of the means test so that each and every beneficiary who qualifies for assistance from the State is paid equally for his or her needs, and that there is no disparity in the means test between the various race groups. The hon the Minister advised that a problem had arisen in that the original Act only gave the national Minister the right to make regulations. I hope we will be able to resolve that issue.

I believe it is important for the hon the Minister and his department to work out a programme for the aged and the handicapped in our community. Our communities have done a tremendous amount for these people. The reason why I wish to reiterate this is because there had been tremendous imbalances in the earning capacity amongst various groups in the past. While we accept the reality of the problem that the economy is pressurised to meet the various needs in the country, we cannot wish away the history of this country. There were certain imbalances in the past, but Blacks, Indians and Coloureds should also be cared for adequately. While supporting the supplementary amount required, I wish to ask the hon the Minister to look at these particular issues. It is important that we reiterate the needs of these different categories of beneficiaries.

Mr Chairman, I wish to place on record that my party supports the supplementary Budget.

That was a very long speech.

Debate concluded.

Votes and Schedule agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I want to respond to the comments made by the hon the Minister of the Budget this afternoon.

I am beginning to wonder if any hon member in this House needs a cautious reminder of his responsibilities. It is a tragedy when we look at the time spent on issues that are unproductive and do not reach out to those people whom we represent here. The hon member used the terms “speculation”, “conviction” and “responsibility”. I concede that the hon the Minister of the Budget is a well-seasoned person who has served in public life for a long time. When he says “conviction” it means that it is our convictions that have brought us here. I want to take up his words and make a sincere appeal that we must continue to deal with the responsibility that rests on our shoulders, namely to serve South Africa and its people.

There has been tremendous improvement in the Budget. Both the hon member for Bayview and the hon member for Red Hill touched on welfare improvements. We are involved in improving the welfare of the people of South Africa as a whole. I also want to touch on the subject of welfare in the Budget. Since the House of Delegates came into operation, tremendous improvements have been made. In education the policy has been to take the child to the school or the school to the child. The same applies to welfare. We can be proud of the fact that we took welfare services to our people through the establishment of the various welfare regions in many areas.

I want to appeal to the hon the Minister of the Budget, notwithstanding the improvements that have been made, to consider the various growth points in this country and to take the welfare services to where they are required. Northern Natal is in immediate need of a welfare agency. This area has been previously motivated as a growth point.

The next growth-point is Empangeni which reaches up to Richards Bay and includes the whole of Zululand. This area also needs a welfare agency. We are fortunate in having a welfare agency in Stanger. I see the hon member next to the hon the Minister of the Budget is having a good laugh but it is necessary for me to highlight these aspects.

There is another matter which I wish to bring to the notice of the hon the Minister of the Budget. It concerns the parliamentary staff. Most members of the parliamentary staff in Cape Town that serve the various administrations come from Durban. They spend a period of approximately eight months in Cape Town. We as MPs have the opportunity of returning to Natal every weekend but members of the parliamentary staff receive only two air tickets.

It is scandalous!

The MPs should give half their share!

Ministers should give three quarters of their share!

I want to say that unless a person has a good frame of mind, he or she is unable to do justice to their work. These members of the parliamentary staff come from Durban and leave their families to come and live in Cape Town. They have homes to look after and keep up. One also has emergency calls which place a further burden on our staff. I therefore want to appeal to my colleague, the hon the Minister of the Budget, perhaps to give consideration first of all to extending their travelling tickets, or secondly, to see if those tickets cannot be converted to midnight flight tickets, or alternatively, to consider concessions, such as Parliamentarians have. We must consider the special circumstances of our parliamentary staff who mainly come from the Durban region. They may possibly become MPs one day and then we will hear them raising their voices here about the hardships they had. [Interjections.]

With regard to the other aspect, going beyond the Budget, I just want to touch on information concerning what we have been faced with in this country in respect of the flood disaster. The importance of insurance must be stressed. As no insurance company was prepared to provide cover other than at, in farmers’ eyes, an astronomical rate, in most cases farmers felt that it was not economical to ensure their crops. The risk is too great and under the circumstances it appears a little unfair that the taxpayer should have to foot the bill twice in 15 years.

However, the total flood damage claims for farmers over and above terms covered by insurance, such as farm machinery, probably did not exceed R300 million in the Orange Free State, Natal and the Northern Cape insurance companies. If one examines agriculture and where there is agricultural activity one sees that agriculture must naturally be encouraged in areas where one does not have a flood plain. The Umfolozi flats are a very good example of an area which should never have been developed. Rainfall and flood records were available indicating that sooner or later Demoina was certain to occur and to destroy all the development. Therefore in short, it is imperative that hon members in this House also insist and encourage the farming community. Firstly, we must see to it that the crops are insured and, secondly, that they do not engage in vast agricultural developments in flood plain areas.

Mr Chairman, I should like the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture to tell this House which insurance companies, to his knowledge, insure vegetable crops, which is the major farming operation?

Sentraoes.

We know which company insures cabbages.

Mr Chairman, I do not think that the hon member for Camperdown appreciates the extent to which Indian farmers farm vegetables, which he has not established yet. When Dr Jacobs came with me and inspected the hon member’s area he was tremendously astonished at the extent to which we have advanced, but on the other hand there has been no encouragement to our people to see to it that they are insured.

We have tried, but they do not insure cash crops.

The hon member must make representations and we will pursue them.

Mr Chairman, at the beginning of the debate this afternoon, the hon the Minister of the Budget referred to some newspaper reports that have been a cause of some concern. I believe that nobody objects to fair reporting.

Nobody objects to the truth being told, and I think those who are in public life must be prepared for this type of situation. However, what I do protest against is the rubbish that is being passed on to some newspapers for printing; nonsense that reflects on the integrity of certain people. All I want to do, is to make an appeal to those hon members of this House who are acting as runners for some newspapers to reflect soberly on what they are saying because in the final analysis it reflects on the entire House. [Interjections.]

Hon members should pick up the newspapers. They need only pick up the Natal Witness, which attributes certain statements to people. We will accept fair criticism from anyone, but to say things and denigrate individuals and then to stand up here as saviours of the situation and condemn everybody for what is wrong, is not acceptable. In the final analysis some of us must take responsibility for what we have set in motion, and as far as my party is concerned we are part of this alliance. We did not try to wreck the alliance. We understand the predicament of our hon colleagues.

In any event, no one went in search of posts. If people are worthy of posts, then they should get them because the best man should be identified for the job. However, I might also say that there are some hon members in this House who have been hell-bent on wrecking this alliance, and God forbid that they succeed. [Interjections] I want everyone to be aware of that. They have done so, not in the interests of the Indian community but merely in order to score some debating points or derive some satisfaction from it. [Interjections.]

All I want to do, is to make an earnest appeal. Let us have our political differences but let us not descend so low that we embarrass and denigrate the entire Indian community. This is my appeal.

I should now like to move on to a matter that is causing me, and I believe many hon members in this House, tremendous concern, and that is the price of land for Indian housing. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council referred to this matter in his reply to the debate.

What is causing me concern, is this: Why should land which is identified for Indian housing, or which is investigated in terms of the Act for possible proclamation as an Indian group area, be allowed to be sold at such high prices? No one should part company with his property without receiving fair compensation for it. We did not make the law; we are the victims of the law. However, we cannot also become the victims of high prices which will not allow the resources at our disposal to satisfy the demands that are being made on this House and on the Ministries concerned.

I want to suggest to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council that if an area is being investigated and is subsequently proclaimed, the market value obtaining three years prior to the commencement of the investigation should be used as a basis for arriving at the price to be paid upon expropriation. I think that is fair. Some allowance could be made for the year in which the deal is being done, but we cannot reach a stage where we have to pay R50 000 for a hectare of housing land. It is impossible. We will not succeed. This is imposing an enormous burden on the purchaser and secondly, the resources available to us will simply not be adequate to meet that demand. We do not have a free market system insofar as land is concerned.

However, if the Government is responsible for the Group Areas Act, then they must assist in some way or another in ensuring that we obtain land at a reasonable price so that we can provide homes for people at a reasonable cost. This is a cause for tremendous concern, and I should like the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council to canvass this with his colleagues in the Cabinet with a view to finding some solution. Otherwise, we shall not be able to meet the challenge that we face.

I also want to remind the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council of something else. I refer to the CSIR, the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research, and to the South African Bureau of Standards. I believe that these two organisations should be called upon to address this whole question of providing low-cost housing, that is to say homes of a fair quality at a fair price. I believe that they have the resources and the ability to give guidance and to place their research in this direction at our disposal.

What has really happened, is that the demand for housing has resulted in an enormous development in the building sector, but coupled with it there has been a tremendous escalation in costs. At the rate at which costs are escalating, I believe we shall come to the end of the road in a few years’ time. After all, there is no guarantee that the subsidies on interest will last forever. There is no guarantee that subsidies on rentals for public servants will last forever.

We are supposed to be moving away from this direction, and when that situation is to be met …

Order! I do not mind hon members conversing amongst themselves, but they are doing it so loudly that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is not being heard. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition may proceed.

Well, Mr Chairman, some people may not want to hear me.

Not on this side.

What I say always makes sense and is said out of conviction. This is on record, because I do not let off a lot of hot air or put my foot into my mouth when I open it.

It is your alliance partners that are doing this kind of thing.

I want to plead with the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council that a concerted effort must be made in regard to land availability and land prices or else we are going to run into serious difficulties. We may be allotting thousands of homes to our people and at the end of two or three years we may find that we have burdened them with a responsibility which they cannot discharge. I think that in regard to the serious unemployment position in our community—it is worse than in any other community at the present time—we can ill afford to ignore these challenges, and more particularly those of us who are connected with people in that category and are answerable to them. I think this is a serious matter and I want to commend this to the Ministers’ Council and to its Chairman. Hopefully we will have a report in due course.

Mr Chairman, first of all I should like to express my pleasure and that of my colleague at the fact that the proposed notice of motion which was to have been given today has been abandoned. I should like to say that we on this side—certainly we of the PFP—have never had any quarrel with the hon the Leader of the House. We did have a disagreement with him once—a fairly strong disagreement—and we expressed ourselves fairly strongly on the subject; but that chapter was closed then. Rather, it is the penchant for jockeying for position in this House which has brought this House into the state where the national chairman of the Solidarity Party, Mr Ismail Omar, referred to this House in an article in the Sunday Times in which he said that the House of Delegates had no credibility.

It is the national chairman of the Solidarity Party—I trust, of course, that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has had a chat with him about it—who has said that the tricameral Parliament is a farce. This is a phrase used in a book published by that national chairman. Thus it is not the PFP who have been denigrating this Parliament with the House of Delegates; it is the people who have been jockeying for positions.

I would invite the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition to make a public declaration that he is not seeking any Ministerial post of any kind; I think that would be welcomed.

Mr Chairman, …

Order! Has the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition a point of order or a question?

Mr Chairman, I should like to respond, since this is a serious statement.

Order! Then I should like to request the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition to arrange with the Whips to get his name back on the list of speakers so that he has the opportunity to respond. The hon member for Reservoir Hills may proceed.

Mr Chairman, we have a job of work to do and we shall continue doing that job of work. We, from this small opposition, will never, while remaining in the opposition, also allow one of our members of the opposition to become a Minister. If that happens …

…then his party will be reduced to one!

If we form a coalition we shall do so honestly and openly, and not make international constitutional history. That is the kind of thing which has damaged the credibility of this House and I trust that hon members will bear that in mind.

There is one statement I want to make categorically here. In May last year I said to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition that if the hon member for Natal Midlands were to be promoted to Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, then the four votes which the PRP then had, would be given to the hon member for Natal Midlands. Of course, that hon member did not seek the post, but this was my suggestion, because I felt that there was quality, and on merit I would be prepared to vote for that hon member—the hon member for Natal Midlands. [Interjections.]

We are disturbed at a statement reportedly made—and I have checked the Hansard of the House of Representatives and it appears that it was made—in the House of Representatives yesterday by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning when he made some pungently adverse comments of and concerning the conduct of some hon members of the House of Delegates. He was speaking on a matter of topical interest, but he acted grossly improperly …[Interjections.] …inascribingsuchconduct to all the members of the House of Delegates. Also with respect, if he had to say so, he should have said so here and not in the other House. [Interjections.] However, he knows that the PFP, previously the PRP, and I will also add certain other members of this House, take it as their primary task to oppose apartheid at all times. That is why we oppose the concept of own affairs.

The hon the State President and the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning himself wrongfully propped up their ally against the overwhelming rejection of his chairmanship of the Ministers’ Council by this House. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning knows full well what the irregularities are which are complained about, and so does the hon the State President. However, as long as the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council rejected calls for a commission of enquiry, they stood steadfastly by him. The Government was prepared to give the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council a free hand in return for his loyal support.

That is nonsense!

The real problem, however, lies in the structure of the tricameral Parliament and in the apartheid-style own affairs and administration.

Everyone knows that serious cases of corruption occurred during the 40 years of Nationalist rule in this country, involving senior members of the Nationalist Party and some members of the Nationalist Party Government. This did occur, and as long as those culprits were not caught they continued. Once they were caught out, however, they were obliged to pay the price.

Unfortunately the entire tricameral system with its built-in control by the Nationalist Party-controlled Government is a unique example of co-optation. By co-optation the Government intends to use the tricameral Parliament to remain in complete control. This system of co-optation is analagous to the regime of the Maharajahs, whom the British kept in power as long as they did what the British wanted them to do. It is co-optation which makes possible all kinds of irregularities.

The answer is simple. I must say that the national chairman of the party to which the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition belongs, said quite correctly that the tricameral Parliament should be done away with. This system has been tried and tested and it has proved a failure. The inherent flaw in this system has become all too clearly visible. The only real remedy to bring about proper Parliamentary stability and the kind of respect we need to have for Parliament, is for the replacement of the present totally discredited Constitution and for the introduction of a single Parliament which will be truly representative of all the people in South Africa. Only then will there be that kind of respectability that we need.

I said in this House only last week that we found it difficult to hold our heads high when we walked in the street and people wanted to know what was next on the agenda—who was going to bite a carrot? The whole House has been made to bite the dust because some people have been offering and other people have been biting carrots. The own affairs system with its rather strange ministerial representation makes it possible for one ministerial representative to double up as a chauffeur.

This was raised in the House before by the hon member for Shallcross. One member, Mr A G V Naidoo …

Order! We do not have a member for Shallcross in the House.

The hon member for Cavendish, I beg your pardon, Mr Chairman. This Mr Naidoo does chauffeuring. If, in an emergency, a Government servant has to transport the children of an hon Minister, one can understand that. However, when it is done as a matter of course, it is an irregularity which should not be permitted.

When an advertisement appears in The Post extolling the virtues of the House of Delegates, if the House of Delegates places the order and the newspaper sends the account for R400 to the House of Delegates, that leaves much to be desired.

When a member of the executive committee in the Transvaal arranged for what should be public land to be rezoned so that he could build a private residence for himself, he was merely imitating what the man who should be setting an example to this House endeavoured to do when he endeavoured to have land in Chatsworth acquired by himself and rezoned for purposes of a private residence. Mr Arbee in Pretoria has had this done for him by the Pretoria management committee. This is grossly undesirable.

By the Laudium management committee.

I beg your pardon, Mr Chairman, by the Laudium management committee. This is grossly undesirable. What this member of Solidarity is doing brings the entire parliamentary system into disrepute, because he was a member of this House and he is still a member of Solidarity. He was promoted or whatever I do not know. This kind of thing is undesirable. That play-lot should be developed as a children’s playground so that the children for whom it was intended can benefit from it.

When a Mr Ashwin Mohanlall, a ministerial representative in Natal, spends a great deal of his working hours doing work for a particular political party, that is grossly undesirable. What a man does in his private time, of course, nobody can control or should be prepared to question.

The hon the Minister of the Budget made reference to the fact that hon Ministers of this House hold office at the hon the State President’s pleasure. However, the hon the State President is not acting in his capacity as Head of State, but in an executive and administrative capacity and therefore administrative law applies to the hon the State President one hundred percent. Therefore his pleasure is not to be exercised capriciously or at a whim. His pleasure must be exercised according to the normal processes of parliamentary democracy and justice. That can only be done if an hon Minister has conducted himself in a manner which makes him unbefitting to remain a Minister.

The hon the State President cannot misuse the Constitution in order to fiddle about, and I do not think that he will do so, because the law requires this. The Constitution is an Act of Parliament. It is a Statute, and the interpretation of a constitution must be done in exactly the same manner as the interpretation of any Statute of Parliament. There is a tremendous body of case-law which specifies how an administrative officer who acts in terms of certain powers which he exercises, ought to act.

I want to say that I do not hold any brief for any hon Minister of this House. We have not been saying that we do not have confidence in all the hon Ministers. What we have been saying is that we want to deal with certain people specifically.

The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning talks in the House of Representatives about the conduct of hon members of the House of Delegates, strengthening those who do not want to broaden the base of democracy. With respect, sir, that is absolute nonsense! Whatever the faults of hon members of this House may be, every single one of them has been trying his hardest to broaden the base of democracy. Every single hon member of this House has declared that he is not in favour of group areas. Every single hon member of this House has declared that he wants Black South Africans represented here in Parliament. That is broadening the base of democracy.

Anyone who says all radicals are communist, is talking nonsense! Nobody will say that M J Naidoo, former president of the Natal Indian Congress, is a communist. Nobody will dare say that Paul David is a communist. He is a strong member of the Natal Indian Congress. Nobody will dare say that Archbishop Denis Hurley is a communist. Each of them has given support to the radical cause from time to time. The reason for this is because the base of democracy is so very narrow that it totters as a result of this. These people want to broaden the base of democracy.

The president of the Teachers’ Association of South Africa, Mr Pat Samuels, is a democrat. I disagree with many things he says and does, but he wants to broaden the base of democracy. Dr Mickey Gabriel, a medical doctor, a good Christian and a tremendous social worker who is highly regarded by the public of Port Shepstone, is not a radical, but he does not support the tricameral Parliament, because he believes that the base of democracy is not broad enough. I can go on and on.

The reason why there is resistance to the tricameral Parliament, and the reason why members of the Indian group as defined in the Population Registration Act and the Group Areas Act, resist the House of Delegates, is because of the fundamental defects in the Constitution.

Before I conclude, I want to say that we disagree with the hon member for Moorcross in 5 000 different respects. I see he is not here at the moment. However, we have always found him to be friendly and co-operative. Even when he does not want to give in, he is still amiable. That one has to recognise. That is the way in which hon members should all comport themselves in this House. Speak firmly and, if necessary, robustly, but without rancour and without trying to undermine another man on a personal level. Finally, no-one should try and covet another man’s job. Each of us has a job to do, and we must do our job properly, effectively and diligently.

Mr Chairman, I support the supplementary Budget Vote.

We are not discussing that now.

We need money for housing and many other things. I particularly want to refer to the Orange Free State where our community is settled, but where there is no provision for schools. There are some 32 Indian children who are roaming the streets of Bloemfontein, because there are no school facilities for them. There were White schools who were prepared to admit them, but they could not get permits.

The House of Delegates must provide schooling facilities for our children. Indian people in the Free State are being served with notices in the areas where they are living. In view of the fact that Indian people have now established themselves in the Free State, I think the department must intervene on behalf of these people. The department should take up the cudgels and get these notices withdrawn. The department should find places where these people can reside. This should not be done on a permit basis. Our Indian people should be able to own houses in their own names. They should be able to buy houses and properties, too.

The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning spoke in the House of Representatives yesterday and I read reports on this in the Cape Times and the Argus today. Certain references were made to the House of Delegates, and I want to quote from the Argus of today:

Tell them to go for a swim!

In a Sunday Times report that appeared a few weeks ago reference was made to a “misappropriation of certain funds by the House of Delegates”. The report referred specifically to allegations of “theft” in the House of Representatives. [Interjections.] Have they clarified themselves with regard to the use of the word “theft”? If they do not have the correct facts, they must not make such accusations. I concede that they have the democratic right to discuss us but they must not make false accusations and allegations.

I quote again from the report in the Argus. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning went on to say:

To what reform process is the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning referring? In the 1950s and the 1960s the department of the hon the Minister set aside small pockets of land such as Actonville in Benoni where they wanted to concentrate the whole Indian community of the East Rand.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member for Actonville said that there were allegations of misappropriation in the House of Delegates. It was not misappropriation but unauthorised expenditure—there is a difference between the two.

Order! The point of order is taken. The hon member may proceed.

The department formed small pockets of land such as Actonville in Benoni and they also wanted these Indian communities to live in god-forsaken areas far away from civilisation. Palm Ridge is a glaring example of this. This is the work that the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning has done. While the large townships for Whites are begging for buyers who cannot be found, we are restricted to areas of land the size of postage stamps. Is this supposed to be progress and reform? What has the House of Delegates done to retard the process of reform? I want to quote some more from the report in the Argus of today:

I do not know what he is talking about. What information scandal is he referring to? [Interjections.] They go for swims and then apologise—we do not do such things. Mr Lockey speaks of a commission of inquiry. We have been bold enough to ask the hon the State President for a commission of inquiry. He has allowed it and we will go ahead with it. The last paragraph of the report states the following:

What rubbish! Where does he get his facts from? This is completely unfounded and I think I shall ask my Minister of Education and Culture to give an explanation of this and I think he will do a better job of it. I think that we have been subjected to undue publicity as far as our House is concerned. I say I have full confidence in the Ministers who are in my party. I have three Ministers and a Deputy Minister here and I have full confidence in them. I can say that they have looked after their portfolios very well and they have shown that the sums of money that have been given to our House have not been misappropriated.

With regard to money for our people I want to say that land is a priority. We need land for our people all over the country and we need houses. We shall urgently be requiring houses for the Benoni area that has been proclaimed. We need them yesterday and not tomorrow. I say that a crash programme providing a thousand houses must immediately be set into progress so that we can house some of our people before the end of the year. This is very urgent and very important.

With regard to education we need money for our people. We do not want our children to be left out and to be deprived of what is due to them particularly in the Free State where our people have just now established themselves and where areas are required for them and where places of residence are of great necessity. We must direct our attention to that particular area so that our people may have the benefit of what is due to them. These things are no favour to us; it is our right and we must exercise it.

I abhor any undue accusations and allegations made about the House of Delegates as such. Every hon member in this House is trying to find ways and means of reforming. We were the first ones to start arguing about disparity in pensions and we were the ones on the standing committee who opposed the raise in pensions of R14 for the Whites, R10 for the Indians and Coloureds and R6 for the Blacks. We were party to it. Is there no reform? Why are we stepping back? It was because of our opposition and not that of the House of Representatives that we brought about parity in the interests of pensioners and that all people regardless of their colour all received the same increase. The same followed in the second and the third years. Had it not been for our fighting this would never have come about. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the worst problems are in the Eastern Transvaal. Earlier this year a delegation from the Middelburg Town Council met the hon the Minister and certain undertakings were given regarding an economic housing scheme, but the matter has not yet been finalised. In Witbank the economic housing scheme has been completed in Pine Ridge but our people living in the old Asiatic Bazaar own the buildings. They are on leasehold land. A substantial number of squatters have now moved into the area which is still a proclaimed Indian area. This is causing insecurity and for years now nothing has been done to compensate them for the buildings and improvements they have made over a number of years.

The issue of the shopping complex at Witbank also requires finality. A site in the CBD area was earmarked years ago. It was offered to the hon the Minister’s department but there is also no finality on this. The hon the Minister must explain the delay.

In Heidelberg the extension to the present area has already been serviced but a serviced site cannot be sold because the hon the Minister’s department has still not transferred the land to the local authorities. This matter must be finalised now as people are becoming restless. Building costs are rising daily and these delays cost money. The traders there are also anxious to obtain finality on the sale of the shopping complex.

In Nigel the shopping centre was built by the town council with private sector funds, and they are having a great deal of problems. I believe the hon the Minister’s department should rescue the traders by buying out the centre from the bondholders and assisting them. Nigel also needs some community facilities and I hope this matter will also be considered favourably.

In Balfour, at long last, something is beginning to happen, but the initial reaction is that the sites will be sold at around R22 per square metre. This price is inflated and I am asking the hon the Minister to do something about it. At Ogies our people are living under poor conditions. Can the hon the Minister report to us what is happening there with regard to the residential area?

In Bethal our people were given a very raw deal when the traders were shifted out of the centre of town to the Indian area a few kilometres away. The area covers the Black township where there have been numerous unrest-related incidents over the years. Whenever there is unrest, the centre suffers with the result that the turnover drops. The traders have offered to purchase those shops but the prices quoted are too high. In the case of Bethal, something should be worked out whereby the traders could be compensated for their losses. They have had a raw deal. It was clear that the intention was to ruin them in business. The prices should be such that they are compensated for their losses.

Our people in Kinross need additional land. There was something in the pipeline and I should be pleased to hear from the hon the Minister whether anything is being done to obtain more land for the community. The hon the Minister is aware of the difficulties the communities have with local authorities who are reluctant to help our people.

At Amersfoort in the South Eastern Transvaal we have a community which has been living there since the town was established. These people live under unimaginable conditions. Land was proclaimed some time ago but there has been very little progress, and I want to ask the hon the Minister to turn the screws so that something can happen whereby our people may be placed in a position to have homes built and to lead happy lives.

There is still no finality at Volksrust. Various places have been identified but the place which the community wants is apparently out of bounds to them. In these country areas we must not allow our people to be taken kilometres out of town and once again, I think the hon the Minister must come out strongly in order to bring about some finality in this regard. For far too long the people of Volksrust have been awaiting finality and the hon the Minister must take the bull by the horns and sort this out now. I have many other problems which I shall follow up with the hon the Minister in due course.

Mr Chairman, the total Budget for this financial year for the House of Delegates is R842,5 million. It is reasonable to say that this amount is not good enough. Having said that, however, we must also evaluate how we are putting this amount to use. One can always go back and ask for more money, provided that one can justify one’s request. However, when one looks at the Public Accounts and the figures of the House of Delegates, one finds that we do not have the ability to spend the money that is being allocated to us, for various reasons.

I have said this before, and I shall say it again. It has happened consistently with the House of Representatives that they spend their money and go back for more because they have got on with the job. Here, however, there is a sad state of affairs, because I think the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, who is also the Minister of Housing, hardly has the time to attend to the needs of that department. It is true to say that most of the time he is fighting for his survival.

Having said that, I want to look at certain sections of this budget and deal with certain specific issues. When one looks at the agricultural sector, we who serve on the Finance Committee accepted an amount of R400 million that was allocated from the general fund to the House of Assembly. Out of that R400 million, which was supposed to be for assistance to farmers who had been hit by the drought and subsequently by the floods—it has no racial connotation and was supposed to be for farmers who had been afflicted by these two unfortunate natural occurrences—only R30 million was spent. The chairman of this House’s component will agree that once we raised that the hon the Minister of Finance, who came in to give evidence to us, agreed that that amount was set aside for farmers irrespective of colour. Since out of R400 million only R30 million was spent, he accepted that if there were any cases amongst the Indian and Coloured farmers that fell into that category they were to make representations through our Minister to the Ministry of Agriculture and Marketing.

I did this through our hon Minister in this House, and I do not know how he took the matter up, but subsequently it rested there. I asked him again what he was doing about the R370 million that was left over there, which we have a right to receive. Nothing has been done. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has assured me that they are going to take the matter up. When that will be I do not know. That is not good enough. If they cannot get on with their job then they must either step down or let somebody else get on with it.

We have various problems in this House and I do not know where we start and where we stop. When one looks at the Act that was passed for the appointment of ministerial representatives, it says very specifically that a ministerial representative will go and do specific work, and the State President is in charge of that.

However, what do we see in this House? Nobody from that side is going to deny that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council said in their caucus that they would use these people to promote the party. Perhaps some of them who were not there can say: “I do not know.” However, those who were there cannot deny that he said that. I have that from very authentic sources. He did not only say it; it is being done!

[Inaudible.]

It is being done daily, and I agree with the hon member for Reservoir Hills that they send them out …

They are political appointees.

It is taxpayers’ money.

No, get your own staff—these are ministerial representatives and they are supposed to do a Minister’s job, not a party job!

The majority party appoints them.

The majority party appoints them to run its own party affairs? Is that what the hon member is telling me? That is taxpayers’ money, and a political party survives on its own contributions and not the taxpayers’ money. These are ministerial representatives who are supposed to do their duty for the taxpayer and not for the party, and they are doing this. I want to bring to hon members’ notice that when one talks about specific issues this is one of the specific issues, and if they do not stop this they are going to have difficulties. What are they doing? They are forming party branches in Phoenix …

Mr Chairman, is the hon member aware that a leading member of his party has said publicly that when they take power they were going to change a certain ministerial representative?

Of course, but because of his misdemeanours. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, when the din settles I should like to reply! I say that when we take power we will find all those people who were guilty of misdemeanours and they will go. [Interjections.] We will not punish anybody without a crime having been committed. We are not like that. [Interjections.]

I now come to the hon member for Reservoir Hills who said that a certain member of Solidarity, who is now the executive member of the Transvaal Provincial Council, had done certain things to change the usage of a public place for his own private house. [Interjections.] I want to state in this House that we do not condone wrong, irrespective from which side it comes. A wrong cannot be right if it comes from this side or that side. [Interjections.] If it is wrong, it is wrong. I will not go any further with that matter until I have all the relevant information, whether this was for his private use or whether it is a provincial property or whatever the details may be. I can assure this House that I will make another statement on this matter.

Housing and township development are very serious matters which we should not take lightly. The proclamation of townships costs this House millions of rands, because every delay means money. Delays cost money and it is strange that private developers have their townships proclaimed so quickly. We can take the records and check in Natal. I do not know about Transvaal. If a private developer in Natal sets out he can have his township proclaimed within two years if he knows how to go about it.

It takes seven years in Transvaal.

I have dealt with a number of townships and I have a record of two to two and a half years, but I know of the Government departments which take up to seven years and the last one I quoted recently took 11 years. That file seems to be put on a shelf and until someone makes enough noise it just lies there. This is still going to cost this House a lot of money, because if one wants to use a scarce commodity to fill a lot of needs one has to pull up one’s socks. If one does not have these townships proclaimed and transferred in good time, one will find that the end-user has to pay a tremendous price for this.

As regards the comments made by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning in the House of Representatives, if there is anybody who is bringing South Africa’s name into disrepute and discredit in international eyes and in the eyes of the majority of people of this country, it is that hon Minister who runs the Department of Confusion, Discrimination and Complication. That is the name of his department. Five billion is being spent—to do what? It is to keep human beings separate. Take the case of Stanger where the majority of the Whites, Indians, Coloureds and Blacks wanted a mixed local authority. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, first of all I must apologise for my voice. It is not too grand because of a cold coming on. I hope hon members will bear with me.

We hope the hon the Minister will get better soon.

Early this morning I had a call from the media, reviving the old question of the 365 teachers, asking whether they would be secure as far as their jobs were concerned. I want to ask the media please to bear with us and not to revive these matters from time to time to create instability. I want to state very categorically here this afternoon that I have said earlier and I repeat that those 365 teachers are secure and safe in their jobs. We will do whatever we can to find the money for them and they can be assured once and for all that their position is absolutely safe. I hope the Press takes note of this and does not bring it back to us, because we will stand by it.

Mr Chairman, I would like to ask the hon the Minister a question. He mentioned the 365 teachers. Can the hon the Minister tell us whether these teachers will be appointed on a permanent basis or as a locum lenensl In the past we have seen that these teachers are dismissed at the end of every term and re-employed at the beginning of the next term.

Mr Chairman, I will not be taking any more questions after this, because I see that they take a long time. I want to assure the hon member that if the teachers have been employed on a temporary basis this year, they will certainly be employed on a permanent basis next year.

Hear, hear!

Mr Chairman, in the same breath I want to say that while those teachers will be secure in their positions, all other qualified teachers will also be in a secure position. Of course, there is the exception: If they destabilise their own position by misdemeanours or misbehaviour, that is a different matter altogether.

Also, while I am talking about teachers, I want to say to my colleagues who always make representations—for good reasons; I am not reflecting on them in any way—that very many of our teachers, as mentioned by our colleague, the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture, this afternoon, have to work away from home. However, they have to bear in mind that we also come here with great sacrifice, some of us leaving our families behind and so on, to do a job. In the same manner, our teachers who are qualified and are from time to time sent some distance away from their homes, must also please bear with us for a while. We do not keep them away from their homes for too long, but sometimes it happens that they teach a certain subject in a certain direction, and we require them for a longer period than usual. As far as possible, the administration of the Department of Education and Culture tries to bring them nearer home as quickly as possible.

I also want to talk about what has been said in the House of Representatives, which appears in the Press. My colleague, the hon member for Actonville, has highlighted quite a bit of it, and so has the hon member for Reservoir Hills. I will not dwell on what the hon member for Reservoir Hills said. I think he covered very adequately what the hon the Minister had to say. Whether he said it in a manner of propriety or not, is not for me to judge.

We would have liked hon members of the House of Representative to have said whatever they said in a very responsible manner. Bearing in mind the fact that their House, too, has had some problems in the past, where the Leader of that House had problems, we did not think it appropriate for us to intervene or interfere in their business. Therefore, I support the hon member for Actonville who has been so vociferous. I think we are agreed that whatever has happened in this House, was to the good and there will now be stability for all time in this House and we will work in the interests of our community. We must assure these people, both the hon member Mr Lockey as well as the hon member for Toekomsrus, that what has happened here has happened for the better.

Toekomsrus.

Yes, I think I said it correctly. I think it borders on temerity on the part of one of these hon members who said that we should be subjected to … I just want to quote what he said.

A school for RIO million. [Interjections.]

No. He said that we should be subjected to seminars, as if we do not know what we are here for. I think that borders on temerity. I think we should state very clearly that we know what we are here for and that there is no need for them to remind us of that.

I do not know if hon members sucked the other matter of RIO million out of their thumbs. I do not know where they got that amount from. My administration was not able to give me any indication as to whether there was an amount of RIO million set aside for one particular school. However, I can quite candidly say that we have a number of schools, such as Lenasia Secondary School, which cost R1 900 000; Palm Ridge Secondary School, which cost approximately R2 million; Actonville Secondary School, which cost approximately R2 million; Laudium Secondary School, Pine Ridge Primary School, Lenasia South Primary School, Middelburg Primary cum Secondary School, Rynsoord Primary School and Rustenburg hostel. I am not sure if the hon member is taking the total amounts for these schools into account, but when a person makes a sweeping statement, it must be clarified. Without any substance, it has no meaning whatsoever. I should like hon members on that side to be a little more responsible before they make such sweeping statements.

Having said that, I want to come back to the hon the Minister of Housing. I did not have a chance to say this previously, but I want to thank him for having highlighted the other job that was being done by that section as far as education was concerned. The building, repairing and renovating of schools is the job of the housing section. I want to say quite categorically that that is being handled very well. I want to thank the Department of Housing for doing this job so well. The number of schools that are on the list was highlighted for attention. The number of schools that had been attended to, as well as the amounts spent in renovating these schools, was also mentioned.

I would also like to take this opportunity of referring to my hon colleague. I see he is not here. However, he did mention that there were subsidies available for first-time home-owners up to an amount of R40 000. It was applicable to those who built or bought houses beyond that amount. The subsidy, however, will be based only on an amount of R40 000. I think the Press or the media has a duty to highlight this for the benefit of people who are not in the know. I think many people who build houses beyond that amount do not know of this privilege, namely that they can qualify for a subsidy.

The hon the Minister of Housing also mentioned certain things about Cato Manor. I want to highlight that there are people who have already bought land in Cato Manor, but many of these people are saddled with land with ecca shale. I am not sure what is going to happen to those people. They have paid a lot of money for land in that Indian area. If nothing is done to assist them, people in that area will suffer great losses. I am not sure whether the Umkumbaan, Bonela and Wiggins areas have any ecca shale. The hon the Minister did mention that sites were being serviced. I am not sure how soon serviced sites will be made available to individuals to build on. I should like to know that. Since he is not here, I will ask him personally when these things will be made available. There are many people, apart from the low income group, who are waiting to build on sites that can be made available to them.

I also want to find out what is happening to Block AK in the Greyville area in Durban. It has been lying for some time without any development, except for the section which is becoming an industrial area and which has already been developed to a great extent. I would like to know when the rest of Block AK will be made available for development.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank you for the opportunity of making a statement to put the record straight. The hon member for Reservoir Hills in the course of his address directed certain questions to me. I want to respond by saying that I was elected the leader of the alliance as a result of a unanimous decision taken by all hon members who constitute that alliance. In any further development that may take place my decisions will be taken on the basis of the grant given to me by my hon colleagues who form the alliance. I am only answerable to my hon colleagues in the alliance in regard to the future, and not to anybody else.

Mr Chairman, I want to refer to a few general matters before starting with the subject of my speech this afternoon. There is no doubt that we have reached a very unhappy situation in this House—a situation of destabilisation. We all know that prevention is better than cure but we have now reached an abnormal situation. We are now devising ways and means of retaining a situation where we are able to perform our work in a way that will bring the maximum benefit to our electorate and the people that we represent.

I say this because it is very important, even now, that the leadership of every party and every hon member should conduct himself in a responsible manner. It is unfortunate that our “sister House” throws mud a little too hastily at us. What is important is that responsible hon members in this House are now sincerely seeking a solution to the ills that prevail in this House. I think it is the genuine wish of all hon members in this House that we will attain stability. This will help the House to move on with the work it has to do.

Having said that, I want to add that we sometimes find that four or five hon Ministers are absent in the Chamber—as has happened again this afternoon while we are discussing this important budgetary vote. This leaves much to be desired. Even at this stage two hon Ministers are absent. I am not mincing words now. A little while ago the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council was absent. I hope he was absent for an important reason. We all know that we say that the speech can be read in Hansard—I do not deny that—but they should be here to get the message first hand.

I would now like to refer to a few matters. The hon the Minister of Education and Culture referred to some of them. I have also made passing references to these matters on other occasions but I now want to point out some extreme disadvantages. Firstly, I want to refer to the teacher: pupil ratio which is still alarming in the Indian schools. Indian education has definitely advanced over the past two decades—there is no question about that.

One of the factors that contributed to the progress in Indian education was the reduction in class numbers in the 1940s from the 60s to the 50s and 40s. In 19461 had a class of 47 pupils and I had to teach all subjects for 27,5 hours, and not 21 or 22 as many teachers do today. The numbers then dropped to the 30’s and eventually to the 20’s. Recently the class load has been on the increase. Admittedly, there have been some classes, few and far between, with numbers in the 30’s. That there are many classes with numbers in the 30’s today is a matter for serious concern. I know that we sometimes say the Blacks probably have numbers in the 40’s, but comparisons are odious. The fact is we have advanced and we do not want to fall behind again. I do not think that that is the intention of the Government in any area. We must raise the others to high levels. I think there is logic and wisdom in that. We must find ways and means of raising the others, but we really do not want to bring down the standard of education of any group in this country. I say that this is a matter of serious concern.

With regard to the employment of teachers I want to say that many teachers who are professionally qualified are still employed by the Department of Education on a temporary basis. According to the latest figures supplied we are given to understand that 1 047 temporary teachers have not been placed on a probationary period for a permanent post. On more than one occasion I pointed out the disadvantages of temporary placements of professionally qualified teachers, in the first place, to the teachers themselves, in particular, and to the education of the community as a whole. This is the problem, not only have we disadvantaged the teachers but it does not need much common sense to realise what harm those 1 047 teachers can cause in the classroom. Therefore it is important that these temporary teachers are immediately placed on a probationary basis for permanent posts.

I was happy to some extent this afternoon when the hōn the Minister mentioned that the category of 365 teachers have had their conditions of service enhanced by being placed on a permanent basis. I hope that those are the facts. I have my fears because the assurances given last year that all temporary teachers would be absorbed into the permanent service this year did not materialise. Our education still remains in a precarious situation in that regard.

We have had the services of these teachers who are in temporary posts at the moment for more than a full year. Furthermore, we require their services and that is important. If we are engaging them, why do we not go ahead and appoint them on a permanent basis? This is one category of teachers that is disadvantaged. There is another category of teachers that is also disadvantaged. This category of professionally qualified teachers is worse off than the other because they suffer several hardships. These teachers are suitably qualified, but are pushed around from pillar to post and from school to school.

This morning I received a letter dated 4 June 1988 and in it the teacher stated that he had been engaged as a secondary teacher with an HED. We have these kind of practices, but no clear-cut methods. This is why a commission of enquiry is vitally important. These are the kind of things we want to expose.

There has been a tremendous amount of favouritism. Am I to understand that every teacher who qualified at the University of Natal has not been employed? Am I to understand that teachers who did not receive bursaries and qualified at the University of Durban-Westville have not been employed? I should like someone to tell me categorically that this is not the position. I do not want to use any harsh words, but we have to put these things right.

They are sent from school to school according to the whims and fancies of some official or officials in the Department of Education, and I want to know who gave them the authority to mistreat and to abuse our teachers and our education as such. [Interjections.] The kind of treatment meted out to professionally qualified teachers leaves much to be desired and it will have its deleterious effects on our education. I should like the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council at the very least to look into these setbacks. There should be a policy which would correct these and other shortcomings in the interests of education at large.

Mr Chairman, I have a little more time left, and I am pleased that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is present here. I now want to make reference to the link road to Shallcross. There have probably been several political bunglings in this regard by more than one party. I know that the Development and Services Board has been dragging its feet on this issue, so to speak, because they do not have the money. However, in the absence of this link road the people of Shallcross are at a tremendous disadvantage. They have to travel along a long, winding road. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I think this is one time that the Press have everything on their plate, and they are making merry because we have brought the reputation of this House down to the level of this floor that we are walking on. I hope that we shall now try to change our attitude in our debates in this House so that we can build up our reputation all over again. [Interjections.]

Talking about wrong-doings in this House, my attitude is that whoever does anything wrong should be punished. For instance, Hitler, who tried to establish a new world order which would give the world security for another thousand years, finally ended up committing suicide. I hope the opposition is not doing the same thing. [Interjections.] This is an on-going thing which they will not be able to escape. We know why this is happening. However, let it happen for whatever it is worth. As far as I am concerned, I say good luck to them if they succeed.

Turning to housing, I want to say that it is at a premium. The poor man is the biggest sufferer. In order to provide cheap houses, we must have cheap land, but being in the land business, I think there is very little cheap land available around Durban. It is impossible to buy land for R10 000 a hectare. Even at R20 000 per hectare, it is very difficult to come by. How can we expect to provide the poor man with a very cheap house, an affordable house? [Interjections.]

We shall have to look at the matter from a different angle. We shall have to try to create small towns or suburbs outside the Greater Durban area or Pietermaritzburg, the North Coast or the South Coast. We shall have to try to create little towns where we can provide all the amenities, and settle the Indians there. This is absolutely necessary because outside those areas there may be some Government land or some municipal land which one can purchase cheaply on which to settle these people who definitely need the houses at a reasonable price that they can afford.

Far away from employment.

Otherwise, there is nowhere we shall be able to obtain land cheaply and they will never be able to get their houses.

Talking about education, why do we produce more teachers than we need if we cannot employ them permanently? Are there any surplus teachers that we cannot give a job? I think it would be wrong to make anyone a teacher if ultimately he cannot find a job. In becoming a teacher he puts in valuable time for three to four years to study to become a teacher. He wants to earn a living. If we are going to help him and subsidise teaching then he must get a job so that he can make a living and support his family. This is absolutely necessary, otherwise we shall be doing a great injustice to this gentleman.

Having heard many speakers here today I find that the grievances in this House are such that if anyone could throttle anybody they would not hesitate to do so. In order to convince me—I will cross the floor—put something on the table so that I can see that there is something wrong. [Interjections.] A monster has been built out of nothing. There is an assumption that something is wrong. Naturally one might find something wrong: I do not say that that is not so. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I am just finishing my speech with reference to the link road. I know that the Development Services Board is in financial difficulties but in view of the need for this road I want to make a very sincere request to the Ministers’ Council to advance a loan to cover part of the cost in order to motivate other parties too, to contribute. I feel that the Transportation Board may contribute and the Durban City Council as well. The province may also contribute on a pro rata basis.

I am not flattering the hon the Chairman of the Minister’s Council, but this is a sore point and I can say that, on merit, if this issue is finalised the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council can be very satisfied at having provided a much needed facility.

The last issue I want to refer to is something I mentioned earlier on. Fault-finding is very easy; some people say it does not cost any money. That is true, but no one has any right to find fault or criticise unless he has a solution. The last thing we should do is to attack another House when we do not know what the situation is in that House. In every House the electorate has the right in that regard and we have no right. I think that is important.

Mr Chairman, I make no apologies for making reference to some Press reports which I shall discuss later on. However, I want to start by saying that it is very important that people realise that the alliance that we have—the PPSA and Solidarity—will not be shaken in any way.

The efforts that have been made both within and outside Parliament to misinform people over the past few weeks, have failed and failed miserably. These efforts will not succeed and the sooner they let this alliance get on with the job, the better. I agree with the hon member for Cavendish that now that the turmoil is over I think that hon members should allow the dust to settle and I think we should get on with the job. This House is capable of looking after its affairs. I do not think that what the hon member for Cavendish said just now was unfair, namely that people have enough on their own plate and should not interfere with the workings of this House.

I believe we are supposed to be building a R10 million school!

The recent happenings in the House of Delegates were commented on in a debate yesterday. Some hon members made reference to this in the House of Representatives. I do not believe that the critical views which were attributed to those hon members is reflective of the majority of that House. I have had a long-standing understanding and relationship with certain members of the Labour Party. My association with them goes way back to the time of the South African Black Alliance and I honestly cannot believe that the critical report which was made recently in the media, is in fact reflective of the leadership. Therefore I will not say or do anything here that would lay the blame on the leadership of the Labour Party. I have too much respect for them to do that. I have had nothing but positive support from those ordinary members whom I have had the opportunity to discuss the problems with. I attended the funeral of the late Mr Jacobs in Port Elizabeth a week ago and there I had the opportunity to talk to members of the Labour Party. They were full of praise and congratulated me and the Peoples Party of South Africa for the stand we have taken. Therefore I believe that there must be some misrepresentation or misunderstanding about what happened. [Interjections.] However, I will refer to that later.

However, I regret that my colleague the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning availed himself of the House of Delegates and used this to rebuild the bridge between the Labour Party and the National Party. There has been disagreement between them in recent times, but to use occurrences in this House of Delegates in an attempt to narrow their gap is—if he in fact did that—very unfortunate. We have kept out of that quarrel, because it is not our business to involve ourselves in what happened between the hon the State President and the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council of the House of Representatives. It is not our business to involve ourselves in what happened between the National Party and the Labour Party.

As a matter of fact, I was at the receiving end of a reprimand for having attended the Labour Party conference in Pretoria. I went there on a bridge-building exercise and I will continue to go on bridge-building exercises. The Peoples Party of South Africa is going to make efforts to meet with the Labour Party. I also believe that we must reach out further beyond the parliamentary forces and go out to the extraparliamentary people so that we can talk to South Africans at large. This is what the Peoples Party of South Africa believes in. We believe in dialogue and understanding. We believe in working for a postapartheid South Africa. This is important to me and to our colleagues. We cannot have tunnel vision and look at politics in South Africa from an own affairs viewpoint. We refuse to do that. We must reach out. I have said this before. Probably there were constraints and now I believe we will have the opportunity to do what we have to do to influence politics and events in South Africa. I have said before that as a minority in this country and as 2,3% of the total population of South Africa we have a very significant role to play. We have a bridge-building role to play and we have not adequately done that through the instruments of Parliament. This is my regret but, however regrettable it is, it is never too late to start.

I am very heartened to see a rapprochement between the Labour Party and the National Party. This can only do good, because if one reads between the lines, although they have used events in the House of Delegates in order to bring about this rapprochement, I believe that it bodes well for the future. It bodes well for Parliament. Let us make no mistake that there was friction between the Labour Party and the National Party.

We welcome this occurrence which happened the other day, in spite of the fact that we were used as an instrument in this rapprochement. As events will unfold in the weeks, months and years ahead of us, it will be seen by the country at large that our critics, the people who are being critical of the Peoples Party of South Africa, Solidarity and the alliance, are wrong in their assessment. The future will prove them wrong.

I owe it to my colleagues in the House of Representatives to arrange a briefing so that they may have a full understanding of what has happened in this House. If they are unhappy with what has happened here, as the Press reports them to be, I believe that some of the fault might lie with us since we have not briefed them. I believe that in the near future we will go to them and brief them adequately so that they will understand our problems, where we are going and why we are going there.

I reject the view that the Labour Party and the National Party are the only parties that have made sacrifices in participating in the reform processes of this Parliament. Sacrifices have been made and are being made by all those who are participating in the structures of government: Local government, provincial government and central Government as well. In our assessments we must not deny the fact that the people who have made the ultimate sacrifice are those who participate in Black local government. It is not only the Labour Party or the National Party. Think of those people who gave their lives to participation politics at the local government level in the Black communities. How great has their sacrifice not been? Sacrifices cannot be solely claimed for any political party or parties. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is reported as having said that the National Party and the Labour Party put their parties at stake in the reform process. I say that we, too, have done that, together with others.

The hon member for Cavendish spoke about the problems in education. Some years back I suggested that my hon colleague, the hon the Minister of Education and Culture, consider appointing a roving ombudsman. I want to reiterate this call, in all seriousness. One cannot deny that practically every home in this country of ours is related to a teacher somewhere or other. We are all affected by this profession. There is a need, because there are many teachers who cannot get their complaints off their chests and they do not have access to a higher authority. Although the machinery might be there—and my hon colleague might rightfully say that there are structures—one has to go through the principal, write a letter to the principal, which goes to the superintendent and to the director of education, and so on. However, I believe if a roving ombudsman is appointed who goes throughout the country and he hears from teachers, first-hand and off the record, problem areas will be identified. If there is a recurring complaint from teachers to this ombudsman, he can identify this complaint and see to it that this is rectified.

I might mention one such matter which was brought to my attention. In one school—which will remain unnamed—50% of the teachers have applied for transfers. I enquired why this was so. Some teachers were prepared to go out of their own home town and go and teach elsewhere. They were prepared to do that. I found that the problem lay with the person at the head of that school. His attitude towards his subordinates was such that it became intolerable. They were prepared to make sacrifices to get out. They could not very well use the structures that were available to them to file this report. If we therefore have this ombudsman, this type of thing will be brought to the notice of the authorities.

I want to come back to the one-time bonus of R60 that was made available to our pensioners. I am not saying that the bonus was not welcome, but it is important that we do place on record our disappointment that there have not been any increases for our pensioners. This is absolutely regrettable. If one takes inflation into consideration, one will find that the poor people in our community are worse off now than ever before. Their real buying power has been eroded to such an extent that they have to make do with less now than six months ago. It is very unfortunate. I would therefore like to make an appeal to my colleague, the hon the Minister of the Budget. Between now and the time the next Budget is introduced, all hon members in this House must see to it that we re-address this unfortunate aspect, namely the suffering of the poor.

It is very important that we work towards parity. What has been happening in recent times? There is always a great fanfare when we say increases are equal, but the gap remains. This is where we have to tackle the problem. For as long as there is no parity in social pensions in this country, for so long we must raise our voices. Our voices must be heard. We must see to it that the elderly and the poor in our communities are catered for.

We supported the hon the State President when he said that wage and salary increases should be pegged. We supported him. What has happened, though? Has inflation really stopped? [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is often said that a bad carpenter blames his tools. I do not want to skin the education cat all over again. However, I do want to say something to the hon the Minister of Housing. He has quite often said in this House that the powers of the Housing Development Board are far too inadequate. He alleged that a former Minister had copied some other House’s Bill and altered the name from Assembly to Delegates.

However, the hon the Minister himself has been in office now for more than a year. It is within his power to rectify this, simply by introducing an amendment. I want to know why he has not amended the Housing Act yet. Why has he not effected changes to the Housing Development Board? We amend Bills year after year. Today we dealt with the Customs and Excise Amendment Bill, as we have done every year since I came to Parliament. That is high praise to efficiency.

The Ministry of Housing is charged with gross negligence, inefficiency and incompetence. This is proof of it. For instance the hon the Minister has said quite often that he does not have the power to buy land for Indian housing. Although he identifies land in certain areas he does not have the power in terms of the Housing Act of the House of Delegates. I want to ask in all sincerity: Why has that Act not been amended?

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member a question? Is the hon member aware of the fact that if we amend the Act to extend our jurisdiction, it will be in conflict with the Constitution because it is a general affair? The hon member should know that.

That is a laughable, unbelievable question. That very hon Minister said that the provisions of our Housing Act differ from those of the House of Representatives. They have the power.

I think you misunderstand it.

I am quoting the excuses of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. A bad carpenter always blames his tools. [Interjections.]

I now come to the matter of town boards, town councils and local authorities who do not give their co-operation. In the hon the Minister’s report he said that every local authority was given forms to undertake socio-economic surveys. The Gillitts Town Board did not receive anything. They received no such forms and no survey was undertaken, yet 96% of the Indian housing in that small locality consists of shacks.

Do you say that they received nothing?

The report is therefore misleading.

I now come to a very important point that I want to clarify. I, as an independent, was deeply involved from the very start with the alliance movement. I want to state categorically that Solidarity never at any time demanded any official post. The post of Minister was offered and accepted with great reluctance. That is a categorical statement.

There is a particular reporter of the Sunday Tribune, a certain Mr John MacLennan. I am generally a compassionate and sentimental person and I do not like to attack a person who shares the name of John with me. [Interjections.] Unfortunately, I am compelled to say today that what Mr John MacLennan wrote in the Sunday Tribune was just a big lot of codswallop. That is what he writes. As a seasoned reporter it was his duty to verify any statement made by any jealous individual. Anybody who wants to make a statement rushes to the Press with it. Did the reporter verify the facts with any hon member of the alliance? Did he try to find out who was responsible for creating the alliance? Did he verify the allegations made that the leader of the Solidarity Party was hungry for a post? An irresponsible hon member of Parliament gave the reporter that information. My interpretation of his attitude is that he is out to destroy the House of Delegates. That hon member must be brought to book.

What is a coalition? It is a marriage or a partnership. In any coalition throughout the world the fruits are shared. [Interjections.] Who other than the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition qualifies on merit to lead this House and the Ministers’ Council? He has a vast background of experience, including being the executive chairman of the Indian Council. Can anybody default him on that? I have sat in on many meetings and listened to him. On merit he is the obvious one.

It was mainly at my insistence and at my suggestion that the PPSA offered the post to him. At no time did he demand it. He was overseas when this deal was going on. It was held back for his return for him to accept the post. Then and then only the break took place. I do not know what irresponsible member of Parliament is giving information to this reporter, Mr John MacLennan. I am sorry to use my first name all the time, but I am forced to repeat it. This hon gentleman rushes to the Press and they write an article which is not true, because he never verified the statements with each and every colleague of mine on this side. He did not verify those statements with anybody.

As far as the merit of the alliance is concerned I want to say that in 1948 when most hon members in this House were not even born yet or were still in nappies, I was a grown man. Dr D F Malan and Mr N C Havenga of the South African Party fought the 1948 general election and defeated Gen Smuts by a majority of four. Then there was a coalition and they shared the post. Mr Havenga was the most senior Cabinet Minister and the Minister of Finance. Dr D F Malan became the Prime Minister of South Africa because he had the greatest majority. Did anybody fault him; did any newspaper fault that arrangement? Did they say that because Gen Smuts had the greatest majority amongst the three parties he should be the leader of the country? The point is that this coalition has 24 members who had the wisdom—and I as an independent member—to choose the leader of Solidarity to be designated Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. He never asked for that. I can vouch for that and will take on anyone in open debate on that.

I now come to the article which appeared in this morning’s Cape Times. It is really disturbing. It contains a most disparaging statement made by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. I wonder whether the hon the Minister’s courage failed him when he was in this House to tell us that he was dissatisfied with the behaviour of hon members of this House.

He did not have the guts!

What prevented him from opening his mouth? No one gave him a carrot to chew on! [Interjections.] I take this very seriously. If one reads this article, one reads the hon the Minister’s reply … [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, with regard to housing I want to place on record that I did not have the time in my speech in that debate to say that we appreciated the tempo at which the provision of housing was being undertaken in the Transvaal, particularly in the Pretoria-Johannesburg area. I particularly specify the Pretoria-Johannesburg area.

The PWV area.

Johannesburg and Pretoria are included in the PWV area.

I want to make some comments with regard to what has been said about reform. On 23 and 24 May I said at the provincial sitting in Pretoria that although newspaper articles indicated that the National Party had been responsible for bringing people of colour into Parliament—we agree with that—it did not necessarily mean that we people of colour automatically had to give tacit approval to any Government policy. That is why we differ on certain policies of the Government.

It is not something that we were begging for. It is the right of every South African to have representation in Parliament, and all the more so in the case of the Black community because they constitute the majority of the population of this country. Therefore, some of the major arguments that were raised at the extended sittings in the various provinces were based on the fact that the Black communities were not represented. Other political parties in the House of Assembly took strong exception to this, and made their comments at those sittings. My point is, however, that we cannot be seen to give carte blanche approval to Government policy simply because they are responsible for bringing us into Parliament.

Turning to housing, as I have indicated, I did not have enough time to make certain comments but I want to associate myself with the comments made by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition with regard to the provision of affordable housing for the community. We have a case where people in most areas are not put into a bracket where they can afford the houses that are being built in that area, and in that regard I think we have to examine the housing policy very carefully so that affordable housing can be made possible for those communities that are not in a position to pay those high rentals or purchase prices. [Interjections.]

In this regard, perhaps we should look at the concept of mobile homes. The concept of the mobile home is one that is used extensively overseas, particularly in the United States and Western Europe. These homes differ from the conventional brick and mortar buildings. They are constructed from different materials such as fibre glass, etc, and if one compares some of these homes with the conventional brick and mortar homes, they are more highly priced. Perhaps, therefore, in an effort to provide more housing and to bring housing within the reach of the community, we should look at the concept of the provision of mobile homes.

If they throw you out, you can take your home with you. [Interjections.]

That is correct. If, in terms of the Group Areas Act, they want to throw you out, you can take your home with you. [Interjections.] This is why we should perhaps look at mobile homes. Of course, it is not merely a case of obtaining mobile homes; these homes have to comply specifically with housing bye-laws of a particular local authority within the jurisdiction of their geographical area. [Interjections.] There are thus various aspects we can look at.

However, this concept of mobile homes has gained such great momentum overseas that one finds entire communities and villages comprised of mobile homes. What is more, as I indicated earlier on, these mobile homes are better in some cases. In fact, I have priced one mobile home which cost R120 000.

If you are uprooted, there is no problem.

There is no problem. If the Group Areas Act is applied, one takes one’s home and moves elsewhere. [Interjections.] However, this is just a suggestion which I believe we should examine in an effort to provide affordable housing for the community.

Mr Chairman, I was on the point of making this accusation against the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. It is quite clear that the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning wants rubber stamps in this House. I am not prepared to serve as a rubber stamp for him, and neither are my hon colleagues on this side of the House.

If one were to ask from where we derived the inspiration to call for clean administration in this House, one would find that it came from no less a person than the hon the State President himself, who made the statement last year that he was all for clean administration in this Government. That is where we took our cue from, Sir.

What is more, bearing in mind the several allegations that were made, we set up this coalition to clean up this House. I want to know in what way that affects reform when the voters outside this House are clamouring for this commission and for this cleansing process. All hon members will know that when we go to our constituencies we are asked these questions. Day in and day out we are asked about this maladministration, which came up in the Press quite often.

We took our cue from the hon the State President and when we acted accordingly, our behaviour disappointed a senior hon Cabinet Minister. However, I am disappointed in his behaviour. [Interjections.] I am disappointed in the behaviour of the hon the Minister. I could take him on at a public meeting any time. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I wish to make a contribution in respect of two aspects. One is that during the housing debate, a number of hon members of this House talked about the identification of land and the Group Areas Act. I should like to say that if one attended some of these Group Areas hearings, one would find that they were not only time-consuming, but were a waste of money on the part of the individuals who had to make a case. They were becoming frustrating and in many cases were leading to divisions between the communities that came there.

In one of these hearings that I attended, anyone who saw the fracas that nearly took place between the Indian and White communities would realise that this particular exercise was, in my view, outdated and was creating problems in the various communities. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning has powers that he himself can use instead of having this old and outdated system which divides communities. Perhaps the NP is using this particular system of group areas to the advantage of its side. This has been alleged. I believe the time has come for the hon the State President himself, with the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, to get rid of this investigating committee in terms of the Group Areas Act.

In fact one needs land for housing, and that planning department can on a national basis look after that in conjunction with the own affairs department. Land should be identified and expropriated for the communities, rather than going through the whole episode and creating problems and wasting time and money. This system is in fact outdated and is creating problems among the communities. The time has come when planning can take care of that with the powers that the Ministers have.

There is one other issue in regard to which I would like to lend my support, and it concerns the hon the Minister of Education and Culture. We are morally bound as regards those qualified teachers who spent years to qualify. We understand that there are problems as far as economics are concerned, but here we have allowed the children to train and qualify. I reiterate that at the start of that period of training, we never said that we would have no job for them, since then they could have diversified into other categories of work. We are morally bound, and therefore every effort should be made to ensure that these qualified teachers, to whom we have an obligation, are employed. I think that the fact that the money is not sufficient to enable them to be employed is no justification; morally we have an obligation to be able to employ them.

Finally I think it is important to state that while tremendous inroads are being made as far as the welfare and health services are concerned I think that what we need to do is to ensure that the primary health care centres which were planned initially for the different areas get off the ground. They are becoming very useful and are actually easily accessible, but as regards the areas that have been identified and as far as our planning is concerned, our hon Minister of Health and Welfare should actually expedite this particular process. Provision should be made, I think under own affairs, to exert pressure to see to it that the Budget makes provision for this particular issue.

Finally, may I just reiterate that the issue of Phoenix Hospital was raised in the Natal Extended Committee. Let me tell hon members what the hon member in charge on the Executive Committee said. He said it was good luck if the House of Delegates had it on their plan as far as the Treasury was concerned. As far as they were concerned it was not in their planning that that hospital would feature in the next five years. I am only saying that I believe problems will be involved and it will only be right if both departments get together because it seems to me …

We have already done that.

Well, in that case I believe this must have been after we met. This should really resolve the whole issue because otherwise it creates the wrong impression that the member of the executive gave us that understanding. The hon member for Mariannhill will support me in that. We were bewildered that he was still saying that he did not know anything about it. I am glad that the matter is being resolved and that both administrations know what is happening.

Mr Chairman, this Second Reading debate on the Budget affords me the opportunity of completing my input on housing, which I was not able to do on Friday because I did not have enough time.

At that stage I was discussing the question of further expansion of the Indian area in Pietermaritzburg and I did say that I was not favourably inclined towards the acquisition of Bishopstowe. It is not contiguous with the areas that we have already looked at. To my knowledge a road runs through it and across that area lies Bishopstowe, which means that if that area is acquired by the House of Delegates, people will inevitably have to commute even further to the city centre, where they are employed.

Instead I suggest that part of Mattison Farm, which is inside the borough of Pietermaritzburg and which I select as an area of approximately 50 hectares, should be acquired for residential purposes. Mattison Farm has a potential as agricultural land because I suggested a residential area for only 50 hectares thereof. The other land is rather undulating and the possibility exists for it also to be used for agricultural purposes. If the hon the Minister of Housing could investigate this and find it feasible, then our housing needs in Pietermaritzburg would to a great extent be alleviated.

I have been informed by the Pietermaritzburg Municipality that no discounts will be allowed to those wishing to purchase in Stage 10 at Northdale as the House of Delegates has not asked for any concessions. Hon members are aware that a discount of 25% is allowed for cash payment; 5% if one lives in the home for over five years and 5% if one has bought that house during the sales campaign period. I do hope that the hon the Minister of Housing will take cognisance of this and act as soon as possible, as the tenants are desirous of purchasing.

Pietermaritzburg, I am certain like many parts of the country, also has this problem of rent control. We are being exploited by unscrupulous landlords. There have been phenomenal hikes in the rentals and the present Rent Control Board only protects tenants living in a house built in or before 1949. Thus the Rent Control Board has no say in the exorbitant rentals charged where these dwellings and flats have been built after 1949.

The Indians are at a disadvantage compared to the Whites, because of the housing and land shortage. I blame the application of the Group Areas Act, which has aided these unscrupulous landlords. It is a known fact that Whites, who comprise about 20% of the population, own more than 80% of the land. Hence, in the Indian areas land is at a premium, and extremely costly. Even this is not easily available. The Government should legislate, imposing rent control on all dwellings built, in my opinion, up to 1980. This may however not affect Whites, as there is an abundance of empty flats as the White landlords are exposed to tremendous competition.

The Group Areas Act is a monstrosity and should be scrapped. The dog-in-the-manger attitude of this Government is abhorred and I hope that they will pay dearly for all the atrocities perpetrated against people of colour.

Mr Chairman, for far too long, prior to the coming into being of the tricameral parliamentary system, the provincial and local authorities, especially in smaller towns, have, to put it bluntly, messed us around and they are continuing to do so. It is for this reason that these matters are brought to Parliament so that the respective hon Ministers can listen to us and bring about positive redress.

I must admit that contrary to what is sometimes said, the respective hon Ministers have responded positively to whatever approaches I have made. I am referring here to the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare, who has satisfied me adequately with all my queries. The hon the Minister of Education and Culture has done likewise. As a matter of fact, I am at present trying to get him to implement secondary education in one of the schools under the control of the House of Delegates in Vryburg, which has no secondary educational facilities. I am almost certain that he will assist.

When it comes to the hon the Minister of Housing, the same applies. I was quite pleased to hear that he plans to visit our area in order to assess the problems at first hand. The entire Department of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture, to which he is attached, must be complimented on the elaborate work that has been done as far as Indian housing is concerned. We heard that in the report he presented to us not so long ago. Vast improvements seem to have been taking place, notably in the Transvaal and in Natal, while, I am sorry to say, the Cape generally leaves much to be desired.

In the Cape Province the Indian population has in the past remained more or less static. However, with the removal of the interprovincial barriers not so long ago, the number of Indians that have settled in the Cape has increased considerably, thereby escalating the already grave shortage of homes. As was pointed out by my hon colleague, the Minister of Rylands, there is a grave shortage of not only homes, but also sports fields …

The hon member for Rylands.

No, but he is a minister.

I am sorry, the hon member. Well, I think he should be a Minister. There is a grave shortage of not only homes, but also sports fields, ablution blocks, swimming pools and other recreational facilities which are conspicuous by their absence. This was also emphasised by other hon members not so long ago. The local authorities are also shirking their responsibilities and passing the buck to the Government. They have already told me on a number of occasions that it is outside their area of jurisdiction and that I must get in touch with the House of Delegates. The local authorities do not seem to have responded to the questionnaire which the hon the Minister of Housing mentioned recently, which required information concerning the number of existing homes, the number of families adequately housed, the number of families on the waiting list, the number of serviced and other erven, etc.

Last year no funds as such were earmarked for Kimberley. In the 1988-89 financial year, only an amount of R918 016 has been made available for the servicing of 86 sites and the erection of 14 units. I appeal to the hon the Minister to increase this considerably.

In the Northern Cape there are no halls or recreational facilities. The hon the Minister, however, has responded positively as to what he is going to do in the future. Since the National Housing Commission and Community Development Board have been replaced by the Housing Development Board, matters seem to be moving rather fast. I am quite happy about this.

I now wish to come to Pelican Park and Craven-by. Like Rylands, these places require all kinds of facilities. I am happy to state that Pelican Park, which was proclaimed in 1982, has a housing capacity of 32 400 persons, or 571 dwellings. This has been made possible by the Ministry, the management committees of Rylands and Cravenby, hon members of Parliament and a very sympathetic municipality.

Extension 6 is ready and there are 284 serviced sites. We have reached an advanced stage in connection with the price structure. It is interesting to note that, with the efforts of the Ministry, hon members of Parliament and committees, the price is more or less favourable. It has been stated that it is even cheaper than land in the Chatsworth area.

I now wish to come to something that I feel is rather important, namely the shopping complexes that have not as yet been sold. In Kimberley we have two major shopping centres, namely the Transvaal Road shopping centre and the Pniel Road shopping centre. The important point here is that they were completed at the same time as the shopping centre in Vryburg, Kismet Park. Kismet Park negotiated with the then Community Development Board. They were extremely happy as far as the price structure was concerned, and they have purchased all those shops. However, when it comes to Kimberley, the matter has been dragging on for a very long time. Once the price structure is agreed upon, we fear that it is going to be much higher than it was in the case of Vryburg. I wish to make an appeal to the hon the Minister concerned that this be expedited and that a suitable price structure be worked out.

I was quite happy to learn that the facilities of a crematorium, which in the past fell under the provincial administration …

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

Mr Chairman, my speech has been cremated!

I shall deal with the ashes!

Mr Chairman, this afternoon’s debate has been a clear indication that the Administration: House of Delegates simply needs more funds. Hon Ministers have been finding it difficult to fulfil their obligations to our communities. Strong representations must be made to get more funds so that hon Ministers can fulfil these obligations. Our communities have been deprived for many years because of the unjust laws of this country. Hon Ministers often use the term “as soon as funds are available”. We have become immune to that.

No, when applications are available!

As far as the education field is concerned, schools are being built. There has been a cry from certain areas in the Transvaal that there is a shortage of schools, but I think there is also a lack of sports fields. We should ask ourselves why our children do not excel at sports such as rugby and hockey. It is clear that these facilities are not provided for at our schools.

Art, drama and culture are also lacking in the schools because we do not have sufficient school halls. I welcomed the news given by the hon the Minister of Education and Culture this afternoon that there was some hope for our teachers. There is no doubt that we have an old and rich culture. We are all proud of it and it needs to be promoted. The amount of money provided as a grant to aid cultural activities is very little.

I now come to the matter of regional welfare. A great deal has been said about the one-time bonus of R60. When the House of Delegates took over this portfolio they tried to narrow the gap and there is no doubt that we are succeeding in this. We have had a period of five years in which to reach a basis of equality but unfortunately the lack of funds has prevented us from achieving that. A great deal has been said about welfare agency offices this afternoon. I want to add that Tongaat also needs one. There are plans for one but a lack of funds is preventing its implementation.

As far as housing is concerned, I endorse every word that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said this afternoon about the problems of identifying land and the price of land. It is of no use to pay a great deal of money for land and to build homes for our people if it means that they will be burdened for a lifetime. With regard to the rental formula, the hon the Minister of Housing mentioned to us yesterday that the Durban City Council had been levying hidden costs. I think this also applies to other areas. I think it is a crying shame when elderly people who have only a R162 pension per month have to pay R144 for rent and maintenance costs.

Finally I want to say that I wish Project 25 000 every success. Let there be no obstacles in its way, especially where funds are concerned.

Mr Chairman, of course the hon the Minister of the Budget will reply to this debate tomorrow but I want to say that what I welcomed in this House were the constructive contributions. We have had positive and constructive contributions in the debate on all the departments.

I have had many altercations with the hon member for Reservoir Hills but one thing that this House cannot forgive him is the fact that he created a headline in The Daily News that read: “MP’s luxury life”. To make a reference to the hon member for Rylands having two homes, without informing this House that the hon member pays R400 per month as it is not a subsidised home, cannot be condoned. The hon member’s reference to that was highly irresponsible. In the name of fair journalism the Press ought to say that the additional home was negotiated by the Minister of Public Works and Land Affairs at the time, with the political party that he belonged to at the time and with my support. I supported this on compassionate grounds, because of a crippled child. [Interjections.] Unfortunately the media reported the mischief made by one or two hon members outside the House. That is why this report appeared in The Daily News in Natal, giving the false impression that MPs are leading a luxurious life.

I express the wish that certain journalists, now having received the correct facts, will correct this. I want to appeal to Sapa in particular, although they were not responsible for the original article: I do not blame the reporter concerned because he was fed with untruths. [Interjections.] I want to say that the former Chairman of the House is residing in that home as a result of an arrangement. He is not staying there by force. The arrangement came about with the concurrence of the present Chairman of the House and myself. Why are certain parties therefore making such a fuss about this issue?

An hon member in the House of Representatives should also check his facts before he makes statements about Indian education. I had to fulfil some duty outside the House but I am sure that my colleague, the hon the Minister of Education and Culture, has dealt with this matter. However, the statement made by that hon member has been printed in various newspapers in this country. It is a Sapa story, and I do not blame Sapa because they just reported what was uttered there. I think our most expensive technical colleges and technical secondary schools do not cost more than R7 million. I wrote a letter to the hon member Mr Lockey asking him to point out the school in the Transvaal which was costing our administration R10 million and I circulated that letter to the Press.

I want to respond to certain points made by hon members. Just in case the hon member for North Western Cape misunderstands me, I want to thank him for the positive sentiments expressed by him. I do realize that in the Cape the population is small and one may gain the impression that nothing is being done. However, I want the hon member to know that we are aware of the problem. There has been development in the Cape Province in particular. The hon member is aware of the meetings we had about Pelican Park. The mess has now been sorted out and I think once we give the package proposal to the people of the Cape region, covering the electoral division of the hon member for North Western Cape and the hon member for Rylands, the people of the Cape will be very pleased with the final prices that have been determined, because my greatest worry even before I was Minister of Housing was that we might have to present the prices with a tremendous measure of trepidation. I am glad that that is not going to be the case.

As far as the crematoriums are concerned, we are not taking the responsibility away from the provincial administration. In certain provinces we are not taking the responsibility away from the municipality. The provision of crematoriums is contained in the Regional Services Councils Act, but as an interim measure I indicated in the housing debate that I was asking our administration to examine whether we could grant the necessary loan, and if it were possible, whether it would be fair to charge the full interest or whether we could reduce the rate of interest. As far as that is concerned, I indicated that we might not have the authority as any reduction in the rate of interest was subject to the full approval of the Treasury.

I also want to assure hon members who are in other constituencies where our administration owns shopping centres that it is a policy to sell our stock. This is a policy determined by the Cabinet and it is a policy of privatisation. I now want to say something: I always complained about the Natalians. We noticed when the former Department of Community Development had a policy to sell the shopping centres to victims of the Group Areas Act at a particular price that in some centres people were demanding the market value. We cannot apply double standards otherwise there will be accusations that over 20 years a White Minister adopted one standard and now an Indian Minister is adopting another standard. Therefore, as far as that is concerned we are going to follow the uniform policy adopted by the former Department of Community Development.

I now want to come to Press reports and events that have taken place in this House. Hon members will agree with me when I say that I never in my speech or in utterances to the Press engaged in any acts of recrimination. Last Thursday this House voted on a decision and I practised a lot of self-discipline. The newspapers were fed up with asking me for my comments and receiving my simple answer of “no comment”. I prefer it that way. I do not think that in the past six weeks anybody has been as much on the receiving end as I have been. There were gross inaccuracies. I did not write letters saying that there were inaccuracies, but I accepted that the stones were hitting me. I weathered the storm. I am not gloating about that. As the hon the Deputy Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture has stated, the dust has now settled and let us look to our duties and the purpose for which we are here.

I also want to make an appeal to my hon colleagues in this House. Let us look at the role of a member of Parliament. Administrations are attacked, Ministers are sometimes attacked, and I sometimes wonder whether we should not allow questions to be tabled for MPs to answer. We should look at something new in this House. Ministers and other hon members should table questions for MPs to answer. They should have to answer questions such as: What have you done for the past three days? [Interjections.] After all, we are moving away from the Westminster system.

However, I want to say that an MP has a role in education. Let us have investigations. I would probably give the most copious evidence before a commission of the bullying and the threatening attitudes which certain MPs adopt, when they say: “If you do not get this done, this is what is going to happen.” I therefore want to make an appeal in this regard.

There have been cries about irregularities and about administrations, etc. Do hon members know that the Natal Provincial Executive Committee once took a decision that no member of the Provincial Council could communicate with the department in regard to teaching matters? I think a great deal of self-discipline is required.

Ever since we decided to appoint a select committee, I have looked at certain decisions in my administration on compassionate grounds. Unfortunately, I had to suspend all those things, lest there be a misunderstanding that those acts were irregularities.

However, I also want to make an appeal to this House to reconsider the notice of motion submitted by the hon member for Moorcross. I cannot reflect upon a decision of the House. I personally believe that a real, objective investigation in the form of a commission on education does not mean that one wants to find fault. England has a commission once every five years.

Correct.

It is a stock-taking commission, a commission to determine whether they are headed in the right direction. Therefore, I felt it was unfair to single out one department. A select committee or a house committee has a particular purpose but it does not serve the purpose of carrying out an investigation of this type. I think that if we can reach consensus, we should broaden the scope of the investigation and change it to a commission of inquiry. Otherwise people outside this House will say that the findings of the committee are dependent on how many party representatives one has. The stigma will remain. I want to recommend very strongly to the House that it very seriously reappraise that committee and request a judicial commission of inquiry.

The hon member for Reservoir Hills indicated that I had blocked the judicial commission of inquiry. Last Thursday, in the presence of my hon colleagues, I repeated what I had officially told the hon the State President, namely that I had always indicated—even in writing to the hon the State President—that I supported any request for a substantiated judicial commission of inquiry. I said that in this House on numerous occasions. However, some of the newspapers had the temerity to say—and I hope they will correct it—that we had blocked the appointment of a commission of inquiry.

I could be quite critical and ask who has backpedalled on the issue of a commission of inquiry and settled for a select committee instead. I shall most probably give reasons at the appropriate time as to why the call for a commission of inquiry was changed to a call for a select committee or a House Committee.

I want to make this appeal: Let us ensure that we have an independent investigation. If fluctuating circumstances have their way, then people cannot say that the majority in the select committee are NPP members and that the findings are dictated according to the number of members one has on that committee.

I want to say that I am distressed at the type of statements that have been made, and which I am going to bring to the attention of Mr Speaker. I am really distressed, and I can substantiate this with facts and evidence. I shall say no more about it at this stage.

As regards my colleague the hon the Minister of the Budget, reference was made to Sanitas. I think that the hon the Minister of the Budget, together with the hon the Minister of Education and Culture, are attending to this matter and I hope they will be able to make an announcement.

I want to say: Let us have stability. I should like to make an appeal to the media not to let certain events in this House cloud the fact that members of Parliament of this House have been doing sterling work in their electoral divisions. Members of Parliament of this House have also been doing sterling work in the various standing committees of Parliament, while in the field there is development in the House of Delegates. In addition, the House of Delegates is playing its role in national issues. Let us also project the positive side of the House of Delegates.

What makes a good MP? There is one important criterion: Is he a good constituency man? Is he serving the constituency? One of the ongoing advantages of the fact that we are now in Parliament and have members representing constituencies—unlike previously—is the fact that we are getting demands from members to service their constituencies. We could write volumes, that are unpublished in the columns of newspapers. What is published in newspaper columns is what causes sensation. We had a massive housing debate, and the Sunday Times Extra and the Sunday Tribune Herald did not publish a single word of the major contribution made by hon members in the housing debate. That is an indication of what the Press—especially some of the media—are doing. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the provision of housing is one of the most important elements in the survival of the human species. Next to the provision of food and clothing mankind has since the dawn of time engaged in the provision of shelter.

All our efforts in the House of Delegates will be judged by the public on how we tackle the housing problem facing the community. We can never hope to solve the housing problem completely, but can only alleviate the drastic problems facing our people. The Group Areas Act must go if we are adequately to utilise the country’s land resources to their fullest potential and to resolve the housing crisis in this country. The present Minister of Housing is performing a magnificent task in his department and I am convinced that his department will afford our community much-needed relief.

Mr Chairman, I want hon members for Natal in particular to listen to what I am going to say. I am going to deal with the University of Natal’s Charity Rag. I want to say today that my contribution to the Charity Rag is small. However, the public must be concerned about where the funds go. I want to make the statement today that whether it is a welfare organisation or anything else, those people who are using those organisations that are linked to the UDF are getting the bulk of the funds from the Charity Rag.

I want to substantiate this. The KwaMashu Welfare Society gets R2 560; the Phoenix Working Committee gets R5 000; Phoenix Child Welfare gets R1 250. These are official figures from the publication of the Charity Rag. Look at community projects: Bayview Residents’ Association gets R3 560—and it is an association whose job is only to make mischief and nothing else; Cato Manor Residents’ Association gets R6 000; the Phoenix Child Welfare Society gets R1 250; the Phoenix Working Committee—an organisation fit only to make mischief—gets R5 000. Let us consider this: If anyone were to want to allocate money, would one give the Child Welfare R1250 and the Phoenix Working Committee, R5 000? The Tongaat Civic Association, which is linked to the UDF, gets R3 000; the Shallcross Advice Office, a UDF front, gets R2 800; the Inkwezi Cripple Care Club gets R980; the Lake Haven Home, a welfare institution, receives R500. [Interjections.]

Then if one looks at the Indian community, we can identify the organisations that are UDF fronts and look at those contributions. I sincerely express the wish that those who are controlling these funds and allocating them, should take very serious note of the fact that somebody is misleading them. I am sure that those hon members from Natal will agree with me as far as these revelations are concerned.

In response to the hon member for Red Hill, I agree with him as far as group areas hearings are concerned. I am convinced that the days of those hearings are outdated and that they have now become an arena for inter-racial conflict. On such occasions I have experienced Whites coming across and saying that they oppose a certain Indian area because when they sit on their verandah they do not want to see an Indian face. We definitely heard such sentiments expressed at group areas hearings.

As far as Phoenix Hospital is concerned, I am surprised that the hon member for Red Hill has quoted the member of the provincial executive. Extensive discussions took place between the provincial administration and our administration long before that extended committee meeting was held. My colleague the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare can confirm this. Of course, we are now finally going to the Cabinet for a decision on this hospital. I can guarantee that we will put up a good fight in the Cabinet and I want the hon member for Phoenix to rest assured that, as long as I am occupying this bench, I shall fight to ensure that he gets his hospital.

The hon member for Allandale has come forward with a good suggestion in respect of Bishopstowe. I am not sure if he wants Bishopshead as well. [Interjections.] However, I am aware of the Mattison Farm where certain parts of that area are good for agriculture. My colleague, the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture, knows about the fact that there is excellent agricultural land available for the members of the Indian Community in and around Pietermaritzburg. I believe that we owe both the hon members for Newholme and Allandale a visit. I did indicate during the housing debate that the sales campaign was to end on 30 June. I also made a statement that if anybody wanted to buy a home after 30 June in terms of the benefits which were given during the sales campaign, they need not worry. Cy Baba once said: “Do not fear, I am here.” [Interjections.]

As far as Block AK is concerned, I want the hon member for Brickfield to know that we had extensive discussions with the municipality. I personally had a discussion with the present hon Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. The Durban City Council has actually resolved that the group character of the area be changed to Indian residential. At this stage I can only say that early this morning I had a discussion with my colleague, the hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, and I am sure that Block AK will be returned to the members of the Indian community. I just want to suggest that we must not be selfish if mixed residential areas are going to be allowed. That is going to be a reality and I personally believe that Block AK will be a very good example of a multi-racial area. I am sure that the hon member representing that area will agree with me.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council mentioned in his speech that the discounts would still be applicable. However, I want to ask him whether he is aware that in particular in regard to Stage 10 the municipality has stated that the House of Delegates did not negotiate any discounts at all.

Mr Chairman, it is difficult for me to look at details. I think I will examine that and we will have a discussion with the hon member for Allandale.

I want to say that the media should now look at the positive work done by the House of Delegates. I believe that 98% of our work was positive. However, only the 2% has been highlighted in the media. I can give hon members the example of the Sunday Times Extra and the Sunday Tribune Herald. Nothing about housing, welfare or education was mentioned.

I think we must all work together to ensure that there is stability and that the somewhat tarnished image of this House is improved. If we cannot put our heads together and redress what has happened recently, it leaves us with only one alternative, namely to let the voters decide. We do not need the resolution of the House. I have a method, whereby in terms of section 39 we can decide to leave it to the voters. There is a heavy responsibility on us to ensure that we present a better image.

Debate interrupted.