announced that he had called a joint sitting of the three Houses of Parliament for Tuesday, 4 March, at 14h15.

The House met at 15h06.

announced that a vacancy had occurred in the representation in this House of the electoral division of Pinelands owing to the resignation with effect from 1 March 1986 of Dr A L Boraine.

Mr Chairman, I move:

The Additional Appropriation Bill now before this House, seeks to appropriate the sum of R31,746 million for services rendered by the Administration: House of Assembly.

For some time it has been widely speculated that the Administration: House of Assembly is heading for an excess expenditure situation for the current financial year. However, the opposite is true. The Administration: House of Assembly, after the closing of the 1984-85 financial year, together with un-appropriated estimated own revenue for the 1985-86 financial year, will have at its disposal the sum of R55,969 million in the Appropriation Account (House of Assembly). This amount will be employed for the partial financing of the total estimated expenditure of R2 382,070 million for 1985-86.

The foregoing implies that no additional funds have to be transferred from the Exchequer to the Administration: House of Assembly under section 84 of the Constitution. The amount of R55,969 million is made up of the balance of R24,969 million after the closing of the 1984-85 financial year, and R31 million in respect of the normal recurrent revenue of the departments in the Administration: House of Assembly. The latter amount of R31 million is a re-estimate of own revenue, which was originally estimated at R34 million. This revenue does not take the Agricultural Credit Account into account, since revenue in this account is accounted for separately.

The intention is to finance the additional amount of R31,746 million as follows: R19,003 million from own revenue, and R12,743 million in respect of conditions of service for which provision is made by the Commission for Administration.

Hon members will note that nominal amounts of R1 000 are being requested for three votes. This has resulted from the fact that essential programme refinements were found to be necessary. However, in order to comply with the principle of Parliamentary control over funds—where virement between the separate programmes of a vote during the course of a financial year has been found to be necessary—the adjustments in question are now being indicated as the revised amounts in the additional estimates.

The request for R18,668 million for the Department of Local Government, Housing and Works is attributable to the underprovision of funds during the rearrangement and transfer of own-affairs functions. The department was inter alia obliged to undertake important maintenance work and certain essential capital works. It was possible to finance these essential functions out of the surpluses which have already been mentioned, and it was therefore not necessary to specifically draw funds for these services from the central Treasury. In addition provision has been made in Vote 6 for an amount of R12,743 million for the improvement of conditions of service for specific occupational groups in the Administration: House of Assembly. This amount has been provided by the Commission for Administration under its Improvement of Conditions of Service Vote in the central Estimates. For the 1986-87 financial year, provision will be made in the Estimates of the Administration: House of Assembly for the expenditure to be carried through.

†In the case of the Department of Agriculture and Water Supply an increase in capital return flow, together with interest yield, resulted in an amount of R38,270 million in the Agricultural Credit account. This increased return flow is the result of the responsible manner in which the farming community responded to appeals directed at the repayment of drought debts as their highest priority within their means.

The co-operation of the farming community thus made it possible to finance the relief of distress which in turn alleviated further demand on the Treasury. The members of the Ministers’ Council and I would like to convey our appreciation to the farming community for their sustained co-operation.

In spite of the fact that a new structure had to be created for own affairs the Administration: House of Assembly nevertheless succeeded in making its contribution towards the curtailment of personnel expenditure, so much so that a saving of R40,49 million has been achieved. As a result of sound financial management and orderly housekeeping—and this despite the overall economic situation—the administration found itself in the position where it could provide assistance in various other fields. For instance, emergency aid and social relief have been provided by the Department of Health Services and Welfare.

*A further aspect which I should like to single out are the two authorisations I have granted under section 7 of the Exchequer and Audit Act, 1975. You will notice in the footnotes of the printed Additional Estimates that authorisation no 1 amounted to R886 000 and authorisation no 2 to R34,575 million. The method of financing which I have already explained, made it unnecessary to use these authorisations.

Finally I should like to return to the question of the handling of the surpluses in the Appropriation Account: House of As sembly. After the amount of R19,003 million has been applied for the partial financing of the Additional Appropriation, a balance of R36,966 million is left. The further application of this balance—which still has to be negotiated with the hon the Minister of Finance—will in future of course contribute to alleviating the pressure on the Exchequer. Possibly I shall be in a position to furnish further particulars in this regard during the Main Budget.

Mr Chairman, this is the second occasion upon which the Additional Appropriation in respect of the Administration: House of Assembly comes before this House. Last year, as hon members may recall, attention was drawn by the hon member for Yeoville to the fact that the Additional Appropriation appeared before the original estimates. We are pleased that on this occasion we can say that we have at least the original estimates which will provide comparative figures in relation to the Additional Appropriation.

The hon the Minister has drawn attention to the fact that some R31,7 million has been appropriated in addition to the original estimate. It is therefore necessary at least to look at where that R31,7 million is due to be allocated. The first of two major items is one of R18,7 million representing an underprovision of funds for contractual obligations under a previous dispensation. That will be handled by other hon members of this party. I should like, however, to draw attention to Vote 6 of the Additional Appropriation—“Improvement of Conditions of Service”—which was the subject of some lengthy discussion the other day when I raised the entire matter under the Vote of “Improvement of Conditions of Service” in respect of the Additional Appropriation relating to the State Revenue Account. I asked then in respect of what the amount of R12,743 million was being spent. This amount, Mr Chairman, represents an underestimate by 501%, which I find very interesting.

The fact that we have this underestimate should at least give rise to the question of where this money is going. I understand—and I understood this from the hon the Minister for Administration and Economic Advisory Services in the office of the State President—that it is going, as has been indicated, towards improving conditions of service for certain educators and the nursing profession. I have a particular problem because the sums of money indicated in the additional appropriation for the augmentation of salaries, wages and allowances are to the tune of only some R2,7 million, whereas for the augmentation of subsidies, of grants and of financial assistance to State-aided institutions, a sum of some R10 million is to be voted. My problem here is that I assume—the hon the Minister can probably corroborate this a little later—that the R10 million is by and large going to universities. If that is the case, as I suppose it is, I have particular difficulty in rationalising it with the decrease in the expenditure on universities under Vote 3: Education and Culture of some R7 million. It looks to me as if there is some kind of explanation that needs to be given as to how this financing of the universities takes place. An additional sum of R10 million, as I understand it, is going to universities, but at the same time the universities are instructed to realise personnel saving of some R7 million.

I would like to turn to the very basis of own affairs. The hon the Minister and the PFP had discussions previously across this floor on the Part Appropriation Bill and, will no doubt have a further discussion under the main vote of own affairs.

I would, however, like to draw the attention of the House and particularly the hon the Minister of the Budget to an article by the hon member for Helderkruin which appeared yesterday in Rapport. I would like to quote the concluding paragraphs of that article. The rest of the article, might I say, was not of a terribly good standard but the last paragraph I found very interesting. I quote:

[Interjections.] He concludes:

I want to ask the hon the Minister who was so strong in his interpretation of the State President’s speech during the no-confidence debate to please interpret for us if this is NP policy. Are we standing at a point where the Government of the day is saying the whole basis of group differentiation in South Africa is open to interpretation? Are we looking for a middle way?

I want to take the hint that the hon member for Helderkruin suggested in the last paragraph. I do not want to argue across the floor; I merely want to propose that we should enter into debate. We should not confront each other but we should negotiate on this very point.

The basis of own affairs does not only determine residential areas, separate schools and separate amenities but it also determines the very political structure of this Government and particularly that of the own affairs dispensation.

I have so far dealt with the political dispensation and the question of where we stand. We may be in a time-frame of moving towards change. I certainly think we should and the country needs be told this. There are also other questions I want to ask the hon the Minister. He may indicate in his speech later—he did this to me earlier—that he does not want to discuss education now as there will be other opportunities. However, I do want to put certain of the questions to him which seem to be uppermost in the minds of a vast number of South Africans.

The hon the Minister will have seen the series of articles in yesterday’s Rapport on multicultural schools. Are multicultural schools being discussed realistically by the Government? [Interjections.]

In Die Burger of this morning there were similar favourable comments on a private farm school near Riviersonderend where Brown and White pupils are studying together.

That is in my constituency.

Good for him, Sir. I am very pleased that he has not allowed the forces of authority to break up such a happy relationship. [Interjections.] May I ask a question of the hon member for Swellendam, Mr Chairman? Does he believe there should be subsidisation available for all those children in that school? I say of course there should! Subsidisation should, by all means, be available. After all, they are carrying out an educational function.

Yes, but you must come to see the circumstances and then tell me whether you …[Interjections.]

Order! I cannot allow a debate to be conducted across the floor of the House. The hon member for Pinetown may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Still on the same point, however, I turn now to a question I have previously asked of this hon Minister and of other hon Ministers, namely, the question of the creation of the bases for the deviation from own education departments and own schools as set out in the Constitution. In the hon the Minister’s reply to me the other day—he replied to my question about whether the bases were actually going to be drafted—he indicated quite clearly that he was going to hold discussions with the Ministers concerned. I am very pleased about this. My only problem, however, is that the hon the Minister and his Government have taken so long to reach the point of considering the bases for deviation from own education departments.

The question is now pertinent. It must now be seen in terms of what is to be done in cases such as that of the South African College School. It is the most senior high school in South Africa. It has a parent body that has now, by a vote of 80%, decided that it wishes to open its school to all. [Interjections.]

Order! I want to point out to the hon member that the matter under debate is an Additional Appropriation Bill. The debate is therefore confined to the subjects contained in the schedules and to the reasons for the increase or decrease in expenditure. Hon members should, therefore, not reopen the question of policy involved in the original grants. The hon member may continue.

Thank you for reminding me, Mr Chairman. My colleague, the hon member for Parktown, will in fact be dealing with the entire matter of hospital services, while I should like to look at the additional appropriation that we have before us.

I am assuming that the hon the Minister has made no provision in this additional appropriation for any expenditure of an educational or other nature, as far as the provinces are concerned. That was the position with last year’s additional appropriation, and I understand it is the case this year as well. I therefore have a query in this regard and possibly the hon the Minister will indicate how the budgeting for the provinces will be done this year. This is a question that concerns all the provincial councillors. It concerns the taxpayers in the provinces and it also concerns hon members of this House.

I should like to turn to the expenditure as set out in the additional appropriation and to make particular reference to the entire issue of expenditure on primary and high school education. In this regard, I believe there is one issue which the Government has not faced squarely, and that is the utter waste of facilities. There is no doubt that additional savings in this department—over and above those detailed in this additional appropriation—can be brought about by utilising existing facilities to the fullest extent.

In all areas throughout South Africa—I cite the case of my own constituency as an example—there are training colleges and schools that are underutilised. I do not think for one moment that the mere opening of schools and colleges is going to solve all the problems. I am in no doubt whatsoever on that score. What I do know, however, is that there is a moral certitude about the opening of these facilities, and that a degree of emotive pressure in this regard will be relieved by opening them.

Secondly, I turn to the financing of the universities. This is an extremely worrying aspect not only to members of Parliament but to the universities themselves. I want to challenge the hon the Minister on this point. Are the universities happy with the SAPSE formula? Are they happy with SAPSE Report 110 in which their budgetary provisions were originally set out? I happen to know that certain universities were placed in severe financial distress last year because the information concerning subsidies was received late from the Government and also because of the cutbacks that had to be instituted by the universities on behalf of the hon the Minister’s department.

While I am discussing universities I should like to ask a question regarding the explanatory memorandum in respect of the Vote Education and Culture. As the hon the Minister is no doubt aware, provision for housing subsidies has been removed from the administration programme under the vote and divided among the other programmes. A sum of about R4,6 million is involved. I have a problem with that, because if one takes R4,6 million away from the administration programme and divides that sum among the rest, the other programmes should show increases in their budgets, and most of them do except universities. The amount budgeted for universities decreased by some R7,1 million. Has the hon the Minister transferred the amounts budgeted for subsidies in his administration programme to that of the universities?

The next question I should like to discuss regards the programme of savings that was instituted during February and March last year. The State President announced that there would be departmental savings of about 2,5% in real expenditure. From the information I was able to gather, very few departments carried that programme through. It was allowed to lapse after a period of time, and nobody even checked up on it. I should like to ask the hon Minister of the Budget across the floor whether he can give us the assurance that the departments for which he is responsible implemented not only a personnel savings programme but also an overall expenditure programme during the year.

Something else I should like to know is: What has happened to the anti-red-tape programme? The hon the Minister may remember that four or five years ago the then Prime Minister indicated that he was so opposed to “rompslomp” that he was setting up committees at various levels to eliminate it. They have died! They have gone. However, I should like to have the anti-“rompslomp” committees reestablished.

With regard to children in need of care, can the hon the Minister honestly justify an increase of only R1,8 million in the amount spent on these children? Is the report of the Van Loggerenberg and Billy Nel Committee available and does it recommend increased spending?

The very last point I should like to make is a humorous one. Can the hon the Minister explain to us how the R125 000 budgeted for the Dias Festival: Caravel Project was included in the additional estimates? It is not an additional appropriation; this came out of the blue. What is the Caravel Project? Why are we spending R125 000 on it?

Mr Chairman, under this Additional Appropriation I wish to discuss expenditure related to “University and Technikon training” under Vote 3 and that of “Administration” under Vote 5—“Budgetary and Auxiliary Services”. I should like to link these two departments. In recent times we have received a number of reports: I am thinking, for example, of the Kleu Report and the White Paper succeeding it. According to those reports, more attention should be devoted to people in management situations; we should attempt making people more efficient in the management situation—this applies not only to the private but also the public sector. I am aware that as regards Vote 5—“Budgetary and Auxiliary Services” one of the most important functions is to establish how productivity may be increased in the Public Service.

In speaking on the training of public servants, I shall be raising a subject that does not always leave me very popular among certain experts in public administration. When the training of public servants is discussed, it is said they should be trained in public administration and that this is totally different from management. Management implies the training of people to make profit whereas public administration has to train people in the Public Service where profit is not an objective.

In recent years this distinction has created many problems. It unnecessarily prevented co-ordination between the training of managers and that of public servants; one can actually go back in history to discover how this occurred. As a young student I learnt that the objective of industrial economics was a study of enterprise and striving for gain, but, as the years went by and we started going over to management, the subject of industrial economics became less clearly defined as it were. We started training people in marketing, production, the computer and financing; programmes were drawn up fully developed according to the different functions of management and general leadership.

I think respectfully of Prof Cloete of the University of Pretoria who contributed greatly to the development of the subject of public administration. This subject is always regarded to a degree, however, as a narrow, circumscribed one without the addition of personnel management, financing and computer science as auxiliary subjects. The fact that the subject of public administration was not divided into separate subjects posed a problem as regards the training of public servants. [Interjections.] It also led to an inability on the part of business schools and departments of public administration to cooperate well. It is also interesting to note that industrial economics as a management subject always formed part of economics in the old days. In the development of institutions such as the Harvard School of Business in particular, management broke away from economics as a subject. In modem life economics is a feeder source for management but unfortunately public administration remains too closely linked with political science.

I think Departments of Public Administration at our various universities should be weaned from political science and possibly included in the Faculties of Commerce and Economics. If a cross-pollination were to start occurring between the training of management in the business world and of our public servants in administration, it would become easier to train public servants better. This happens at many business schools in the USA where there are institutions such as the Kennedy School for Public Administration but at the Harvard School of Business generals and public servants attend courses and this cross-pollination takes place there.

I wish to ask whether it is not possible for us to train our public servants who are concerned with the Budgetary and Auxiliary Services Vote at our business schools as well. Nowadays profit is not the only objective in business training; the approach comprises setting an objective, which is not necessarily profit, and endeavour to achieve this.

I should like to enlarge on the problem of the training of managers which again affects both departments and I am taking a future view again. The Sansu formula is mentioned here. As regards management, there is a great lack of subsidisation of students who are taking an Master’s degree in management. I have chosen this subject today because the business school I founded comes of age this year. In the 12 years I spent there it was always one of my greatest problems than a Master’s degree in management was not recognised as a normal Master’s degree according to the formula. [Interjections.]

Order! I have a problem understanding which point the hon member is now discussing.

Mr Chairman, I wish to get to the question of subsidisation as I think the subsidisation formula forms the basis of tertiary training. If one does not have finance, one cannot develop, which brings me to the entire question of the subsidisation of a specific degree. The first year of the MBL course is subsidised at undergraduate level and the second year at honours level but the third and fourth years are not subidised at all. [Interjections.] If one compares this with an Master’s degree in Economics, students take six-month courses and then write a thesis. There is little difference today between an MBA and an MBL.

If we wish to promote management in South Africa, I think it is high time that we do not skimp on subsidies for Master’s degrees in management which are interdisciplinary degrees. This is not applicable only here but also to any professional degree or interdisciplinary programme. I think it is exactly the same in the case of journalism. I think the Master’s degree in Journalism offered at the University of Potchefstroom is not regarded as an Master’s degree either. We should get away from the idea of placing everything in pure academic compartments and we should further the subsidisation of interdisciplinary programmes.

This brings me to a last important question as regards training at our universities, that of short programmes or courses in public administration and management. These are not subsidised today which means that only large companies are able to send their people there. The professional man should also be able to benefit from these short courses as he cannot take one extending over two or four years.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: While the hon member for Pinetown was speaking, you ruled that he was covering too wide a field. I submit with great respect that the hon member for Waterkloof is doing precisely the same thing.

Order! I drew the hon member for Pinetown’s attention to the rules, and I then allowed him a certain amount of latitude.

*The rule is that reasons for the decrease or increase of amounts relevant to the Additional Appropriation may be discussed but not reasons of policy for their original introduction. The hon member ranged rather far afield and I now call upon him to abide by the rules.

Mr Chairman, I have completed my point.

Mr Chairman, we are now dealing with own affairs which, as the hon member for Waterkloof said the other afternoon, is one of the most important legs of NP policy. Opposite me are 69 NP seats, but there have only been 19 NP members present for the entire duration of this debate. [Interjections.] They have not the slightest interest in own affairs.

Where is your leader, Oom Jan?

Where is the hon member’s leader? Is he walking around gossiping? Where is he?

Where is the State President?

Yes, where is the State President? [Interjections.] We are dealing with own affairs here and there ought to be more interest on the part of the Government side.

However, I am not going to make a lengthy Second Reading speech because we shall get at the hon the Ministers with our questions during the discussions on their votes. I think that there is a great deal they have to account for and we should like to put our questions directly to them. Therefore I shall let these few words suffice.

Mr Chairman, we now have the additional appropriation of the Administration: House of Assembly before us. Permit me, in the first place, to congratulate the administration on the handling of this additional appropriation as well.

He is an F W man; he has always been “verkramp”.

Precisely the opposite can be said of that hon member. [Interjections.]

The handling of the amount appropriated in the budget before us this afternoon must be viewed in the light of a neat and well-planned main budget which initially came before this House. Moreover, the expenditure on the basis of the budget took place very neatly, judiciously, and with a high degree of discipline. Therefore we have appreciation for what is before us at present.

I just with to refer very briefly to Vote 3: Education and Culture. There is a saving with regard to the salaries and allowances of staff at universities and technikons. The fact is that those savings undoubtedly would not have appeared on the books had there not been deliberate efforts on the part of the relevant universities and technikons to achieve the savings. Accordingly we wish to take this opportunity to convey our gratitude today to those bodies which made it possible to achieve such a saving despite the present economic conditions. I believe that this entailed considerable hardship and sacrifice on the part of those tertiary institutions. We on this side of the House profoundly appreciate what they wish to achieve thereby as a sacrifice for South Africa in these economic conditions and we are therefore very grateful.

Mr Chairman, when the main Budget was introduced last year, I indicated that it was going to be an extremely difficult budget to administer because one had the odd situation that Ministers were appointed to administer various activities while they were, in fact, not really permitted to administer those activities in that their major portfolios—for example with regard to education, hospitals and local government—have been handled, and are still being handled, largely by the provincial administrations as has been the case for many years. Of course, it is rather amusing that even though they do not have anything to do with it—it is somebody else’s responsibility—it is still necessary to have an additional appropriation. However, all things considered under the circumstances, I think the amount budgeted for in the additional appropriation is not excessively large.

The point raised by the hon member for Pinetown concerning the question of the improvement of conditions of service, among other things, by about 500% odd, does seem to indicate that something was totally wrong with the original budgeting. I am perfectly well aware of the fact that conditions of service are often changed during the course of the year but it definitely indicates to me that there was a lack of proper anticipation. When a percentage in respect of budgetary items varies too much from that for which one has budgeted, one wonders whether the budget really means anything at all. One wonders whether one can place any credibility on the budget that is being presented.

In so far as the amount required for local government and housing is concerned, I observe that a fairly large percentage of the amount is required for further assistance to people with regard to housing, and also for the development of additional land—presumably for housing purposes. Of course, in my opinion this is something which is absolutely necessary. I very much support it and, in due course—when the appropriate vote is discussed during the Committee Stage—I should like to say a little more on this particular issue. I shall possibly also suggest a couple of additional ideas to the hon the Minister which he may find useful.

I always regret having anything to do with additional expenditure, because I believe we should be trying our hardest to cut back on expenditure, especially in view of the public’s attitude to a lot of things related to Parliament. I believe we should then really be able to prove to the public we are worth what some people feel we should be getting.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure to participate in this debate on the Additional Appropriation (House of Assembly) Bill. I should like to refer briefly to Vote 1—“Health Services and Welfare”. It is a difficult task for us to elaborate on this vote because the hon the Minister and his department have succeeded in staying within the limits of the original amount voted in the budget. I should very much like to take the opportunity to congratulate the hon the Minister and his department wholeheartedly on this achievement. It is an exceptional achievement if one bears in mind that it is only the second budget of this administration. Because the hon the Minister and his department, in the nature of the matter, do not have data from previous budgets, they had to make estimates ab initio and were not able to base their estimates on the previous figures. Taking that into account, it is an exceptional achievement that this department could succeed in staying within the limits of the budgeted amount.

It is a very great privilege for us that Health Services and Welfare is regarded as an own affair. Whereas the hon member for Sunnyside only pointed at the empty benches in front of him and did not look behind him at how full the Government benches were, we want to give him the assurance that this department and the Administration: House of Assembly will be developed into a fine administration that will show South Africa that as far as the Government is concerned it is of the utmost importance that own affairs be developed in the interests of the people that we represent here. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member has just said that it was of the utmost importance to the NP that there were own affairs in health matters for example. He elaborated on that and said how proud he was and how sure he was that it was in fact something worthwhile. I want to ask the hon member whether he is aware that apart from the NP and especially the conservative wing of the NP, and the CP, the HNP, the AWB and the Kappiekommando, there is no one else in South Africa who is in favour of own affairs in health.

He therefore finds himself in a complete minority, with his own best wishes and all. The hon member referred to health as an own affairs and I should like to tell him that the Medical Association of South Africa and all other suppliers of health services in South Africa are opposed to this concept of own affairs in health matters. I have now replied to the hon member—I wanted to make it clear to him—and perhaps I shall not be allowed to discuss the policy any further.

Secondly the hon member said that it was difficult for him, because of the favourable budget, to elaborate on this. For me, however, it is not difficult at all because I think there are many aspects which we must discuss.

†For instance as far as Vote 1: Health Services and Welfare is concerned, it is interesting to note that an additional amount of R1 000 is being asked for. When one looks at the difference between the increase and the decrease one sees that it of course only differs by R1 000. It is interesting to note that the decrease is in respect of welfare promotion—a decrease of R1,5 million.

Disgusting!

I should like to put a question to the hon the Minister in respect of this. During a period of peak inflation, when people become umemployed, when pensioners are finding it difficult to make ends meet, when one sees increasing incidences of people deprived of the necessary nourishment, how is it possible to decrease the promotion of welfare services by R1,5 million? I would believe, Mr Chairman, that during such a period more money would be needed in order to support school-feeding programmes, soup kitchens and other ways of distributing food among the really needy in this country. I want to ask the hon the Minister how many officials of his department are occupied in this particular field. Is there still an increasing demand for this type of aid, and will it be possible for him to guarantee to this House that the amount of money provided in terms of this budget to the department of the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare will be sufficient to provide those who need it most with at least one decent meal a day?

In relation to Vote No 1, Sir, I should like to refer particularly to item 5, “Associated Services: Prevention of Nutritional Diseases”. In respect of this item the hon the Minister is asking the House to vote an additional amount of R411 000. It is interesting to note that under the new dispensation the term “nutritional diseases” has taken on a new additional meaning in that it refers also to nutritional diseases among the affluent. We are not really talking here about malnutrition. We are basically talking about overfeeding as a result of wrong eating habits. I want to know from the hon the Minister what part of this additional amount is earmarked to be spent on the combating of maladies of this nature. I should like to point out, Mr Chairman, that among the White people of South Africa diseases relating to wrong eating habits have taken on gigantic proportions. In this respect we really have to deal with a very serious problem. The hon the Minister, who is now shaking his head, will have to understand that this branch of his own affairs department will have to play an ever more significant role in providing money, manpower and the necessary facilities for educating White South Africans how to eat better in order to live better.

The whole process of increased urbanisation in South Africa contributes vastly to this type of incorrect nutrition—incorrect nutrition through overeating—which, as a result of the spreading of Western influences among our other population groups, is bound to become more and more prevalent among all the population groups living in this country. This serves as just another example of the complete foolishness of so-called own affairs. It is common cause that all people who persevere in unhealthy eating habits are prone to coronary heart diseases. Diseases of this nature are, as we should all know by now, most prevalent among people with wrong eating habits.

I should like the hon the Minister to explain to the House the special job creation projects to which he refers. For this purpose an additional amount of R180 000 is being asked for in the estimates. I am interested in learning in detail in which way this sum is to be spent and on what. During debates in the House last year I put a few questions to both the hon the Minister of Education and Culture and the hon Minister of Health Services and Welfare in connection with the undertaking of an anti-smoking campaign by the latter department and by the Department of National Education, also among schoolchildren. I notice an amount of R4 000 under one of the items which may just be asked for that purpose. I should like the hon the Minister to inform me if that is indeed the case. The hon the Minister promised me last year that special anti-smoking programmes were to be instituted at schools, and that a booklet on the subject would also be published. I should like the hon the Minister to tell us whether anything has been done yet in connection with this campaign. How many schools have been visited to date by how many officials of his department, and what has been accomplished so far? If enough additional money has been made available by his department, irrespective of the way in which it has been done, he should tell this House about it. I am referring particularly to the combating of the smoking habit in White schools by the Department of Health Services and Welfare.

I should also like to ask a few questions in connection with medical care since I note than an additional amount of R1,5 million is to be voted for this purpose. This represents the biggest single increase of all figures relating to the additional estimates in respect of this hon Minister’s Department. Has this been because more institutions have been taken over, or because there has been an increase in personnel or better medical facilities for the people his department caters for? It our belief that approximately R55 million of the total health budget is for health services. Approximately R620 million is allocated to welfare. I believe that this additional R55 million would also not be necessary if the Department of Health Services: House of Assembly could be scrapped and become part of general affairs.

Mr Chairman, the amount being asked for here by the hon the Minister is, relatively speaking, not very large. I should have liked to congratulate him on it had it not been that I was concerned that this amount could be less, not because savings as such have occurred but because the whole system of own affairs is dwindling and disappearing. Last year, for example, 104 Bills were introduced that fell under general affairs. As regards all three divisions of own affairs, however, there were only 11 Bills, about 8 of which had to do with appropriations. This leaves approximately three Bills, which in fact amount to nothing. The question now is whether these amounts being requested here under the various items ought not to be further decreased, to such an extent that virtually nothing remains? I ask this because there is another trend which intimately affects the matter being discussed this afternoon. In the other two Houses, the Coloureds and the Indians are, for example, by opening their schools, making of an own affair a de facto general affair. The hon the Minister is now displaying the same tendency. He made a name for himself in politics by being the great advocate of own affairs. Under this hon Minister’s administration we read this morning on the front page of Die Burger that although the school in the Swellendam constituency is registered as White, there was the most cordial co-operation imaginable from the relevant department of the hon the Minister for the school to be opened to Coloureds. [Interjections.]

This trend with regard to the own affairs of the hon the Minister and of the other two Houses is in conflict with the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa. There is a tendency to make of an own affair, a de facto general affair. I now wish to know from the hon the Minister whether he is going to use his influence in regard to these matters to which I have referred, and in particular the school in the Swellendam constituency, to bring the whole matter in the other two Houses into line with the Constitution? Is the hon the Minister, despite his reputation, going to stand by and allow the Constitution to be undermined step by step so that eventually we will find ourselves in the situation in which such a Bill will not be introduced again.

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

No, Sir, I have only a few minutes at my disposal. If that hon member will use his influence with his Whips to give me more time, I shall answer all their questions. [Interjections.] I do not wish to digress this afternoon because I—and I believe that the entire South Africa is with me—am in earnest when I ask the hon the Minister—the “last White hope” in the NP—[Interjections.] whether he is going to stand by while disintegration, the decay, of the Constitution is allowed to carry on unchecked, or is he going to stand up and, like a true-bred Transvaler, fight for that which he professed so strongly long ago. I ask the question, and I hope and trust that the hon the Minister will give us a straight answer here this afternoon. It appears to us—indeed most of us are quite sure of it—that the whole issue of own affairs among the Whites, Coloureds and Indians, and the whole issue of an Additional Appropriation Bill for the House of Assembly, was merely a sugar-coated pill administered during the referendum to cause the White voters to vote for something that they did not want. It was to have made it easier from them to vote “yes” in the referendum.

Order! When the Chair calls for order, the hon member must remain silent.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I do not think the hon member for Sasolburg is dealing with the Bill before us at present. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Sasolburg may proceed, but I want to warn him that he is moving very close to the borderline.

Mr Chairman, I wish to thank you, and with the hon member for Barberton, I want to thank you for having afforded us the opportunity to state this point. We hope that the hon the Minister will give us an answer in this regard this afternoon.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Swellendam wanted to put a question to the hon member for Sasolburg, but he only had a few minutes at his disposal. I now wish to call upon the hon member for Swellendam to get up, make a speech and tell us about the multiracial school in his constituency. It seems as if he is very proud of it. [Interjections.] I want the hon member to get up and explain it to us.

The Additional Appropriation Bill (House of Assembly) provides for local authorities that fall under own affairs. I take it that a city like East London could also benefit from the money being made available here. Last week the City Council of East London decided to open their residential areas to everyone. I want the hon the Minister to come and tell us today whether, if a city council like that of East London exercises the local option, as the Government is so keen for them to do, and takes such a decision, the Government will tell the City Council of East London that the State is withdrawing the money it allocates to them from the appropriation for own affairs because they are in conflict with the Constitution. I want to know whether the hon the Minister is going to do that.

The hon member for Kimberley South should put both his hands in the air, because that is something he likes doing. [interjections.]

East London has decided to throw open its residential areas. It is also in that city that the Whites are being crowded off the beaches. Surely beaches are also a facility controlled by local authorities. I want to know from the hon the Minister whether he is going to withdraw his assistance to them.

The hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning states that the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act is going to disappear. These are facilities which also fall under local authorities as an own affair. That is what is stated in the Constitution.

Order! Will the hon member please tell me under what heading he is now speaking.

Mr Chairman, I am speaking under the heading “Local Government” in vote 4. The subhead is “Area Development”. I am also discussing “Recreation” in vote 3. [Interjections.]

The hon the Deputy Minister said that the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act is now going to go. These were facilities created by local authorities and they have been identified as own institutions. Is the hon the Minister, who is chairman of the Ministers’ Council for the Whites in South Africa, going to adopt the standpoint that the facilities provided by White local authorities—they have been identified as own institutions—will remain exclusively in the hands of the Whites?

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Kuruman and Sasolburg asked me to rise and say what is going on in Stormsvlei. The hon members are acquainted with Stormsvlei. The hon member for Kuruman did months of organisation work in Bredasdorp and in the Swellendam constituency. He is acquainted with those regions and he knows Stormsvlei.

Yes, I know Stormsvlei.

In the same way the hon member for Sasolburg is acquainted with Stormsvlei. It is a small community which has become totally depopulated. As a result there are several buildings standing empty. That is Stormsvlei. There used to be a butcher, at one stage there was a White school, and there used to be a church hall. [Interjections.] Today there is nothing in Stormsvlei that exists actively, except the hotel and “Tant Mietie”, who manages it. [Interjections.] Is it not wonderful that his is the very Utopia upon which the CP, the right-wing element, bases its arguments, to prove to South Africa that this Government is introducing mixed education in South Africa. That is really so ridiculous, Sir; their simplistic arguments make one want to weep. Nevertheless one might have expected such an argument from the hon member for Kuruman. One might have expected him to stoop to such a simplistic argument in an effort to score a political point. [Interjections.] After all, the hon member knows that I am speaking the truth now. [Interjections.] Yes, he knows I am speaking the truth.

What, in fact, happened? Some sect, which has some outside source of finance—I do not know by whom they are financed because I was not sufficiently interested in the matter to find out—occupied those buildings that were standing empty, with the permission of the owner. [Interjections.] They developed a school for themselves. It is a mixed community. There are Whites, Indians, Coloureds and so on belonging to that little community. It is an entirely private, secluded community. They have developed a school for themselves, and a few Coloureds—I think they totalled six in number—asked whether they too, could attend school there. They then applied and permission was granted them. After all, it is a private school.

The hon members of the CP would now do well to tell me whether, in the time when they belonged to the NP, they did not also wish the Coloureds to attend private schools. [Interjections.] They must tell me now whether they, too, did not permit Coloureds to attend a private school. [Interjections.] This is such a chimera that it is ridiculous that it should be mentioned in this House as an example to show that the Government is integrating education.

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank all hon members participating in the debate. You yourself, Mr Chairman, were so gracious first to listen carefully. Meanwhile, however, a number of political matters emerged and I assume you will permit me to reply to the points raised.

†The hon member for Pinetown referred to the question of group definition. He quoted from an article written by the hon member for Helderberg which appeared in Rapport.

Helderkruin.

Yes, the hon member for Helderkruin. As a contrast to the impressions and the perceptions that have been created by the Press, I should like to quote to the hon member what I really said during the debate. The hon member for Pinetown will then find that there is really no difference between what I said and what the hon member for Helderkruin said.

*If hon members analysed the hon member for Helderkruin’s standpoint, they would discover that he retained the standpoint of the necessity for group definition but that he said it should not be hidebound. [Interjections.] Let us read what I said in the no-confidence debate this year (Hansard, Assembly, 4 February 1986, col 146):

I continued (col 148):

In column 148 I added:

[Interjections.] So they are attempting to drive in a wedge on this trifling matter. What is happening is that hon members of the Opposition think they can drive in a wedge between leading figures on this side of the House. [Interjections.] They are wasting their time, however, as the NP is a team and we shall do our own thing in our own way. If they are waiting for an advantage to be gained from conflict in these ranks, they will wait until they are grey and bent and will continue losing ground in each election. [Interjections.]

A considerable number of questions were also put on schools.

†The hon member for Pinetown referred to the question of the multicultural nature of our society and how it affects our schools.

*Hon members of the HNP and the CP also referred to this. On this occasion I wish to quote the State President’s words here in the House of Assembly. I am quoting from column 407 of this year’s Hansard in which the State President said:

He enlarged on this and then added:

Note the words “maintain their own way of life”. He continued:

That is a clear statement of principle and hon members of the Opposition are wasting their time in their efforts at attempting to create a huge bone of contention in NP ranks. [Interjections.]

The NP has changed its policy so often.

I shall return to that hon member.

† Mr Chairman, the hon member referred to the question of SAPSE. To the best of my knowledge, and according to my colleague, the hon the Minister of Education and Culture, no such request has been forthcoming from SAPSE. According to a report in The Argus, they are still studying the results. Furthermore, if I remember correctly, that newspaper report stated that it was already evident that there was no overwhelming majority in respect of the decision that was taken.

The hon member also asked how the budgeting for education would take place this year. Because the matter is still in a transitional stage, the original budgeting was done this year by the provincial administrations who, with regard to their own needs, made their inputs as usual within the provincial budgets. Negotiations took place on that basis. In view of the decision that the transition will take place on 1 April, those amounts were taken over. In future, negotiations will be led by my colleague the hon the Minister of Education and Culture. He will report to the Minister of the Budget of the House of Assembly, who in turn will proceed in the normal manner.

The hon member also referred to the underutilisation of school and college buildings. I think he should address that problem at the appropriate stage to the hon the Minister of Education and Culture. It is not really a budget-related matter warranting discussion at this stage. [Interjections.] He asked me whether universities were happy with their financing formula. I can give the hon member the assurance that in all my dealings with them, it has been apparent that their dissatisfaction centres around the fact that the formula is not being fully funded at this stage. Apart from that, I have received no important representations affecting the formula itself. However their dissatisfaction—we on this side of the House sympathise with them in that dissatisfaction—centres around the inability of the State at this stage fully to finance that formula within the framework of available resources.

He referred to the question of the anti-red tape campaign and wanted to know what had happened to it. I can assure him that the campaign is still going strong and that red tape has already been cut out to a large extent. If that had not been so, we would not have managed to effect the saving in our administration that we have in fact effected.

His last question was whether we had attained the saving of 2½% we were aiming for. I can assure him that we have been successful in this in the administration of this department.

As far as his detailed questions regarding the amounts of money budgeted for are concerned. I suggest that he raises them in the Committee Stage directly after this stage. However, I can assure the hon member that all the savings attained in regard to personnel can be attributed to the special savings attained by the cuts in service bonuses for one year, the reduction of vacancies by 50%—excluding the teaching profession where this was not done—and to the saving of 2½% to which he himself referred. In the Committee Stage I will be able to give full details concerning salaries and explain why there was an increase. At this stage I can say the increase was as a result of a specific occupational dispensation for teachers, nurses etc. When the Budget was presented these amounts were not included. The hon member will also recall that in April we paid the teachers the additional salary which they had earned in October of 1984.

*The hon member for Parktown referred chiefly to two matters. He should direct his specific questions to the Ministers concerned at the Committee Stage.

He said everyone was opposed to the fact that Health Services and Welfare fell under own affairs. To my mind this is a very sweeping and unqualified statement which he will be unable to prove. He will be able to prove, however, that many people feel very strongly inter alia about hospital administration. Preventive health services and certain community health services have always been dealt with on a community basis in South Africa—this happens in practice. They were allocated to own affairs because this offered the greatest satisfaction and success. If one carries this out on a community basis, one is able to tackle the special requirements of specific communities according to their needs. That is why I differ drastically with him on his general and sweeping statement.

† He also asked how it was possible to save on welfare in a year like the one we have had. Specific questions in that regard should be addressed to my colleague, the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare. However, I want to give him the assurance that no saving was attained at the cost of or to the detriment of those in need. Savings were attained on administration, yes. What might appear to be a saving might be an amount budgeted for that was not fully utilised, because it is impossible to budget with the same precision for amounts people in need may apply for, as for amounts necessary for salaries etc. No saving was attained at the cost of or to the detriment of the needy.

*The hon member for Sasolburg said own affairs were dwindling, in proof of which he enumerated the number of Bills to be introduced in the House. This is the first time in my career that I have heard that the vigour of a discipline is to be measured against the number of Bills dealing with it annually. [Interjections.] What legislation does the hon member wish to introduce on the vital matter of education? Does he desire more laws on education? What legislation does he want on the vital facets included in the definition of what falls under own affairs? These are the very matters in respect of which legislation is well developed. Legislation on education in this country has been developed at such a high level and so meticulously that additional legislation on this subject is not necessarily essential. Nevertheless the hon member should exercise patience as important legislation on own affairs will be coming this session. I cannot accept his standards, however. He says a matter is important if we make many laws; unimportant if we make few. I take foreign affairs as an example. Is that unimportant to South Africa? Sometimes it is in HNP eyes. How many laws regarding foreign affairs have we dealt with in this Parliament over the past ten years? Surely that is an absurd argument for the hon member to raise. If he wishes to test own affairs, he should do so against education, for instance. Is education important?

For what?

To his people and to my people and to our people.

Integrated tertiary education?

Is health important? Is local government a fundamental matter to our people? [Interjections.] Is agriculture, as controlled by the hon the Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply, not of fundamental importance to our entire agricultural community? [Interjections.] It does not suit hon members of the CP and HNP that the concept of own affairs should succeed because, if it does, this proves the fallacy of their arguments on integration and that the interests of specific population groups—in our case Whites—have been betrayed.

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

No, Sir. The hon member may put as many questions as he likes at the Committee Stage.

The hon member for Kuruman referred to local authorities. He knows as well as I do that a local authority may decide what it wishes but that residential areas are dealt with in terms of the Group Areas Act. He knows this well, but he once again wants a trifle inserted into Hansard which the hon member for Jeppe can rewrite in a pamphlet which he can distribute from house to house. [Interjections.] That is typical of their style but they become angry if I berate them for that.

He said the other Administrations were throwing open their schools. Coloured schools always admitted members of other population groups while Coloured education was controlled by National minister after National minister.

Isn’t that an own affair?

They have abolished it.

The hon member for Sasolburg should read the Constitution. In item 14 of schedule 1 it is laid down that it is possible to supply services to members of other population groups; procedures for this are prescribed there. [Interjections.] For quite a few years I was the Minister responsible for Coloured education and, like various other Ministers before me, I applied this practice because it was according to the historical development of that department.

I wish to repeat what was said in a previous debate. At the moment the entire matter of furnishing services in the educational sphere to members of other population groups by own affairs departments is the subject of a discussion which is going to result in decision-making which will then be dealt with in practice in terms of and in accordance with the wording of item 14 of schedule 1 of the Constitution. [Interjections.] This means hon members will have to wait a while until we inform them precisely how this will be done. [Interjections.]

The hon member continued that local government was an own affair. He is right. He then questioned me on the entire matter of facilities. This side of the House pursues a policy of devolution of authority. When authority may devolve in a way which does not disrupt the general order, it has been done in the past and will be done in future. [Interjections.] As regards sharing facilities, it was decided as early as Mr Vorster’s time that in the case of many facilities in this country the owner himself would decide who would be admitted and who debarred.

Piet Badenhorst said it was being abolished.

The hon member for Rissik knows that the Nico Malan was thrown open in their time.

[Inaudible.]

They did not leave when that happened. I can reel off a long list of facilities which were thrown open to members of other population groups when the hon members of the CP sat on this side of the House; they lived with this. The hon members for Rissik and Kuruman agreed with me that we should recognise autonomy in sport. They agreed with me that we should recognise the autonomy of sporting bodies to enable them to take their own decisions on participation. [Interjections.] No, they are the ones! I do not say they should agree with me; the only point I wish to make is that they are the ones who have undergone a change of policy on this and not the NP. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Sasolburg said: “I am the last White hope.” When I was elected on 29 November 1972 an HNP candidate stood against me. This party’s official posters in that election campaign ran: “White is beautiful!” as an analogy of “Black is beautiful”. [Interjections.]

No!

That is so and I am telling the hon member so now. Its posters read: “White is beautiful” on 29 November 1972 in Vereeniging. This typifies that party’s attitude on race relations in South Africa. I am not a “White hope”; I work for the interests of all in South Africa. [Interjections.] On this side of the House we believe the interests of all in South Africa may best be served if the security of each population group is assured; if no group dominates another and if each group has an own community life. That is not my policy; it is the policy of the entire NP. [Interjections.] These hon members are barking up the wrong tree and they will not succeed. They should come with an acceptable and practicable alternative if they wish to carry on politics in South Africa.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

Schedule:

Vote No 1—“Health Services and Welfare”:

Mr Chairman, during the Second Reading debate I asked the hon the Minister of the Budget particular questions. He answered some of them and referred the others to the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare. During my speech I noticed that the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare was kindly jotting down some of these questions, and I wonder if I could ask him whether I must repeat the questions or whether he has written them down to save us time.

I wrote down two questions.

One question concerns medical care: Why is there an increase in expenditure? The hon the Minister of the Budget answered the question about welfare promotion, and I accept his answer. In relation to programme 5, dealing with associated services, I discussed the prevention of nutritional diseases, and enquired about the additional appropriation. I was also interested to know more about special job creation, because I also see this item under other votes, and I should like the hon the Minister to explain this to me. I am sure there is an easy explanation of which I am unaware.

I also discussed the problem of an antismoking campaign and asked—both this hon Minister and the hon the Minister of National Education should be particularly interested in this—what was being done among our schoolchildren in terms of this campaign to warn them of the danger of smoking.

Lastly, concerning medical care, I want to ask the hon the Minister if he and his colleagues in the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates, once they have all their facilities available under own affairs, will follow the example of the Ministers of Education and Culture in the other Houses and open these facilities to all race groups.

Mr Chairman, in view of the fact that an increase of R1,5 million has been indicated under programme 2, which deals with medical care, I would like to ask the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare which services this entails. On 3 February this year the hon the Minister gave a written reply to a question in connection with the reorganisation of medical services which were to be transferred from the provincial administrations to other bodies, on which a decision was to be taken at a later stage. I want now to ask the hon the Minister: If the administration of health services were to be transferred from the provincial administrations to this House, is he going to budget for such services under programme 2—“Medical Care”. This brings to mind the medical services rendered by local authorities. I note that under the programme, “Local Government”, no provision is made for health services. Is this also being budgeted for under programme 2?

Last year the hon the Minister of Communications and Public Works told us in this House that there were two matters which were very definitely the responsibility of this department. The one was the prevention of tuberculosis and the other dealt with the breeding places of flies. I would like to ask the hon the Minister under which heading budgetary provision has been made for these matters?

Mr Chairman, under the programme “Administration” under the hon the Minister’s Vote there is a decrease in the budgeted amount. I should like to ask the hon the Minister if the fact that there is a decrease means that there is good news concerning the possibility that we are not going to have a White health department to deal with White germs. Furthermore, does it mean that there is going to be a more rational proposal with regard to health administration on the basis of some of the suggestions put forward to him by the Medical Association of South Africa?

I want also to refer to programme 3, “Mental Health”. Could the hon the Minister tell us whether that reduction is because the mental hospitals—the two mental hospitals in Pietermaritzburg and the one in Howick—are not going to be split up under separate administrations? Furthermore, could the hon the Minister tell us whether there is also a reduction because only about 20% of the beautiful new school that has been built for the mentally retarded children in Howick is being utilised?

Mr Chairman, my question is an addendum to a question already asked by my colleague the hon member for Parktown, and concerns programme 4, “Welfare Promotion”. In a time of social distress the calls on what is known as the Magistrates’ Social Relief Fund—which I understand is funded by the hon the Ministers’ department—will, of course, have increased. Can the hon the Minister tell us whether the amounts made available to magistrates for social relief have been increased in total and, secondly, what the individual amounts are that are available to individuals who call on magistrates for social relief?

Mr Chairman, I want to begin with the questions put to me by the hon member for Parktown. As hon members are, in fact, aware, I am at this stage not yet able to comment on the distribution of functions among the provinces, the Department of National Health and Population Development and the departments for own affairs with regard to hospitals in particular, but also with regard to other health services. I cannot reply in that regard for the simple reason that this matter is being investigated in depth by the Commission for Administration. A report has been issued; comments thereon are being awaited and we are awaiting a final recommendation from the Commission for Administration. It would therefore be extremely improper for me to make any comment on these matters at this stage.

I could furnish the same reply to the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North, who asked me about two hospitals. I do not think I am able to reply to him in that regard at present. The hon member for Parktown also asked me what this department was doing to combat the smoking habit. In his speech he referred to the fact that I said last year that we were to publish a booklet that we would circulate among the schools. I think there is some misunderstanding as far as this matter is concerned. What I said to the hon member last year was that such a booklet had been published by the Medical Research Council, referring to the dangers of smoking, and this booklet had been widely distributed in schools. This is still a national matter and therefore I cannot elaborate on it any further except by referring to what is general knowledge, viz that the national department has already taken steps to point out the danger of smoking by way of advertisements, and by reaching an agreement to this effect with the tobacco companies.

A great deal of fuss is being made here about the issue of the expansion of welfare services and the amount in that regard which has increased by R1,5 million. This increase is ascribable to the fact that we are spending a great deal on home care services for the elderly. These are expenses entailed by district surgeons and also sisters—nursing staff—calling on these people at their homes, because it is our philosophy that these elderly people, except when they are so infirm that they are unable to care for themselves, should rather remain in the community and be looked after there. That, then, is the reason for this increase. Moreover, district surgeon services provided to the subeconomic section of the population have increased considerably over the past year.

The hon member for Parktown also asked me what we were doing about counselling with regard to the malnourishment that occurs in this country. The Koris project on cardiovascular diseases among Whites in Robertson is being administered by this department. However, we do not at the moment have statistics relating to children treated by us, or relating to which of them have eaten too much or too little. It would really be very unfair to expect that. What we are trying to do is this: When a child enters our clinics, we provide the parent or the person who has to look after that child with sufficient information relating to that child’s nutrition and care. I shall elaborate briefly on the drop in welfare services. This remarkable phenomenon is ascribable to the fact that we are making propaganda for people to make provision for their old age. We have the phenomenon that people and enterprises are to an increasing extent making provision for those people who used to be in their employ and who retire, and these people do not, then, look to the State to provide them with a social pension. We are finding this to an increasing extent, and the number of applications we have received in this regard has declined considerably.

With reference to the various aid schemes for the unemployed administered by this department, I must point out that we have always had a general scheme in the department for those in need of assistance. Anyone is entitled to apply, after which a certain amount is granted to such a person by way of aid of that nature. Then, last year, at the instance of certain hon members from the Western Transvaal, we introduced a different scheme to make provision for those farmers who, as a result of drought conditions, were finding themselves in a situation in which they were no longer able to meet their own needs and in which they were no longer even able to provide their children with food. We also established a third social aid programme to make provision for people who, owing to unemployment, were unable to meet their own needs. We co-operated very closely with the school feeding schemes, and yet we also adopted the standpoint that while the school feeding schemes served an outstanding purpose, the problem existed that the children only go to school for five days in the week. We then came up with a scheme in terms of which we made an amount available every month to the breadwinner of the family, plus an amount per child. In this way we bridged the periods during which the schools were unable to provide nutrition to children in need of assistance. In passing, I might mention that the amount spent on aid to the unemployed from 1 September 1985 to 31 January amounted to a total of R104 million. We have involved a total of 1 804 White adults and 1 706 White children in this aid scheme. From 1 May 1985 to 31 January 1986 we spent an amount of R665 800 on the farmers to whom we furnished assistance. 520 adults and 448 children were involved in this aid.

As regards social distress relief—this is our ordinary distress relief programme—an amount of R603 328 was spent during the period 1 April 1985 to 31 January 1986. Here 18 220 adults and 7 878 children were involved. The full amount spent on emergency aid by this department amounted to R2,3 million and this involved a total of 20 000 adults and more than 10 000 children. I believe that this is a remarkable sum we have spent in this regard. This excludes programmes of welfare organisations in terms of which food is given to children by way of emergency aid. This was solely the State’s contribution—or rather, the contribution of the department for which I am responsible—to the relief of distress among those unfortunate people.

Then, too, a question was put to me concerning the situation with regard to creation of employment. Now, hon members must understand that this is not the only department that has created jobs for unemployed people. In the department itself we have very limited possibilities as regards the creation of employment for unemployed persons. However, an amount of R118 000 has been budgeted to meet the departmental needs of this department as far as job creation within the department is concerned. I could, of course, provide a long list in this regard, but that would not help at all. I could provide a long list of projects we have launched to provide people with employment. However, hon members will recall that we have places of safety and settlements and various forms of care for the aged in homes for the aged belonging to the State. We have, for example, employed people with a view to their renovating the buildings, maintaining the grounds and so on. In that process we have spent R118 000.

I reacted to this issue of the increase in the amount for medical care when I replied to the speech of the hon member for Parktown. A question has also been put to me in regard to the prevention of tuberculosis and the combating of flies. I find it very strange, Mr Chairman, that since last year the hon member for Pietersburg seems to have had flies on the brain. Last year, as the Deputy Minister, I had to reply to a question of his in this regard under general affairs. I do not want to discredit the hon member, of course. It is important to combat flies. I gave him an answer last year, of course. This matter falls under local authorities. Health services provided by local authorities are, after all, clearly a general affair, Sir.

Then you are once again using the Whites’ money for that.

You are really an old “brommer” (grumbler).

What did that hon member have to say? He is making such a fuss that it sounds as if he is a specialist in this field. I cannot hear what he is saying.

We have to kill everyone’s flies.

Who? The CP? [Interjections.]

The hon member for Pietermaritzburg North has just been referring again to “white germs” and “black germs”. Honestly, is it worthwhile replying to him? After all, there are no white germs and black germs. Germs know no colour. [Interjections.] But the hon member is quite wrong because he thinks that health services only entail the combating of germs. Health services have to do with innumerable facets of our community life. It is not only germs that exert an influence on people’s condition of health. Even one’s faith in all kinds of wrong philosophies undermines one’s health. The hon member had better take note of that and forget about the white germs and the black germs. In any event it is not on that basis that services will be divided between general and own affairs.

Vote agreed to.

Vote No 2—“Agriculture and Water Supply”:

Mr Chairman, I should like to hear from the hon the Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply how he managed—no farmer in South Africa has ever managed this—to balance his budget to within a thousand rands.

It is significant that, although provision was made in the appropriation for agricultural loans totalling R173 million, the hon the Minister and his department did not spend R13,579 million of that amount. Was this owing to a lack of applications for loans? Was it owing to applications for loans where the applicants did not qualify for loans? Was it not perhaps owing to the fact that the hon the Minister was obliged to save on the agricultural financing of the farming community to finance the additional amounts he had to spend in other branches of his work. We should like an explanation from the hon the Minister. Our information is that the department is not able to meet the actual demand for loans. In spite of this there was a decrease of R13,579 million in the amount allocated by way of loans.

Initially a R37 million reflux of capital was budgeted for in respect of loan assistance, and now this has been increased to R71 million! This happened in a year in which the fanning community in South Africa had a hard time! We should like to know how the hon the Minister and his department succeeded in squeezing this sum of money of the farmers. It was estimated that his department would receive R8 million in interest, and this has now become R12 million. This is an underestimation of the expected repayment of interest of 50% in one year. We should like an explanation from the hon the Minister of the grounds on which that tremendous increase in repayments of interest to his department took place.

Considerable additional expenditure in respect of relief of distress was incurred. This was essential and has our support. We should like to know whether that additional expenditure could only be incurred by the hon the Minister because he was obliged to spend less in respect of other provisions which were budgeted for by his department.

Mr Chairman, I wonder if the hon the Minister could tell us what the increase for the animal production promotion under subhead 3 involves. It seems substantial. It is also not clear to me what “Security of Inhabitants” under subhead 6 relates to. Is it the security of employees who inhabit an agricultural settlement or is it the security of farmers? It falls under the subhead “Agricultural Financing—Contributions to the Agricultural Credit Account”. An increase of R1,4 million is set aside for what is called “Inwonersbeveiliging.”

There is also an enormous increase in budgeted expenditure from R145 000 to R1,9 million in respect of “Ontwikkeling van Staatslandbougrond” under subhead 9: “Verwante en ondersteunende dienste”. Perhaps the hon the Minister will tell us the reason for that increase. Although it is not an enormous amount by the State’s standards, it is an enormous increase on what was budgeted for in the first place. I feel this should be explained to this Committee.

Mr Chairman, to be able to reply to the argument of the hon member for Barberton, I should have to deal with the entire question of agricultural financing. I think it is difficult to extract sub-programmes, to do an evaluation accordingly and to reply significantly. I therefore wish to deal with the entire matter of agricultural financing to create an entire image of what takes place in reality.

I wish to start by saying that capital reflux—this is a point the hon member put very strongly—and interest reflux were originally estimated at R45 million. At this stage the return flow is estimated at R70 million. The hon member now says we have strangled farmers but this is not the case at all; this is money being repaid according to normal procedure. Every year each farmer is sent an account for the relevant instalment he has to pay. This money merely flowed in and no pressure was exerted on any farmer to repay it. The hon member should really not come and make the point now that we pressurised farmers. He knows as well as I do that each farmer owing money to the department is sent an account annually; there are quite some thousands of them and those farmers simply settled their accounts. I wish to tell the hon member that we in the department were amazed to see how the money was being paid back.

The hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council mentioned that farmers reacted to an appeal to those who were able to make repayments to do so. They reacted to that appeal. The hon the Minister expressed his thanks to farmers and I wish to associate myself with him in that today. I wish to thank them for that and that they were able to make the repayments without any pressure and reacted in a very fine way to the appeal and to the accounts sent to them.

I wish to say today that there will be a change of policy in this respect. We could perhaps debate this later but I merely wish to give an indication today.

If in the past a farmer fell into arrears in the repayment of his agricultural credit loan, his interest was never capitalised but kept in arrears on his account. The amount could remain in that account for years and the farmer paid no additional interest on it. The policy is being changed to resemble that of the Land Bank: The moment a farmer requests an extension on his instalment, it will be granted readily but the interest will be capitalised immediately to act as an incentive to farmers who are not so meticulous in their repayments to act accordingly.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister if he is aware of the fact that the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure is sending out accounts to farmers in terms of which these farmers have to repay their fodder loans once the two-year period has expired? These farmers are, in fact, being forced to repay the loans, because if they do not repay, they are obliged to take out a bond which can seriously compromise their other financial arrangements. Could the hon the Minister expand on that because it does not quite fit in with what he has just said about there being no pressure.

Mr Chairman, the policy is short and sweet: After a district has been delisted for one year, every fodder loan has to be repaid. On account of the long duration of this drought, however, I have acceded to a scheme whereby a farmer can apply for an extension of the period of repayment of the fodder loan. The Agricultural Credit Board will then decide on the length of this period, that is the new policy in regard to this.

*I shall now proceed by sketching the picture to the hon member for Barberton. Applications have also decreased as regards the designated area. Initially we voted R12,8 million of which only R10,6 million will be applied at this stage chiefly—I wish to stress this here today—in consequence of the fact that land prices in the designated area have risen to such a degree, to such unrealistic heights as it were, that the Agricultural Credit Board is unable to offer significant assistance to people who are prepared to pay those prices for land. The hon member is well aware of this.

As regard subsidies, there was a decrease in their payment mainly because of the fact that short-term Land Bank interest rates dropped by approximately 4% within this financial year. This caused the interest subsidy on carry-over debts to decrease appreciably. What happened therefore was that Land Bank interest rates decreased within this financial year and consequently created an advantage to the Treasury as regards subsidies. This amounted to approximately R2,748 million.

As regards emergency relief, the hon member is aware that it was the practice in the past to place only a nominal amount in the appropriation for fodder subsidies and loans, among other items. As early as the end of March 1985 we were already aware that, in consequence of the intensity and persistence of the drought, we would have to budget for it. At that stage we estimated we would require approximately R105 million. Nevertheless we also decided at the time to take up R50 million in the Supplementary Appropriation. Ultimately our requirements as regards the relevant subprogramme were R72 million. I may add that, as a result of good rains, there was a decided decline in the demand for fodder subsidies.

There are a few more smaller items to which I wish to devote attention. Claims are still being submitted to our department, for example, arising from damage caused by cyclone Domoina. In addition the department has changed its approach as regards the Umfolozi Sugar Farmers Co-operative. The Cabinet decided that their compensation as regards the tramline system should be changed. Initially it was decided to grant them interest subsidies on their Land Bank loans only, but it was subsequently decided to compensate them in full for the repair to their tramline system. This brought about expenditure of R2,9 million.

Mr Chairman, in regard to the assistance that has been granted in the wake of Cyclone Domoina, has the total disbursement of Domoina relief now been effected? Further to that, may I ask another question whilst I am on my feet? What is going to happen to the farms that have been taken over by the State? I understand that there is a certain degree of recovery on some of these farms and I would appreciate some clarification as to what is going to happen to these farms that show this degree of recovery.

Mr Chairman, I am sorry to say that I do not think the payment in respect of the Domoina flood has been completely disposed of at this stage. Unfortunately there are still certain outstanding amounts. In respect of a great deal of this land it took far longer to repair the damage in the prescribed manner than was initially expected. Consequently there are still amounts outstanding in this regard.

As far as the takeover of land by the State is concerned, in actual fact no land was taken over by the State. What did in fact happen was that ex gratia payments were made in respect of land which was irreparably damaged. That land is no longer used for agricultual purposes. If it can be proved that the damage can be repaired the State will naturally do so in due course, notwithstanding the fact that the land is situated below the flood level and the Government is not really keen to repair the damage on it.

Most of the land on which the ex gratia payments were made, is very important to the ecology of that area. As hon members will know, a very thorough study was made, with regard to Lake St Lucia too. It is in the interests of the country and particularly in the interests of the future of Lake St Lucia for that land rather to remain State property and for us not to distribute it to farmers again. It is especially important that by means of certain very important repair work, ie the replanting of that sterile land, we will be able to repair the damage to a certain extent. [Interjections.]

I wonder whether the hon member for Mooi Rivier does not want to ask another question? In fact, he has plenty of time to ask questions.

Mr Chairman, am I to understand that the State has not taken possession of those farms that were apparently irreparably damaged as a result of the Domoina floods? In other words, what I am trying to establish is: To whom does that area, in respect of which compensation has been paid, now belong?

Mr Chairman, it does not actually belong to the State, except that the State is in fact going to undertake the repair work on it. I shall not be able to give the hon member a detailed verbal reply to his question. I would prefer to reply to him in writing on the matter.

† I assume the hon member is referring only to that land which has not been expropriated but in respect of which an ex gratia payment has been made to the farmer. I shall inform the hon member in due course by letter, Mr Chairman.

*As regards the question put by the hon member for Barberton, I just want to say that although I am more than willing to give a detailed reply, it is nevertheless not easy to indicate in a short reply precisely where savings and increases occurred. There were considerable increases, but there were also considerable savings. I only want to repeat one point very briefly for the hon member for Barberton.

No pressure whatsoever was brought to bear on any farmer to make a repayment. These were ordinary accounts which were sent out and the farmers then repaid them.

The hon member for Pietermaritzburg North asked me about the security of inhabitants. If I remember correctly, there was an increase of R1,4 million. Initially the Department of Defence budgeted for the security of inhabitants. Owing to the fact that the Department of Agriculture and Water Supply took over the administration of this aspect, it was eventually also incorporated in that department’s appropriation. This was owing to the fact that we had to deal fully with the administration of this aspect.

Mr Chairman, I wonder whether the hon member will repeat the other question.

Mr Chairman, I wanted more information regarding the amount budgeted for the security of inhabitants.

These are loans allocated to farmers living in certain designated areas along the borders to safeguard their homes by means of high wire fences. This also includes the provision of electricity and floodlights. Consequently these are loans allocated to farmers to safeguard their properties.

Mr Chairman, under programme 9, “Associated and Supporting Services” an increase of R1,8 million has been voted for the development of State agricultural land. Can the hon the Minister explain to us what this involves?

Mr Chairman, there is an increase of R1,8 million in the appropriation for the development of State agricultural land. This money is again being used to repair the damage done to agricultural land by the flood caused by cyclone Domoina. This is mainly an additional amount voted specifically as a result of the change brought about by the Cabinet decision in connection with the compensation to the Umfolozi Sugar Corporation. An additional amount of R1,8 million was voted for this.

Vote agreed to.

Vote No 3—“Education and Culture”:

Mr Chairman, I asked the hon Minister of the Budget certain questions earlier and he indicated that the hon the Minister of Education and Culture would answer them. Allow me to repeat the ones I was particularly concerned with.

I understand that the increase in the amount budgeted for under Programme 1—“Administration”, may mainly be ascribed to the fact that housing subsidies have been transferred to some other programme. I can understand that. My question really revolves around Programme 2—“University and Technikon Education”, which shows a decrease of R7,1 million in the amount budgeted for. I indicated that I could understand that the cutback in the service bonus and various other savings last year would have brought about a decrease in spending. What I want to know is whether that decrease incorporates an increase because of the housing subsidy which should have been incorporated in it. Am I correct in saying that the decrease in spending on universities and technikons is in fact much larger than R7,1 million?

The next question is in connection with Programme 5—“Children in Need of Care,” where there is an increase of R1,8 million. I should like to link that to the question of whether the committee the hon the Minister appointed to investigate places of safety, the Van Loggerenberg-Billy Nel Committee, made any recommendations for the current year that involved increased expenditure for such places of safety.

My last question is in connection with Programme 6—“Cultural Affairs”, with special reference to the Dias Festival: Caravel Project. I note that this is not an increase; in fact this project was not on the original budgetary estimate at all. I am simply interested in this time of dire financial distress as to why we are spending R125 000 on the Caravel Project. Perhaps the hon the Minister could enlighten us on that.

Mr Chairman, I should like to ask the hon the Minister a few questions. In connection with programme 2—University and Technikon Education—I should like to ask the hon the Minister why there is such a big decrease in the amount voted, and whether the hon the Minister can indicate to us which amount applies to universities, and which amount applies to technikon training. Can the hon the Minister give us an analysis of which universities and technikons are affected specifically by this so that we can know precisely on which facets of tertiary education funds have been cut?

A very large amount has been allocated to post-school education. I should very much like to hear from the hon the Minister specifically what that amount is going to be used for.

I should also appreciate it if the hon the Minister would give us a general explanation of the Dias Festival and the Caravel Project. Under programme 8, R25 000 has been allocated to special job creation projects. I should like the hon the Minister to give us an analysis of what those projects are and to whom the money goes.

Lastly I want to ask the hon the Minister whether he can very unequivocally give this House the assurance that all money in this additional appropriation is going to be used only for the White people.

Mr Chairman, under programme 4, “Education of Handicapped Children”, there is an increase of R5½ million for which we are grateful, because I think we would like all our handicapped children to get a good education. But what worries me is that I do not know whether the amount is part of the money being spent on handicapped White children in Pietermaritzburg, although a school for White handicapped children which has been built at a hospital which is the responsibility of the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare, is three-quarters empty. Perhaps this amount can be reduced if the two hon White Ministers can get together regarding their domestic White affairs.

Mr Chairman, if the number of questions which have now been asked in connection with this vote are an indication of hon members’ real interest in education, then I want to thank them. I should like to accept this, if the various questions are well meant, and I shall try to reply to them.

The hon member for Pinetown has a problem with the amount of R7 million under programme 2, “University and Technikon Education.” I want to tell the hon member at once that he will be able to get more specific replies during the discussion of the Vote “Budgetary and Auxiliary Services”. Naturally these various matters are not within my province, a fact which the hon member is quite aware of. He will forgive me if I do not discuss this.

With regard to programme 5, which concerns schools for children in need of care, the hon member asked whether extra money was being spent in consequence of the report of Mr van Loggerenberg and Prof Nel. I should like to point out to all hon members that we are not dealing with additional money here. We are dealing here with a saving in respect of two posts which was actually merely carried over to all the other posts on the basis of the virement principle. We are only discussing it here because it totals more than 5% and we must consequently get the approval of the House of Assembly for it. It is by no means “additional” in the sense that we are asking for more money.

Now I want to tell the hon member for Pinetown that the money being spent at present on the improvement of physical facilities at many of these schools where facilities are not up to standard—as was pointed out in the relevant report—has been obtained from a variety of sources. The Department of Local Government, Housing and Works made certain savings and as a result was able to make money available to alleviate these problems. I want to add that a start had already been made with this before the report was asked for or the commissions were appointed. Consequently my reply is that no additional amount for this reflected in the Additional Appropriation.

The hon member went on to ask a question about the Dias Project, as well as about the Caravel. I think it is as well to make it clear to this House now that we have seen fit to plan already for the possibility of a Dias Festival in 1988.

Is it going to be an own affair?

I shall come to the hon member later, because I am going to deal with this. He need only listen. We are also considering the possibility of a Huguenot Festival to coincide with the Dias Festival in 1988. But the Huguenot Festival is not under discussion now. In reply to the hon member for Rissik’s question I want to say that a Dias Festival will involve all population groups, because this certainly does not only concern the Whites. We want to celebrate the arrival of Dias in 1488.

Was he not a White? [Interjections.]

Obviously it will involve all population groups and everyone will be able to participate. All population groups will also be represented on the national steering committee.

As part of the festival we are planning to build a replica of Dias’s ship and that is why an amount is being voted for the Caravel, the ship. If these plans become a reality, the sum of R125 000 will be used to pay for them. Consequently all this concerns the planning of a possible festival in 1988.

Mr Chairman, can the hon the Minister tell us who is the chairman of this planning committee and who are the members? If the other population groups are also involved in this I also want to know why this amount appears in the own affairs appropriation?

I cannot tell the hon member now who all the members of the committee are. I shall reply to him in writing.

Have they been appointed yet?

Yes, and the committee is under the chairmanship of Mr Pietie Loubser, the MPC. He is involved with this. But I cannot tell the hon member who the individual members of the committee are.

And the mayor of Mos sel Bay

Mr Chairman, I have already replied to the hon member. I shall give him the rest of the reply in writing. I do not have it here, and cannot conjure it up out of thin air. [Interjections.] This entire matter is being administered and financed by the Department of Education and Culture only. The steering committee will act in its own right, autonomously, particularly as far as the financial administration is concerned.

The hon member for Rissik asked a question about programme 2—“University and Technikon Education”. If I understood him correctly he wanted to know exactly where we were saving on universities and where we were saving on technikons. I want to refer him to my hon colleague because this falls under Vote 6, which deals with the improvement of conditions of service, and he can ask this question again when this Vote is under discussion.

With regard to programme 3, which deals with post-school education, the hon member wanted to know from me precisely what that amount was needed for, because it sounded a little large to him. It is needed for the implementing of the improved service dispensation of the CS educationists, for which provision was not made in the Main Appropriation of the Administration: House of Assembly. Because payment in this regard had to be made during the past financial year, as a result of the improved service dispensation there had to be overspending in this regard. In addition subsidies also had to be paid out on mortgage loans, which were obviously carried over from programme 1.

The amount indicated under programme 3, is consequently obtained from subsidies on mortgage loan which were carried over from programme 1, and also from the saving on universities and technikons in respect of the improved service dispensation allocated to the CS educationists and paid out to them during the past year.

Mr Chairman, it is really a pity that the hon the Minister is requesting additional money from the Administration: House of Assembly, although he cannot give us details in connection with the requirements of the Dias Committee. I consider it a great pity that the hon the Minister cannot elaborate on this.

I also want to ask the hon the Minister whether the members of the committee which is arranging the Dias Festival were appointed by the Cabinet or by the Ministers’ Council.

Mr Chairman, I am not going to reply to the hon member on this in more detail now; I told him that I did not have the names of the respective people serving on the committee here. Consequently I am not going to discuss this matter further. [Interjections.]

I just want to say that if we look at the Constitution Act—to which reference was also made here by my hon colleague the Minister of the Budget—and specifically at Schedule 1, under item 3, we see that art, culture and recreation, with the exception of competitive sport, which affect mainly the relevant population group, are among the subjects referred to in section 14, which deals with own affairs. If the hon members know this, my question to them is how they can have the temerity simply to come and put this kind of question time after time. [Interjections.]

I have already replied to the question by the hon member for Rissik in connection with the Dias Festival, and the same applies to the question by the hon member for Pinetown. [Interjections.]

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

No, I am not prepared to reply to further questions now.

With regard to the question by the hon member for Rissik in connection with job creation and the amount indicated for this, I want to tell the hon member that this matter was dealt with by the Department of Education and Culture after the request for further job creation had been addressed to us. Consequently if the need should arise to provide people with work under that programme, we would make provision for such financing from that part of the appropriation.

The hon member for Rissik went on to ask whether all the additional amounts being asked for were going to be spent on Whites only. I have already tried to indicate that no additional amounts have been asked for; we are dealing here with a carry over of money from one project to another, and as I have already told the hon member, in all these respective programmes—in which according to the additional appropriation there would appear to be shortages, but which have seemingly been made good by savings in programmes 1 and 2—we are concerned mainly with the improved service dispensation of the CS educationists.

Is this exclusively or mainly for Whites?

Sir, it is for Whites. It is intended for improved conditions of employment for Whites, and that is why this entry appears in this Appropriation.

With regard to the question by the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North in connection with handicapped children, I want to tell him that no additional amount is being paid in respect of the handicapped children themselves. Here we are also dealing only with the improved service dispensation allocated to the educationists rendering service at schools for handicapped children. Consequently the teachers are benefiting—in this case not the handicapped children as such—and we are not dealing with the improvement of the buildings and so on either.

Mr Chairman, an increase of R125 000 is being allocated to the Dias Festival. Mr P J Loubser was appointed chairman of the Dias Festival Committee, but he has now been nominated as a member of the President’s Council. Has anyone been appointed in his place as chairman yet? Other members of this committee would be; the mayor of Mossel Bay or a person nominated by him, Prof E Axelson and also a representative nominated by the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Department of National Education—two members—the Cape Provincial Administration and the SA Navy. There is also a representative nominated by each of the following: The Post Office tree umbrella committee at Mossel Bay, and each of the Dias Committees established in Port Elizabeth, Albany and Cape Town, and a representative of the South African Portuguese community.

Regarding this committee we asked the hon the Minister who the members of the committee were. But he was unable to reply and could not tell us who the chairman now was, and whether Mr Loubser was going to carry on.

Because this is now becoming a matter in which all the other population groups are involved, the question is whether members of the other population groups have been nominated to serve on this committee? If so, which persons from the other population groups have been nominated to serve on the committee?

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No 68.

Vote put,

Upon which the Committee divided:

Order! I want to point out that the rules of this House are not suspended during divisions. Hon members must please take note of this.

Mr Chairman, the last time this Bill was discussed I put a few questions to the hon the Minister about Harare, in which there is a South African Tourism Board office. This afternoon I want to ask him specifically what kind of tourists he is trying to attract in Harare. Is he trying to attract only Whites, that is to say Ian Smith’s people, or is he also trying to attract Blacks, that is to say Mugabe’s people? If he is also trying to attract Mugabe’s people, is he making certain that they are tourists and not perhaps terrorists? One of the most efficacious methods—it is as old as the hills and was prevalent long before the French revolution—of infiltrating people into another country under war conditions, is to do so under the cloak of tourism. The hon the Minister must also tell South Africa this afternoon whether he is also planning tourist offices in other frontline states. Is his policy there also going to be to attract Blacks, as seems to be the case in Harare?

I also want to draw the attention of the hon the Minister to a report which appeared in the Pretoria News on 20 February 1986. The following was reported:

The hon the Minister of Transport Affairs therefore intends to enlarge SATS’s share of the tourist market, and he complains about “unequal competition” he has to contend with, although this is not further defined. Something was also written in the report of the Knobel Commission, paragraph 219, subparagraph 4, which I should like to quote. I am quoting the English version, so that the contrast with the already quoted English passage from the Pretoria News will be clearly apparent:

The private sector complains that SATS is being given an unfair advantage. SATS, in its turn, complains that the private sector is competing with it in an unfair way. I should like to see the hon the Minister give an indication this afternoon of how he is going to deal with the situation, in which fundamentally conflicting standpoints are being adopted by the Government and private organisations on the same issue.

When one talks about tourism in South Africa one is talking in particular about beaches. The issue of our beaches affects not only South Africa itself, but we at the head office of the HNP even receive enquiries from abroad—this might surprise the hon members—inter alia from New York, as to whether one can still travel to South Africa and where hotels are still to be found which accommodate Whites only. They also want to know what the position is at the beaches. [Interjections.] These people want to know to which cities and beaches they can go where Whites only are allowed. Very recently we received such questions from two English-speaking people from New York. The one was a woman approximately 40 years old, and the other a young man approximately 31 years old. [Interjections.] They specifically put these questions to us, because they wanted to be absolutely certain that if they came to this country they were at least going to be safer than they were in New York. The hon the Minister is looking for foreign tourists, and he will therefore have to go into this matter very carefully.

It is of the utmost importance to take cognisance of what was written in the supplement, “Review”, to The Sunday Star yesterday. The political correspondent, David Breier, referred to the situation between Muizenberg and Sunrise Beach at the Cape. He wrote:

This was after they threw open the beaches.

That is the point; that is what the outside world wants to know from us. Those who come, want to go to beaches on which there are Whites only, or predominantly Whites. Now, however, the beaches have been thrown open and this situation is one of “wait and see what happens”.

As The Sunday Star puts it here, it seems to be reasonable. It seems as though throwing open the beaches has not really created many problems. But let us see what was reported in The Argus of 25 February on what happened in the Cape Provincial Council.

In the Cape Provincial Council Mrs M E Kemp—she is the MPC for East London City—said that a chaotic situation was prevailing in East London. The HNP cannot therefore advise people from abroad to go to East London. Mrs Kemp said a chaotic situation was prevailing in East London. This happened on New Year’s day in particular when “25 000 to 30 000 Blacks took over our beach front near the Eastern Beach”. Mrs Kemp said she had no doubt, and I quote her, that:

She went on to say:

According to a National Party MPC this was therefore an organised mass influx of people from a neighbouring state to a White beach. She also said:

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

No, Mr Chairman, my time is very limited. I am sorry, but I only have a few minutes. I shall reply to all the questions, but hon members must please give me a chance to state my case. This is a very important subject. Oh yes, it is a red-hot subject. [Interjections.]

Mrs Kemp said:

That is the point! What do we tell people from abroad who want to spend a holiday in this country, and what do we tell our own people, if a horde of Blacks from the Ciskei is stirred up and incited—according to the National Party MPC—to tell their own people that they will get the “necklace” if they go to the open beaches? These Blacks are therefore being told that they must use their numbers and physical presence to “force open” the closed beaches. They are being told that this is their task, and that they will get a “necklace” if they do not accomplish it. [Interjections.] That is the situation which is prevailing today.

During that same debate, reference was made to disgraceful conduct of General Motors. I am eternally grateful, Mr Chairman, that I have never in my life driven in a General Motors product; and I want to make an appeal to the Whites of South Africa not to buy General Motors’ products. [Interjections.] Hon members must boycott General Motors’ products. In fact, they must also boycott everyone who does what General Motors did.

You are a disgrace to South Africa.

General Motors promised their Black employees in Port Elizabeth that the company would pay the costs if their employees got into trouble with the law as a result of their going to White beaches.

That is a disgrace!

Yes, it is an absolute disgrace! It is the most blatant interference on the part of a foreign organisation…

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

Order! Is the hon member prepared to reply to a question?

No, Sir, I do not wish to be interrupted now. I am at present engaged in a very important argument and I am pleased the Progs are getting so badly hurt this afternoon. [Interjections.]

Hon members will perhaps remember that Charlie Wilson, the great former chairman of General Motors said: “What is good for General Motors, is good for the United States.” Now they have the impertinence, if you will pardon my use of this word, to say that what is good for General Motors, is good for South Africa. This is the most disgraceful, the most flagrant interference ever in South Africa’s affairs by a vast undertaking like General Motors. It therefore gives me pleasure to say in this House, this afternoon that a member of the editorial board of the New York Times came to see me last week. I discussed this matter with him, and he told me he could not understand how South Africa could allow it. [Interjections.] I merely asked him whether he had any knowledge of the incident. He told me that he could not believe that we had allowed it to happen. Most of the time we disagree completely with the New York Times, but believe me, that day the two of us were in complete agreement that this was a disgrace. [Interjections.]

Let us see what the National Party MPC had to say about General Motors. Mr Dreyer, the National Party’s MPC for False Bay—the place not far from here, near Somerset Strand—quoted what Mr Van Eck, the MPC of the PFP, who was in favour of General Motors’ actions, had to say. [Interjections.] Yes, Sir, those “patriots” were in favour of General Motors’ actions. It was reported that the National Party’s Mr Dreyer had the following to say:

[Interjections.] I agree with Mr Dreyer that Mr Van Eck’s actions …

On a point of order, Mr Chairman, the hon member has said that he agrees with Mr Dreyer for calling members of the PFP anarchists.

So do I.

Moreover, the hon member for Langlaagte says the same. I submit that that is unparliamentary.

Order! I heard the hon member for Sasolburg say that he agrees with Mr Dreyer, but I did not hear him say that he agrees with Mr Dreyer on this specific point.

Oh, yes.

No, I did not hear him say that. The hon member for Sasolburg may proceed.

On a further point of order, Mr Chairman, I should like to point out to you that the gentleman from the other chamber who allegedly passed the remarks to which you specifically refer, was called to order by the chairman of that council and ordered to withdraw his remarks. By agreeing with what that gentleman said, the hon member for Sasolbug is inferring exactly the same thing that was considered out of order by the chairman of that council.

Order! I am prepared to go so far as to ask the hon member for Sasolburg what he meant when he said that he agreed with the hon members.

What I meant by it, Mr Chairman, was that the actions of the specific PFP member may be regarded as instigation to anarchism. [Interjections.]

Order! Did the hon member mean by that that the hon member to whom he was referring was an anarchist or did the hon member not mean that? Yes or no? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I said that the hon NP member had used those words. I then stated specifically that “he was ordered to withdraw his words.” I quoted that correctly.

That is correct.

Then I say here this afternoon—this is something the hon members of the PFP do not frequently realise—that their actions, even if they do not mean them to, do in fact lead to anarchism.

Order! The hon member must reply to my question. My question is this: When the hon member said that he agreed with Mr Dreyer, did he mean by that that that hon member was an anarchist?

No, Sir. [Interjections.]

The hon member may proceed.

No, I explained in what way I meant it. [Interjections.] That is what Mr Dreyer said and Mr Venter, the NP member for Newton Park—this is in Port Elizabeth—said that the GM challenge was the most irresponsible challenge he had ever encountered. Consequently there is no doubt that this is a matter on which he and the hon members of the NP are in complete agreement. There are many matters in regard to which we are in agreement with some members of the NP. There are a number of them sitting over there who are not far less verkramp or right wing than we are. We know it. [Interjections.] There are men among their number among whom the things we say meet with a strong response. [Interjections.] Here we see it in the statement of Messrs Dreyer and Venter in connection with General Motors.

I also wish to remind hon members of what happened last year in Durban. There, towards the end of last year, the members of the Durban City Council—a City Council dominated by the Progs and the NP—joined forces after much soul-searching. Nevertheless they did not have the courage of their Prog convictions to throw open all the beaches. Some days they are rather fainthearted. They did not have the courage to do it. They only threw open some of the beaches. According to the relevant report in yesterday’s edition of the Sunday Star it was said:

This is what happened under the supervision of a PFP and NP dominated City Council. [Interjections.] They just did not have the courage. But the point is this: When the holiday season was over—when the important days, such as Christmas, Boxing Day and New Year’s Day were over, the Chief Beach Constable of Durban announced that they would have to double the beach constables in Durban. That is how peace on the beaches descends on us. They will have to double the beach constables. What is more, the Blacks invaded an Indian Beach, and the Indians had to flee. They had to run for their cars. This was followed by a traffic jam. The Blacks who took over the beach apparently stole the Indians’ possessions and the Indian community suffered as a result of this opening of beaches to all races. Nevertheless not a single word of commiseration with the Indian community concerned has been expressed on the part of the hon PFP and NP members in Durban.

The point I am getting at, is summed up extremely well in the main headline of the Natal Daily News. I read it when I was on holiday there. The headline read: “Chaos, Chaos, Chaos!” Consequently there was chaos on the beaches as a result of their being thrown open. [Interjections.] Their hearts are bleeding. They are rearing up like snakes to strike and kick up a fuss about the Defence Force in Port Elizabeth. But what a mess they created in Durban.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon member allowed to say that hon members of this party rear up like snakes? [Interjections.]

I must say that I understood the hon member for Sasolburg to refer to the Durban City Council.

I was using figurative language when I spoke about people who wanted to strike like snakes. I did not say they were snakes. [Interjections.]

The other day the hon the Minister of Defence, in front of the whole world, explained why there were soldiers on a beach. Imagine that, Mr Chairman! I must make so bold as to say that this is the only country in the world in which the Minister of Defence has to rise to his feet and explain what his soldiers were doing on the beaches in Port Elizabeth. A thing like this has never happened before in the history of the world. All this is because of the beaches being thrown open! This is a result of the Government and the PFP’s policy. [Interjections.] It is because this policy that the Defence Force has to be called out to solve such problems, and then the hon the Minister of Defence said that the issue was, as he expressed it:

It almost sounds as though this group of soldiers, with their vehicles and equipment, was there quite innocently. The Sunday Star of 2 March, however, alleged that the police gave a completely different version of the events. The Sunday Star reported as follows:

I am convinced that this version, by the police, is the correct version. [Interjections.] This is the result of the Government’s and the PFP’s policy.

The hon the Minister of Environment Affairs and Tourism has brought an amending Bill before this House; he is trying to disseminate more information about South Africa in the outside world; he wants to open more offices of his department in the outside world; he wants to attract more tourists from abroad, including Africa, and he invites those tourists to the “most embattled beaches” in the world at present. One of these days, these beaches will bear names such as those given to the beaches along the coast of Normandy during the Second World War, names such as Omaha and Utah. That is the kind of name they are going to have one of these days. [Interjections.]

I submit that the hon the Minister of Environment Affairs and Tourism has an almost impossible task, in the times in which we are living—with the situation prevailing among the Durban’s officials, National Party MPCs, Ministers of Defence, the Police and the City Council which everyone has to stand up and explain—to create even a semblance of an impression that things are going well with this policy of opening the beaches to all races. It is a catastrophe.

The hon the Minister said he was introducing this Bill in order to acquire information. I want him to make a careful estimate of what price the Whites are paying for the opening of the beaches. What is the loss of pleasure costing the Whites? He, who used to be a conservative UP supporter, must calculate it. His principal calling, at this juncture, is to make that estimate and come and tell us what price the Whites are having to pay.

What is he going to do about the recent decision by the Administrator of the Cape? The other day Mr Gene Louw made a great plea, by way of a letter to the Cape Times. There were explanations and, I think another letter. He was grieving over the thousands of miles of coastline which Dias, whom we are going to commemorate in a festival one of these days, discovered. He said there were thousands of miles of beaches we had not yet developed. I want to ask the hon the Minister why he does not create new beaches for the non-Whites, instead of allowing the Whites to be driven away from their beaches, instead of allowing war conditions to prevail on the beaches, and now having to struggle, before the world, to attract tourists to South Africa?

I shall vote for this Bill simply because it is going to lead to more information. I want to warn the hon the Minister in advance, however, that the Whites in South Africa are sick to death, with all this throwing open and equalisation, of having to pay the price every time, and when violence occurs, it is the Whites who have to explain and stand in the dock. They are the culprits and the villains of the peace in every situation. Nothing good can be said of them. I do not know whether we should hold the Dias Festival; perhaps the Whites should never have discovered South Africa. Perhaps Dias should never have come here. Now the NP is too ashamed to hold a festival commemorating the Whites who discovered the southernmost point of Africa—the Whites who brought civilisation to this country. They are so ashamed that it has to be emphasised right from the start that it is going to be a multiracial festival. [Interjections.]

I support this legislation, but I warn that hon Minister that he will have to gather information on a large scale, because we are going to continue to castigate him in regard to this matter, tomorrow, the day after tomorrow and the day after that. The Whites in South Africa have had enough of being the only people to pay the price for integration in South Africa!

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank hon members for their support of this Bill. I must express a little doubt, though, about the support of the hon member for Sasolburg. I do not know whether I in fact received any. [Interjections.] The support varied between lukewarm and unwilling; between constructive and extremely destructive, and I think that hon member’s contribution fell into the destructive category.

Everyone is agreed on one thing, however, and that is the importance of tourism in South Africa. The financial advantages of tourism for South Africa are of course obvious, but I should nevertheless like to furnish a few facts in passing.

† The estimated income from international tourism in the 1984-85 financial year was more than R900 million. The number of international tourists for the first 10 months, of 1985—as far as it was possible to obtain an accurate figure—was 330 000 from overseas and 255 000 from the rest of Africa. This gives a total of 585 000 international tourists. Our aim is to attract one million tourists per year to this part of the world by 1990.

*There is another aspect which is equally important though, and that is the hundreds of thousands of people who visit South Africa and get to know our people and our circumstances. Perhaps it is a good thing that they do not get to know some of the hon members in this House!

† The hon member for Constantia has given reluctant support to the insistence by the Government in this Bill on the obtaining of statistics.

Then he says that, in his opinion, past statistics have been inaccurate. I would have thought that he would have no difficulty about supporting this Bill because it will ensure that we will be getting more accurate statistics than has been the case before. We will now be able to obtain better and more statistics which will cover a wider field.

The Bill will also place the Tourism Board in a better position to follow a more aggressive marketing programme. I want to tell the hon member that the problems which we experienced last year had nothing much to do with the marketing of tourism or with the available tourist facilities. It had to do with the internal situation in the country and insecurity that people who wanted to come to our country felt. The media image that was created of this country through the international television and Press and the local English Press was largely responsible for the fact that many tourist groups, who wanted to visit the Republic had to cancel their tours. An entirely unbalanced picture of the true situation in our country was presented.

*I come now to the hon member for Uitenhage, the new chairman of the standing committee. I want to congratulate him on his chairmanship. I think he made a fine start as chairman of that standing committee, and I hear that the members of the standing committee are also very satisfied with him as chairman.

I am sorry the hon member for Kuruman saw fit to refer very derogatorily to the hon the Deputy Minister of Environment Affairs. Instead of being derogatory, I think he should rather have congratulated him on his appointment as Deputy Minister. That would have been a courteous gesture on his part.

I did not refer derogatorily to him.

Furthermore, I want to remind the hon member for Kuruman that the tourists who come to South Africa are people from various colour groups. I now want to ask the hon member whether he is going to urge his supporters who own shops in various tourist regions in South Africa not to serve people of colour in their shops.

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

No, I do not wish to reply to a question now. He referred to a very thorny problem, the problem in regard to beaches. The Government is continually dealing with the problems concerning the beaches along our extensive coastline. These are usually problems arising from a lack of facilities and the refusal of some local authorities to create sufficient simple facilities for all inhabitants. That is where the problem lies. In cases where adequate facilities have been created by the local authorities, we do not experience the same problems, for example in the case of Mossel Bay, and particularly the beaches in the George constituency. Where the local authorities have therefore done their duty, and created facilities for a diversity of people, and also for people of colour, we have little friction and few problems.

The Administrator of the Cape is at present examining this problem in depth. He recently made a statement and said he thought a solution could possibly be found in the privatisation of beaches. I think there is a great deal of merit in that proposal, and I am going to offer the Administrator assistance in this respect, because most of the beaches in the Peninsula also fall under my constituency.

Besides the possible privatisation of some beaches, the responsibility for beaches also rests with the local authorities. There are problems in the case of a number of local authorities, because they have not created adequate separate facilities or general facilities.

†I agree with one of the hon members who said that people like to be on their own and with their own people. That, I think, is common cause. I think most people like to congregate with their own people, and I have no difficulty with that argument. However, this is a difficult problem and instead of raising these sort of matters in an emotional way I think it would be far more constructive if offers were made to the various authorities to try to see if there cannot be a solution to the problem.

*The hon member for Sasolburg also discussed beaches. He referred to the organised influx of people in East London. I disapprove of that. I think it is wrong and a solution must be found for it.

He also referred to the managing director of General Motors, and his alleged statements as reflected by newspaper reports. I disapprove entirely of the attitude of the managing director of General Motors and I do not think the matter has anything to do with him. The sooner he and other people like him realise that they must keep their noses out of South Africa’s affairs, the better.

That is excellent, John. Now you are coming right!

†The hon member for Mooi River said that tourism was in the doldrums. He referred to the many cancellations by overseas tourists. He also referred to the question of package tours. I want to tell him that package tours are in the hands of tour operators of the tourist industry and more particular the travel agents. They are the ones responsible for putting together the most attractive packages possible. As regards regional tourism I want to tell him—he probably knows it already—that there is an organisation for tourism in Southern Africa called Sartoc. That is a combination of representatives and tourist leaders from South Africa, Malawi and Swaziland. They are current members and their primary objective is the promotion of tourism from abroad in member countries on a joint basis, as well as the promotion of tourism between the member countries involved. All the marketing material published by Sartoc covers tourism to Southern Africa.

The hon member also made a point that I think was very valid as regards hotels.

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

No, Sir, I am sorry. I think his point is valid but it is a little bit out of date. I agree with him entirely that tariffs for hotels have been abnormally high during the past year or so. However, I think as a result of economic circumstances the prices have come down. If the hon member will read some of the newspapers and listen to some of the advertisements he will see that hotel prices have become very much more reasonable and that in fact they are offering most attractive tariffs, particularly in a package form, for people who want to spend weekends in hotels.

He also referred to the promotion of domestic tourism and the campaign “See South Africa First”. I want to tell him that it has been a great success, to such an extent that there will be a further aggressive marketing programme shortly to be announced by the SA Tourism Board.

*I come once again to the hon member for Sasolburg, who spoke last week. He said the SA Tourism Board was a very expensive undertaking. I just want to tell him that tourism and the Tourism Board earns valuable foreign exchange for South Africa. They also attract people to South Africa and they then acquire a better understanding of our country, its people and its problems.

The hon member also referred to the Knobel Commission’s inquiry into tourist operators in South Africa. I want to tell him that this has no bearing on the legislation now before us. The Knobel Commission investigated an entirely different aspect of tourism.

The reference to the De Villiers Committee probably referred to an ad hoc committee. This is a committee under the chairmanship of Mr De Villiers, who is a member of the SA Tourism Board. Recently they conducted an inquiry into the revision of the Hotels Act, as well as the application of money which is available for advertisements to ensure the optimal utilisation of the tourist product to South Africa.

The hon member also referred to study groups that make frequent trips abroad. The Tourism Board has no knowledge of study groups sent abroad with the specific object of obtaining statistical information. The hon member also referred to overseas branch offices, particularly the one in Harare. As regards the Tourism Board office in Harare, it must be pointed out that Zimbabwe is the most important market for tourism in Africa. That, in itself, is sufficient reason for maintaining the Tourism Board office there.

What kind of people are working there?

I am not in a position to give him that information, but I am prepared to go into the matter and notify him per letter. If that still does not satisfy him, he can react to it during the discussion of my Vote.

The hon member also referred to other overseas offices. For his information there are foreign offices in Toronto, Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, London, Paris, Frankfurt, Amsterdam, Zurich, Madrid, Tel Aviv, Sydney, Tokyo and Milan. I can say, just for his information, that the office in Milan is considered to be the fifth most important foreign office as far as tourist potential is concerned.

I think that I have now replied in full to the hon member. I am prepared to try to reply later to the few other points which he did in fact raise, but in regard to which I was not in a position to reply.

I think that I have in fact given this House an adequate picture of the activities of the South African Tourism Board. I also want to mention that, with the new statistics at our disposal, South Africa’s tourism is undoubtedly going to be promoted.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

The affairs of the South African Wattle Bark Industry are regulated, by the industry itself, by way of an agreement in terms of section 2 of the Wattle Bark Industry Act of 1960, ie Act 23 of 1960, between the wattle bark growers, the wattle bark millers and the wattle extract manufacturers.

The agreement is entered into by the three associations which, in the opinion of the Minister, are respresentative of the respective interest groups and are qualified to promote their interests.

An agreement was, in fact, concluded in 1975 between the South African Wattle Growers’ Union, as representative of the wattle bark growers, the South African Wattle Extract Manufacturers’ Association, as representative of the wattle extract manufacturers and the South African Wattle Bark Millers’ and Exporters’ Association as representative of the wattle bark millers.

†The local consumption of wattle is rather restricted and the industry is largely dependant on the export market for the marketing of its products.

Since the agreement was entered into in 1975, the overseas demand for wattle bark as chopped and ground form has virtually disappeared and at present only wattle extract is exported. These circumstances have led to the dissolving of the South African Wattle-bark Millers’ and Exporters’ Association, but in the meantime the industry is still controlled in terms of the existing agreement. In practice, the industry is consequently at present controlled by the South African Wattle Growers’ Union and the South African Wattle Extract Manufacturers’ Association, on behalf of the growers and manufacturers respectively, contrary to the provisions of the Act. It is therefore necessary for obvious reasons, that a new agreement be entered into between the remaining two parties. Before a new valid agreement can be entered into and also in order to make provision for the constitution of the Wattlebark Industry Board, established in terms of the agreement and on which the parties to the agreement enjoy equal representation, it is necessary that the Wattle-bark Industry Act of 1960 be appropriately amended.

*The Bill before the House envisages giving effect to this, and the proposed amendments are being introduced on the recommendation of the wattle industry. Since the Act has only been amended on one occasion, ie in 1974, since its commencement it has also become necessary, because of changed circumstances, to adapt certain definitions, as set out in clause 1 of the Bill.

Second Reading resumed

Mr Chairman, we in the PFP will be supporting this Bill. Those of us who are from Natal are acutely conscious of what an important part the wattle industry has played and continues to play in Natal. One of the tragedies of economic life, however, is that sometimes products become unsaleable or else are superseded by other products and, in this regard, the wattle bark industry, in contrast to the wattle wood industry, has been seriously affected.

The hon the Minister has given a good motivation in his second reading speech as to why this Bill is necessary, and we support it for that reason. There is, however, a related issue of great importance. As the hon the Minister is interested not only in the agricultural aspect—in a sense, the wattle bark industry is essentially agricultural—but also the environmental aspect, I have the temerity to raise certain issues.

There is growing concern about the threats being posed by neglected wattle plantations and by plantations established for wattle bark purposes. Hon members of this House are probably aware that the wattle is a member of the acacia family and that it is a notorious invader plant. It grows very well and produces an enormous population of seeds which can remain fertile for up to 30 years. The plant threatens valuable pastures, particularly in our high rainfall areas. In fact, in some parts of our country—particularly in Natal—it is known as “the green cancer”. It often chokes our river valleys and it smothers our indigenous trees.

I believe the hon the Minister should make use of his good offices to monitor the situation carefully. I believe that if he were to speak to his colleague the hon the Minister of Manpower, wattle could be eradicated by placing some of the money that is used for job creation in the hands of organised agriculture in order to rid us of this curse. I believe that active steps should be taken to deal with this very serious threat.

My party has much pleasure in supporting the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I am very pleased to hear that the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North and his party support this Bill. I want to say to him that I, for one, share his concern about wattle infestation as far as the Cape Province is concerned. We have been assured, however, that this matter is being attended to in the proper fashion.

*Mr Chairman, I should like to thank the hon members for Constantia, Kuruman and Mooi River, as well as the hon the Minister for their kind comments made in a previous debate concerning my appointment.

The work of the relevant standing committee to a large extent involves dealing with pleasant matters that have to do with nature in some way or the other. Hence the congenial mood of the hon members who serve on the committee. Even the hon member for Meyerton and I got on very well there, and that hon member made a very valuable contribution.

The motive for the amendment of the existing legislation in this regard has been explained by the hon the Minister, and it basically follows on the restructuring of the entire industry. This in turn was caused by changes in the market. This industry is mainly export-orientated to the extent that 97% of the production is exported to Europe and South America in particular, these days chiefly in extract or powder form. As a result of this change in the export market, the share of the market in which millers play a role has ceased to exist as has the livelihood of the millers. For this reason the existing provision in the business agreement no longer serves the purpose, and the parties involved in the business themselves felt that these amendments should be made in the legislation and they also addressed such a request to the Government. They of course represent a very strong and healthy industry that does business very successfully and we on this side of the House therefore support this amending Bill.

Mr Chairman, unfortunately I could not be present during the previous debate on environment affairs and tourism and therefore I should like to take this opportunity on behalf of my party and myself to congratulate the chairman of the standing committee. It was a pleasure to participate under his chairmanship in meetings of the standing committee, which sat in Pretoria.

Furthermore it is a pleasure for me to say on behalf of my party that we support this new legislation. Its aim is to further facilitate and improve the activities of the existing industry. Organisations that have vested interests in this industry were all of the opinion that new legislation was necessary. If that is their opinion then it has our approval because they are the ones that are active in this industry.

On behalf of my party I gladly give our support to this legislation.

Mr Chairman, we in these benches will be supporting the proposed legislation and I would like very briefly to make a couple of observations.

As has been mentioned, this legislation has been made necessary by changing circumstances. It would be as well to record the fact that the wattle bark industry exports some 95% of its products in the form of wattle extract. I would stress that it is an industry which has been forced to rationalise as a result of changing circumstances. It is important because it is highly labour-intensive and thus plays an important role in a period of high unemployment such as at present. Finally, it is noteworthy that the South African Wattle Growers’ Union which comprises over 700 members, wholeheartedly supports this legislation, as we in these benches do.

Mr Chairman, I wish to thank those who have taken part in this debate for their support for this uncontentious measure. I am glad there have not been any discordant notes.

I should just like to refer to the eradication of alien vegetation which was mentioned by one of the hon members. The forestry branch is very active in this field and has made use of part of the Government’s R600 million unemployment relief scheme to employ a number of people in the clearing of alien vegetation here in the Cape Peninsula and in other parts of the country. So the hon member is preaching to the converted when he appeals to us to watch our for and eradicate alien vegetation.

With those few words I should like to thank those hon members who took part in the debate.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Mr Chairman, we on this side of the House supported the Bill in the first instance, and now we are very pleased to be able to support it again.

However, there is a problem I should like the hon the Minister to explain. Although I am not a member of the Standing Committee on Home Affairs, and I intend dealing with the whole problem at a later stage when we deal with the Statistics Amendment Bill, at the standing committee certain amendments to the Regulation of Functions of Officers in the Public Service Act were recommended and discussed. I would have thought that when the hon the Minister introduced this Bill he would have included the amendments to that Act. However, it appears as if nothing was done about that and I should like the hon the Minister to explain why he has introduced this Bill which merely repeals section 1 of the Act. Except for this, we support this Bill as the hon the Minister knows, and hope it will go through quickly.

Mr Chairman, I should like to thank the hon member for his support for the Third Reading of this Bill. Our mandate in the Third Reading is very limited, but as he knows clause 1 was referred back to the standing committee. The standing committee recommended that the amendment be accepted, and that is why we are discussing it at the Third Reading. I am not aware of any recommendations made by the standing committee in connection with regulations in terms of this Act. Therefore it is not relevant here, but the hon member is quite welcome to come and discuss it with me and if we should find it necessary, we could discuss it again at another opportunity.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

Mr Speaker, I move:

In order to highlight the principles of the various clauses, for the benefit of hon members I should firstly like to mention certain aspects concerning the burden on respondents and co-ordination, followed by some comments on the status of the envisaged Statistics Council, and then lastly to refer briefly to other amendments embodied in the remaining proposals.

The Central Statistical Services is the only Government body primarily entrusted with the provision of statistics. In recent years there has been an increasing reluctance on the part of respondents to furnish it with the basic data needed for the compilation of statistics. This goes hand in hand with an equally strong increase in the demand for statistics by regional planners, community development authorities, economists, industrialists and others in both the public and private sectors. In an endeavour to reduce the burden on respondents, administrative steps have been taken within the Central Statistical Services, with concomitant amendments also being embodied in the amending Bill.

The burden on respondents can chiefly be relieved in two ways, ie firstly by simplifying and shortening questionnaires and secondly by reducing the number of questionnaires. It should be noted that every questionnaire used by the Central Statistical Services represents a compromise between the needs of those making use of statistics and the burden placed on respondents who have to furnish the information.

The valuable services rendered in this connection by the technical advisory committees, consisting of representatives of both groups, are recognised by making specific provision in the amending Bill for such committees, as in clause 6, and for the remuneration of such representatives in clause 7.

In spite of what can be achieved by way of shorter questionnaires, I am convinced that a significant reduction in the burden on respondents can only be fully realised if the Central Statistical Services is firstly permitted to have a say in the compilation of the forms used by other Government institutions to collect the administrative data, and secondly, if they are also granted access to the data thus collected.

Such a step would allow the Central Statistical Services to abbreviate and possibly even do away with certain of its surveys or to apply more efficient statistical methods to existing surveys, in both cases with a resulting reduction in the burden on respondents and, moreover, in a more efficient use of Government resources.

In an effort to rationalise the Government’s data-collecting activities, the amending Bill before the House has the following aims: The Statistics Council, envisaged in clause 2, with increased status and provision for increased private sector representation, is specifically being entrusted with advising the Minister on the elimination of overlapping in the gathering of statistics.

Where a Government institution initiates or extends a data-collecting activity involving the private sector, the responsible Minister is required to consult the Minister charged with the implementation of the Statistics Act before authorisation for such activities are granted.

It is also the intention to have this provision apply to institutions such as the South African Reserve Bank and Government bodies such as the Human Sciences Research Council.

The Minister responsible for the Statistical Services may, notwithstanding provisions of other Acts, enter into arrangements with other Ministers to gain access to data collected by Government institutions.

†The other main change embodied in the Bill relates to an enhanced status for the Statistics Council, which is embodied in clauses 2 and 3 and which, to a large extent, follows the recommendations of the Steyn Report.

Compared with the Statistics Advisory Council, which it replaced, the Statistics Council differs in the following respects: The chairman and vice-chairman will no longer be appointed statutorily from the ranks of the Central Statistical Services. To ensure the council’s independence, it is envisaged that the Central Statistical Services will in no way be represented on the council. The council may appoint subcommittees. Members of the council and its subcommittees shall be remunerated. Provision is made for secretarial and clerical assistance. The elimination of overlapping in the collection of statistics by Government institutions is specified in the council’s terms of reference.

The remaining amendments in the Bill relate to: Better specification of matters on which statistics may be collected and provision for a population census every five years; technical changes such as deletion of the tabling requirement and others; making explicit provision for the publication of non-confidential information relating to individual respondents, namely their names, addresses and type of business; increased fines to reinforce the persuasive and deterrent measures and provision for the offence of impersonation.

In conclusion I just want to say that I am confident that with the aid of a strong, independent Statistics Council and especially a spirit of co-operation among colleagues in Government institutions and the private sector, a new era of official statistics can be entered if this Bill is passed and enacted.

I wish to express my sincere appreciation for the positive way in which this Bill was received and dealt with by the Standing Committee on Home Affairs.

Second Reading resumed

Mr Chairman, I want firstly to refer to the very last sentence of the hon the Minister when he introduced this Bill at Second Reading. He said:

I think it is a blot on the hon the Minister’s escutcheon that he has to go cap in hand to another standing committee in order to have another standing committee to deal with his Bills. As a Minister of this House, he is entitled to have his own standing committee, and he should have had that. I want to refer to what I believe is a gross injustice to this hon Minister, and about which a change must be made.

Joint Rule No 10 of the three Houses reads as follows:

One would have thought that if a Minister has been appointed to assist the State President, that he, at least, would have had his own standing committee, but I was surprised to find that this is not the case. It appears that in this particular House a resolution was taken to which I wish to refer. Paragraph 6 of the Minutes of Proceedings of the House of Assembly dated 18 June 1985 reads as follows (page 269):

When I directed an inquiry, after I had been asked by my hon leader to be the spokesman on this particular subject, to the office of the hon the Minister for Administration and Economic Advisory Services, I was informed that the reason was that they did not expect the hon the Minister to introduce much legislation and that if something did come up it would be of no consequence.

I am most surprised because in this House the hon the Minister has already introduced legislation dealing with State administration and he has now introduced a very important Statistics Amendment Bill. What is also one of the most important Bills to be introduced in this House is that which deals with deregulation. In addition to that he is the Minister who is responsible for the portfolio dealing with privatisation, one of the most important matters that will be discussed in this House in the future. I want to know how it happens that the hon the Minister is not entitled to his own standing committee with the right people to discuss these matters. How can he come to this House and truthfully say that he believes that the people who deal with home affairs are the right people to deal with his Bills. Most of them know nothing about economics and privatisation or any of the points that might be raised. Honestly, it is a blot upon the escutcheon of the hon the Minister. I believe that this matter should be rectified as soon as possible. [Interjections.]

I want to go even further. I asked the Chief Whip of Parliament to be here because I want to deal with the whole matter in respect of the Chief Whip. I wrote a letter to the Chief Whip of my political party and I asked him to go into this matter. I said in my letter to him that the reason why the Minutes of Proceedings indicated that there would be no standing committee was because little or no legislation would be forthcoming from the aforesaid Minister.