Mr. Speaker, as regards the business of the House for next week, the House will deal with the business as printed on the Order Paper.

Mr. Speaker, during the debate on the report of the Steyn Commission on Monday, 15 February 1982, I am reputed to have interrupted the hon. member for Pinelands who was then addressing the House with a question I put to him. The question was: “Is that why you sided with the enemy?” This could be construed to mean that the hon. member for Pinelands had in fact wilfully made common cause with the enemies of South Africa.

As it is unparliamentary to make such an accusation here in the House, I hereby wish to withdraw the question I put to the hon. member.

Say you are sorry.

Yes, say you are sorry. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Speaker, when the debate was adjourned last night, I was saying a few words about the Public Service. I do not think you will rule me out of order if I say that the Public Service is more or less sub judice at the moment. [Interjections.]

There is no doubt that Parliament and politics lend themselves to great dramas. I would be putting it mildly if I were to say that we view what we have experienced in our party today as a tragic drama that has struck us. Parliament is a mirror of life. In it one sees the beautiful, the ugly, the sadness, the joy. In it one sees the intense, as well as the less intense moments. In it one sees, as we are seeing now, the drama of politics as it is unfolding before us all today.

We on this side of the House would be playing the hypocrite if we were not to say that we are sad about what has happened in our party.

But what has happened?

We would be playing the hypocrite if we were not to say that we hope that in the days that lie ahead, many of our good colleagues and our good friends will follow the right path and come to their senses.

However, there is no doubt that there are moments of intense evaluation of ideas on the road of every political party, moments of deep thought and moments when people must say to themselves: This far and no further. We understand this. [Interjections.] However, people are transitory; people come and people go, but a political party, like the NP, continues on its way. The NP is borne along and will be borne along by the inner force of nationalism, the love for what is ours, and it is that driving force of the NP that I believe at some time in the future will bring our colleagues who are feeling heavy-hearted today, back to us again.

The NP—myself least of all—is not celebrating today. If I were to say that I was pleased within myself about what had happened, I would be acting in a hypocritical manner. It is true that I understand the problems and the dramas surrounding peoples’ personal experience of politics. Perhaps in a certain sense the NP has been dealt an unavoidable blow. When I say “unavoidable”, it is impossible for each political party to say after so many years that no one felt along the way that he no longer wanted to go along with them.

On behalf of most of my colleagues I want to say to our other colleagues that we hope that we will be able to reach out our hands to one another again on the road ahead. I have no doubt that political darkness lies to the right of the NP. Anyone who leaves the NP, resigns his seat and stands for election under the banner of a new political party, will not see the inside of this Parliament again under the banner of such a new party. I have no doubt whatsoever in my heart that the HNP will round up those people who do not want to state the policy of the NP straightforwardly. This is a tragic day in our history. If we look at what the HNP propagates, it would be disastrous for race relations in South Africa at this moment if the impression were created in the country that the HNP could attract enough voters to win a constituency in this Parliament. At the moment a municipal election is in progress in Pretoria where our taxpayers’ association is opposing the right-wing HNP. The HNP slogan on their municipal election posters is “Stem Pretoria weer Wit”. That slogan cries out to heaven. [Interjections.] I want to ask the Opposition not to revel in the agitation with the National Party or to bluff themselves in any way that the NP has any idea of following anything approaching the road that the PFP advocates that South Africa should follow in the social or any other sphere. Let us say straightforwardly to one another: The NP views the PFP’s way as a radical one, the way of rejecting the birthright of the Whites in their country and a way that will lead to the damnation of the country. Therefore, people who want to read anything else into what has just happened in the NP besides the fact that there were people in the party who objected to certain matters, is living in a dream world. The NP is, and remains in essence a conservative party. The NP’s philosophy of life is contained in the word “conservatism”, to “conserve” or to maintain that which is one’s own. I want to put it clearly to the liberal Opposition that the NP will remain a conservative party, and it will conserve the identity of the Whites, as it wants to conserve the identity of each other’s population group and wants South Africa to flourish for the salvation of all its people.

[Inaudible.]

There are many things that I could tell the hon. member for Hillbrow. If the hon. member’s Smoking Control Bill had been put to the vote, I would have voted together with the hon. member. However, that is as far as the hon. member and myself can agree.

Is it the policy of the NP to have power-sharing?

In the political climate that prevails at present, we can play with words and their meanings for a long time. Various people can interpret words differently. However, I want to tell the hon. member that as far as constitutional affairs and all other matters are concerned, the NP differs radically from the PFP. What we are saying with regard to constitutional matters in South Africa—we are saying it loud and clear to our voters—is that we believe that in a multinational South Africa we should also involve the Blacks, the Coloureds and the Asians along the constitutional path. This implies that there will be bodies in which those people can be involved. If the Opposition wants to attach other meanings to the words, they are free to do so. I am not concerned about the word “power-sharing”, provided it is not interpreted as the Opposition is interpreting it. The Opposition’s interpretation of power-sharing is the capitulation of power. I want to state clearly that the NP take the Coloureds, Indians and the Blacks, both inside and outside the Black States, along with it in constitutional development in the future. There is a joint South Africanism that the NP does not want to destroy. Let us say this straightforwardly to the people outside. We as the NP want to reach out the hand of friendship to the other peoples in South Africa, to individuals and to the leaders of those peoples. In the future there will also be dramatic changes in the sphere of social relations, based on the principle of human dignity as the NP views it, viz. treating others as you would like to be treated yourself.

The hon. member Prof. Olivier knows that we in South Africa are faced with the problem of people who have a tremendous developmental backlog. The hon. member will also know that we are faced with a tremendous number of people who are on a low level of development. Surely change in South Africa, which is a fact of life, goes hand in hand with the development of people. All of us in this House have shared in the history of discrimination, even the hon. member Prof. Olivier.

He in particular.

I can quote from the earlier history of their political predecessors of how they drew distinctions between people, of how they supported measures in this House that brought about the separation of residential areas. I can tell that hon. member what the origin of the Urban Areas Act was, the Act that brought about apartheid between White and Black in the urban areas. The hon. member Prof. Olivier will agree with me that change is an evolutionary process that one cannot force down people’s throats overnight. One must allow communities and individuals to develop systematically alongside one another. In this way we meet one another and accordingly the NP’s concept of change and peaceful coexistence acquires more significance.

We are not afraid to tell the people outside that the NP has changed in many respects. Nor are we afraid to tell the people outside that the NP is still going to change in many respects. We in the NP know that if we have to fight the HNP, we will not fight them with HNP language and concepts. We have progressed beyond that era when we tried to justify separate post offices as NP policy. This is true: There are many things in our history that we can laugh about today.

The hon. member Prof. Olivier has travelled in America and I myself have undertaken a long, intensive study trip there. Not even there, where they want to equate the relations between people by means of legislation, is everything successful. South Africa is in a beleaguered situation, the like of which we have never experienced in our history. We are being threatened in every sphere internationally, and in actual fact we can say that in practically every sphere on the international scene we are involved in a war situation, that has been declared against us by the international community. We do not have many friends there. However, we want to tell friends in the international community that the caricature that they have of our policy, is not true. We want to tell the Black and the Coloured people in South Africa that the caricature of the NP’s intentions in the constitutional sphere, the economic sphere, and the social sphere, that is being held up to them, is not an accurate one. Over the next few years the NP will work in a dramatic and dynamic fashion on the peaceful co-existence of nations and people. We shall work on structures and methods and we shall do things and speak in such a way that everyone will know exactly where we are going. Those Whites in South Africa who think that separate parks are the last ditch in the defence of the White man in South Africa, are missing the point by a long shot. I say to the voters of Pretoria, who will be facing the HNP shortly in a municipal election, that Pretoria is the display window of South Africa. Pretoria is the display window which the world looks at.

Do not send out a caricature of Pretoria into the world. Do not allow the Black people in South Africa to gain the impression that the White people of South Africa, the NP, that party that is holding the reins, wants to talk about Black people in the HNP way and treat them in that way. To those that say “Stem Pretoria weer Wit”, I want to ask: How White are you keeping Pretoria? I can put that question to Mr. Jaap Marais, one of my voters. He must ask himself how White he is keeping Pretoria. I have a tremendous problem with those people, because while they accuse the NP of all sorts of things, they are the ones who are in actual fact disrupting race relations on a large-scale. We have seen it in the past election. Some of the greatest champions of the HNP in my area have Black people living illegally on their properties. The people who treat the Black people the worst, are those who feel the most guilty and therefore react in an hysterical way. I am referring here to the HNP on the one hand and the PFP on the other. There is no doubt that people who feel guilty, always overreact. The hon. member Prof. Olivier may do well to take note of the members of his party, who adopt the most hysterical standpoints with regard to good relations with the Black people. He will find that somewhere in those people’s lives something went wrong and that is why they feel guilty. The NP advocates a balanced approach towards the Black peoples in South Africa, and that is why we ask the voters to reject the radical standpoints of the HNP once again. Reject this distorted image of the White man, as it is manifested on posters in the streets, proclaiming: “Regs is reg”. In these times I have wondered whether right-wing policies may not border on insanity. If I listen to what people sometimes say, I come to the conclusion that right-wing policies of that nature border on radicalism, which in turn borders on insanity.

The NP will continue to rule this country, and I want to tell the people of South Africa that those of us who have stood by our beloved Prime Minister, stand by him because we realize that in the serious days that South Africa is facing, when the problem of South West Africa have to be solved and there is also a threatening potential for revolution within the country, we need a strong leader. We realize that in these times we must have a leader with balanced ideas and idealistic vision. We need a leader who is not afraid to talk of the White man and not afraid to tell other population groups that the intentions of the White man are sincere and good. We say to South Africa: In the days that lie ahead, do not allow yourselves to be mislead by dramatic newspaper reports. In the days that lie ahead do not allow yourselves to be confused by the chatter of the Opposition, but listen and judge for yourselves. We advise the people of South Africa to listen carefully to what the hon. the Prime Minister says and then to decide for themselves whether he is approaching the problems of South Africa in the right way.

The people must ask themselves whether he is the strong type of leader that South Africa needs now. On behalf of hon. members on this side of the House, I want to pay tribute to the hon. the Prime Minister and say to him: “Courage! The people outside will support you because your intentions for this country of ours and for the future of all of us are sincere, good and admirable.”

Mr. Speaker, I think we in this House always listen to the hon. member for Innesdal as a thoughtful and I think concerned younger South African. My heart goes out to him today because, with the hon. member for Durban Point and the hon. member for Berea, my mind goes back to the trauma of 1959 when, at an age younger than he, we also had to face the crumbling of a political party. Before I deal with that aspect in a serious, analytical way, let me just get the attention of the hon. member for Innesdal in regard to another aspect.

He is angry about the HNP saying: “Stem Pretoria Wit”. He says that we must avoid that the parks of Pretoria become the last trench.

I want to come, however, to the speech of the hon. member for Turffontein and that of the hon. member for Langlaagte. [Interjections.] They are saying: “Die swembaddens van Yeoville moet die laaste loopgraaf wees.” [Interjections.]

Of course!

What is the difference?

You are dealing with a “verkrampte”.

The hon. member says it is radical, it is racist to say that parks must be closed, but those hon. members say we are saving South Africa’s future by keeping the swimming-baths closed. [Interjections.] The same mean, radical racism that he attributes to the HNP is therefore, in my opinion, being displayed by the NP in its election activities. [Interjections.] There is no difference in principle whatsoever. Therefore that hon. member should first sweep in front of his own door. If he does not believe in racism, he must not allow his own party to exploit racism for the sake of a few paltry votes.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?

No, Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but my time is very limited. [Interjections.]

†When that hon. member reads the propaganda being made in Johannesburg today, he must ask himself: Is it the HNP, or is it the NP of which he is so proud. He will find there is a very scant difference. [Interjections.]

I want to deal with the issue the hon. member raised today. He finds himself in the midst of political ferment in his own party. I believe that what is happening goes far beyond the personality of the hon. the Prime Minister or the personality of the Minister of State Administration. It is not just a personality issue. What we are seeing, I believe, is a fascinating political scene unfolding before us. It almost has a classical and predictable character. What we are seeing is the NP, as we have known it in the past, being ground quite relentlessly between a long-standing commitment to the ideology of apartheid or separate development on the one hand and the practical realities and needs of a modern multiracial South Africa on the other. This is what is happening.

Yes.

The millstones are starting to grind, and I am not saying this because I relish the situation, but because I am trying to analyse it. We see the hon. the Prime Minister with a sense of realism bowing before these forces, not altogether graciously, but nevertheless bowing before the inexorable forces of change in South Africa. We also see a Minister of State Administration trying to resist these forces. This is, in fact, what is happening, and I believe that this process is still at a very early stage of its development and is going to continue inexorably, relentlessly, remorselessly. There are going to be tensions, there are going to be statements and there are going to be explanations, and there may be splits and regroupings, but I want to predict that the irresistible demands of a modern, multiracial South Africa are going to grind, into the dust and dirt of South Africa, the outdated Verwoerdian dogma of the NP. I say that because of the existence of those irreconcilables. I find it ironic that the simple issue of the future rights of a section of our South African community which the NP, for a period of 34 years, has rejected, despised, disenfranchised and humiliated, the simple Brown people, is now the actual trigger of this whole process of fermentation that is taking place. [Interjections.] In a strange way I find it ironic that the voteless people of South Africa are the very ones who are starting to create the ferment amongst the White political parties of our country.

Poetic justice.

On the key issue of political rights—and here I am talking about the sharing of political power, not mere window-dressing; the actual reality, the guts of South African politics involving where and how the power decisions are taken—it appears from the latest statements of the hon. the Prime Minister that he does have a certain message. The message to me is quite simple, i.e. that the NP, whether it likes it or not, must move away from the philosophy propounded by Strijdom, Verwoerd and Vorster if there is to be any hope of political co-operation and political stability in South Africa. That is basically the message that comes across from all the analyses made of the South African situation. It appears that the hon. the Prime Minister has his own strategy for dealing with this. Perhaps only the hon. the Prime Minister and his chief lieutenant, the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs, really know what this strategy is.

What is obvious to every outside observer is that every statement made by the hon. the Prime Minister or his chief lieutenant on the issue of political rights and power sharing takes the NP a step further away from separate development and selfdetermination and a step closer towards joint decision making and power sharing. If words have any meaning, this is what is happening. This is the scene that is unfolding itself before our very eyes.

I do not want to dwell on this at any great length, but one has only to analyse the statements and speeches made by the hon. the Prime Minister over the last month to see this. Take the question of “die selfbeskikkingsreg van die Blankes”. The hon. the Prime Minister in the course of his speech in Parliament was quite adamant on this. He said: “Die selfbeskikkingsreg van die Blanke mag nie aangetas word nie. Die selfbeskikkingsreg van die Blanke moet behoue bly.” He kept on with that without any reservation. Now we find in his latest statement—

There is a fundamental difference between saying “selfbeskikking mag nie aangetas word nie” and “dit is in ieder geval maar net ’n relatiewe term”.

Secondly, there is the question of “een sentrale regeringsgesag”. On this we had the hon. the Prime Minister making certain statements in the course of his address to Parliament. Regrettably I do not have his Hansard in front of me, but he referred to the fact that one could not have “’n eie soewereine parlement vir die Kleurlinge”. He has said: “Ek bepleit nie ’n eenheidstaat nie”. Now he says—

I believe that, if there is only one “sentrale regeringsgesag” in the country, one is halfway towards a “eenheidstaat”. What in fact is the definition of a “eenheidstaat” if it is not a State with “een sentrale regeringsgesag”?

*As regards the aspect of power sharing as the division of power the hon. the Prime Minister said—

†But in his own twelve-point plan it is quite clear: Not “magsdeling”but a division of power between White South Africans, Coloured people and Indians. There we have a fundamental departure from his twelve-point plan. He goes further and says that in the 1977 plan this was already anticipated. I quote—

One does not have to do very much research on the “1977-voorstelle”. Here I have two NP election pamphlets. The first reads—

It says “geen magsdeling nie”. In the second NP election pamphlet we read—

So one sees this progressive move away from a hard and fast “magsverdeling” in the direction of “magsdeling”.

We have seen it all before. We have seen it all enacted before us. We saw it in the field of sport where from the Loskop Dam speech way back in the early sixties when separate sport was stated to be a matter of principle we have had a gradual shift until we found the situation where mixed sport had become “die natuurlike ontplooiing van die beleid van afsonderlike ontwikkeling”. We have also had it in the field of labour. I am sorry that the hon. the Minister of Manpower is not here.

[Inaudible.]

These are the changes that are taking place. We have had it in the field of labour. In 1976 the hon. the Minister of Manpower said in the House that he was opposed to Black trade unions and that it was not the policy of the NP to have them.

These changes have taken place, not because of the whim of a Minister of Sport or at the whim of the hon. the Minister of Manpower, but because these changes have had to take place. They still have to take place. So far on the issue of power sharing, hon. members opposite are only dealing with words. Nevertheless we are dealing with a fundamental issue, and just as the NP has to take fundamental steps in the fields of sport and trade unionism, so they will also have to take fundamental steps which will change their basic policy in the field of power sharing. The decision, first of all, will hinge on the Coloureds. It is going to relate to the Coloured people, and later also to the Indian people, and ultimately the inexorable march of logic and events will compel it to be extended also to at least the urban Blacks settled in the heartland of South Africa. This is going to happen not because either the one side or the other wins in the NP. It is not going to happen because of a particular leader or his opponent in that party. It is going to happen because in reality there is no other basis on which South Africa can be governed. We can only govern South Africa on the basis of sharing.

We in these benches hope that the events of the last few days, and in particular the events of today, will herald the start of a new constructive debate in which we will not argue about terms or about the meaning of power sharing. We hope for a constructive debate in which we will recognize that all South Africans have to have a direct and a real say in the decision-making process. Unless we come to that conclusion there can not only be no progress for South Africa but our very survival will be at stake. We see today’s events and the events in recent times as the start and not as the end of a new situation which is developing in South Africa.

Passing now from that area of fundamental political change, I should like to deal very briefly with certain matters relating to the budget. The hon. the Minister of Finance realizes, I believe, that for him, in the financial sense, the golden honeymoon is over and a new moment of truth has arrived. What he is faced with now is the taking of decisions of fundamental importance in the economic field against the background of the very sensitive and explosive political situation. It was very easy in the past because the Treasury was awash with money and the balance of payments was sound. Now the hon. the Minister will have to make a choice between the socio-economic needs of the people of South Africa and the ideology of the NP. The situation has changed dramatically and in the months that lie ahead the hon. the Minister of Finance, together with all other hon. Cabinet Ministers, will have to be much more sensitive and much more accurate in pinpointing national priorities. We hold that these national priorities are the needs of the citizens of South Africa rather than the ideological policies of the NP.

There is one field in which I want to put certain questions to the hon. the Minister of Finance because, in our opinion, it is one of the areas of critical national priority. That is the question of housing, and in particular, the question of low cost housing for Blacks. We argue—and we hope that the hon. the Minister will agree—that amongst the array of issues on which he has to take priority decisions, he should see to it that housing is right at or near the top of the list. I say this because we believe that housing has become one of the most explosive issues in South Africa, and that many of our urban areas are in fact becoming tinder-box areas where confrontation and violence could break out.

Much has been said about housing and expecially low cost housing in recent weeks. Much has been said about the size of the backlog, about the danger that it poses and about the magnitude of the task in the future. There has also been an important report by the Viljoen Committee on the question of the housing backlog in Soweto. What distresses us is that, simultaneously with the publication of the Viljoen Committee Report, a joint statement was issued by the hon. the Minister of Community Development, the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development and the hon. the Deputy Minister of Finance. While, among many other things, there were fine, platitudinous pointers to a future direction of thinking, what they said was that the Government had rejected the financial subsidy recommendation contained in the Viljoen Committee Report. This is absolutely critical. This is fundamental. It is fundamental because one is not going to build houses unless one has money or unless one can find ways and means of bringing the private sector into the low cost housing building industry.

The kernel, the gravamen, of the Viljoen Committee report was contained in their recommendation No. 2 which was to the effect that there should be a subsidy for individuals whether they bought their houses from the Government or from the private sector because this would enable the private sector to enter the home-building field. [Interjections.] They did reject that very recommendation. The hon. the Minister can look at the top of page 2 of his own statement.

It was the way in which it was formulated.

They have rejected it. I put it to the hon. the Minister: They have rejected the subsidy proposals of the Viljoen Committee report … [Interjections.] This is what was said—

[Interjections.] I accept that statement. This has now been referred to a committee under the hon. the Deputy Minister and I should like to know from the hon. the Minister what the subsidy basis is going to be. [Interjections.] I am asking the hon. the Minister of Finance because the Viljoen Committee reported in August of last year. The Government has had the report of the Viljoen Committee for six months now. The Government says that it is important to have housing available but what we have not yet heard from the hon. the Minister of Finance is the basis on which they are going to subsidize Black housing so that the private sector will enter the house-building field. That is the first question I want to ask.

Secondly, in regard to the question of flat building in existing urban areas we have repeatedly asked the hon. the Minister of Community Development what incentives he is going to provide to the private sector to encourage it to build flats for the middle and lower income groups and particularly for the older and retired people in the cities of South Africa. The hon. the Minister of Community Development shrugs his shoulders and indicates that this is the responsibility of the hon. the Minister of Finance. I want to put this to the hon. the Minister: He knows that new flats are not being built because they are not an economically viable proposition. I ask him what specific incentives he is going to give by way of tax deductions or depreciation allowances to enable the private sector to build flats for ordinary, average White South Africans in the cities of South Africa.

Thirdly, there are many, many people in South Africa who qualify for financial assistance under the Housing Act. Yet the State cannot house them. I put this to the hon. the Minister: Where the State cannot house a person who qualifies for assistance under the Housing Act, that person should still be assisted if he can find accommodation in non-State facilities. If in fact such a person is entitled to such assistance and the State cannot provide that assistance, the State should give that person assistance by way of a subsidy or a loan, whatever it may be, to make it possible for such a person to live a decent life with security.

Fourthly, in an earlier debate, I put to the hon. the Minister a proposal that the National Housing Commission be empowered to raise capital by housing stock. This has now been agreed to by the House but two questions arise from this. I put this to the hon. the Minister last year: Will the stock be considered as part of the investment which banks, building societies and pension funds are required to hold in Government stock?

No.

If that is so, then there is very little incentive. Let me put another question to the hon. the Minister: What special inducements will be offered? If they are not allowed to include that in their Government stock for the purposes of their holdings then what special inducements will there be? Will there be tax rebates or tax deductions for people who invest in Government housing stock which is going to be used in the main for lower income group housing? What are these inducements going to be?

Finally, Sir, I want to come back to my question to the hon. the Minister of Finance. How does he rate housing as a priority? He is going to have to decide where his priorities lie. I put it to him again: Where does he rate housing? I ask this because we believe that housing, particularly for the people in the lower income groups in South Africa, should be one of the top priorities. Unless we can solve the crisis that exists in the housing situation we are heading for trouble. Unless we can do this I believe that we are heading for conflict and violence in our cities.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Sea Point touched on various matters and in the course of my speech I shall refer to some of them. He also put certain questions to the hon. the Minister to which he shall certainly receive replies.

To start with I should like to refer to two matters that were raised by the hon. member for Sea Point. The first of these was the so-called NP change in policy from the ideological standpoint of apartheid to one of more practical realism, as the hon. member for Sea Point put it. The hon. member for Innesdale has already pointed out that the NP is not ashamed to say that it is a party that is changing. As a matter of fact, it is proud of the fact that it is not stagnating. However, the important point is whether the NP is abandoning its objectives and principles or whether it is abandoning its methods of achieving them. Therein lies the difference.

I maintain that in respect of the principles of the party as the hon. member for Innesdale demonstrated the NP has not deviated. Similarly it is true that the methods have in fact changed in so far as achieving its ideals is concerned. As far as power sharing is concerned, I can only refer the hon. member to the standpoint of the hon. the Prime Minister in the no confidence debate read in conjunction with the statement the hon. the Prime Minister issued yesterday. If the hon. member examines these statements he must grant me that they specify very clearly what this side of the House recognizes under the concept of power sharing. The same applies in respect of the “right to self-determination.” But I shall have a little more to say about this later, because I should also like to furnish the hon. Prof. Olivier with a reply in this connection.

When he took part in the debate the hon. Prof. Olivier asked inter alia whether the right to self-determination was essential at this stage for the preservation of an identity of one’s own. He then quoted examples and referred to the Indian population. He pointed out that they did in fact posses the right to political self-determination and a cultural religious and biological identity, etc.

I took the trouble to look up in an Afrikaans explanatory dictionary what the meaning of “selfbeskikkingsreg” (right to self-determination) was. In HAT I found the following definition under “selfbeskikkingsreg”—

The hon. Prof. Olivier will grant me that “the right to decide one’s own destiny” is not only concerned with the right to political self-determination. Nor is it concerned only with cultural, religious and biological identity, but it includes everything. I quote further from HAT—

Surely “byvoorbeeld”—i.e. for example— does not mean “uitsluitlik”—i.e. exclusively. I also referred to Kritzinger and Labuschagne and they define “selfbeskikkingsreg” as—

The hon. member will also grant me in this connection as well that what is involved here is not only the right to self-determination in respect of politics.

I went even further, however, and consulted H. J. Kotzé and J. J. van Wyk’s book on basic concepts in politics. It is interesting, because I found that under the concept “selfbeskikkingsreg” the concept of “onafhanklikheid”, independence was referred to and under “onafhanklikheid” it was stated—

However, we must read this in conjunction with the reference to “nasionalisme”, nationalism. What does “nasionalisme” mean? I quote—

I therefore want to conclude by saying that the concept of “right to self-determination” is concerned with a political right to self-determination, but it of necessity also includes the preserving of an identity, whatever identity that may be—cultural, biological, and so on. When the hon. member asks what about an example such as the Indian population, I can tell the hon. member that owing to the very fact that this side of the House does not claim the right to self-determination for itself alone, but also grants it to other races, the Indian population will ultimately be able to exercise its own political right to self-determination and to retain its cultural and religious identity. This is so because this side of the House does not begrudge them there rights.

When, in referring to the National Party, the hon. member said that the one leg of the policy was simply that political right to self-determination was essential to it to ensure that it continued to determine its own future, it was indeed true that the National Party, as one leg of its policy, wants to ensure the preservation of its own future, owing to the right to self-determination that it has claimed for itself. However, the National Party does not begrudge other nations this right.

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

No. The hon. member must pardon me but I still have a great many things to say. I shall reply to a question if there is time available at the end of my speech.

Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude by referring to what the hon. the Prime Minister said in the no-confidence debate. In col. 128 of Hansard the hon. the Prime Minister said—

This is an agreement with what I said earlier when I spoke about the concept of change and the differentiation we must make between changes in principle and changes in method. In col. 133 the Prime Minister went on to say—

And then follows the qualification—

It is in fact on this point that we differ fundamentally from the premises of the PFP. Ultimately the principles and policy of the PFP must of necessity lead to a unitary state when they try to bring about peace between Whites and Coloureds. In col. 133 the hon. the Prime Minister continued—

The hon. member for Sea Point referred to this. The National Party stands by this statement.

All of you?

However, this right is granted to all the other nations, the right to exercise their own right to self-determination.

The hon. the Prime Minister also said in col. 134—

This statement, read in conjunction with paragraph (d) of the hon. the Prime Minister’s amendment, which reads as follows—

is quite clear. When the hon. the Prime Minister puts it like this, does it mean a change, a new concept or principle? I maintain that it is not strange or a deviation from the course of White South Africans over the years, and I shall try to prove this.

As long ago as 16 December, 1905, Dr. J. D. du Toit, who was an academic and not involved in politics indicated in a speech at Potchefstroom that certain adjustments and concessions were unavoidable in a changing country, but, he said, such adjustments were to be made with the retention of what was one’s own. I quote what he had to say on the Day of the Convenant in 1905—

This is precisely the same standpoint as the one we still have in the National Party today. The right to self-determination and identity is a gift from God to all nations, and one may not tamper with it. I want to refer to what President Marthinus Theunis Steyn said, and I hope I shall be excused for referring to a Free Stater. I made it my duty to find out what the standpoint of that gentleman was. What do we find? From his writings and statements of policy we find precisely the same thing as that which is now happening in this country. I shall try to indicate this. He had one great ideal, namely a united Afrikaner nation under a Republican flag from the Cape to the Limpopo.

We all know this, and so does the hon. member Prof. Olivier. However, he was never negative in this endeavour, in that he did not denigrate other racial groups, despise them or condemn them. On the contrary, he always acted positively by developing Afrikaner national character and self-respect through Afrikaner national unity. His first love was the Free State, but what was important, was that that love of his for the Free State compelled him to realize that he had to throw in his lot with that of the rest of Afrikanerdom. That is why his love for the Free State grew into a love for South Africa. This lay at the centre of all his words and deeds, namely the unification of the energies of everyone who loved South Africa. This is precisely the same thing we hear repeatedly from the hon. the Prime Minister today. After the Union of South Africa came into existence, Pres. Steyn began to think in terms of a South African nation. Not only did he make a plea for the unity of his nation, but also for co-operation between the two language groups. And what did he say? He said—

He did not sacrifice the identity of the Afrikaner by saying this. As a matter of fact, the Afrikaner may never allow himself to be denationalized. This is what Pres. Steyn said. Now the PFP must listen, because he went on to say—

Now I want to ask the Opposition: How many bats are there in the ranks of the members on that side of the House? Is it not true that some of those hon. members are not recognized by the Whites? And I am warning them that to an increasing extent people of colour are also beginning to despise the policy of that side of the House. The hon. member Prof. Olivier and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition must think about this.

In a speech—and this is my last reference to Pres. Steyn—which was read out at Senekal on 16 December 1916—19 days after his death—

Indeed, this is also true today of the nations in the Republic of South Africa when we see the total onslaught mounted against us. We as Whites will have to stand together, but the various population groups will also have to stand together. Today we are still standing alone, but if we can show each other the necessary goodwill, Afrikaans-speaking to English-speaking, Whites to Coloureds, Asians to Blacks, we form a majority, and through co-operation we can exploit the riches of our country in the interests of everyone living here.

Reference was made here to realities. It is true, and I am not flinching from it. I myself have also discussed this subject in this House. There is the reality of collectivity on the one hand and, at the same time, separateness on the other. This is so clear. There is also the reality of ethnic diversity on the one hand, but then it is also true that we are interdependent in respect of specific matters. Another reality is the method you adopt to achieve an objective, but in contrast the specific objective you are striving to attain is also a reality. The secret is to strike a balance between these two while recognizing both. In the daily contact situation we must all recognize one another’s humanity and show one another the necessary respect. And it is in fact true that this can also be achieved through the elimination of unnecessary discrimination, and let us not revert to defining what unnecessary discrimination is. This has already been spelled out by one of our previous leaders as something that means good neighbourliness.

We know what it means.

That is precisely what the present hon. Prime Minister is also saying.

That young member can stop squawking now. Mr. Speaker, in the light of what was said above, separate residential areas, schools of one’s own, influx control, consolidation and the like, are not deadly apartheid. Similarly, deliberation and co-responsibility, the recommendations in the HSRC report on a national decision-making structure in education, representative of all inhabitants of the Republic of South Africa, the new labour legislation and areas of co-operation, etc., are not integration either. This is the important point we have to accept. We have to accept the realities within the fundamental premises of self-determination and protection of minority rights. If we can maintain that equilibrium, we are on the path of the NP.

[Inaudible.]

That hon. member should confine himself to health matters.

It is health that I am worried about.

It is only logical that we should give joint consideration to matters of common interest. The President’s Council is considering in what body this should be done and what instruments should be used, and will make recommendations. Then the Government will take decisions. However, the tragedy is that the official Opposition is irrelevant in this connection, for they have seen fit to refrain from participating in the President’s Council and in the discussions on the new constitutional dispensation for the Coloureds as well. The official Opposition is making no contribution in respect of this entire matter of reform.

It is therefore clear to me that the difference between this side of the House and the official Opposition lies in the fact that those gentlemen are prepared to sacrifice what is their own and in their new dispensation create a unitary state in which they will not, as this side of the House will allow the necessary emphasis to fall on the preservation of the right to self-determination, or on the differences between the various national groups and their separate identities.

Mr. Speaker, I intend departing somewhat from the purely political side of the debate because I want to address the hon. the Minister of Finance. Unlike some hon. members on the Opposition side who accuse the hon. the Minister of imposing unreasonable taxes in order to find money to meet the pressing needs of our country, I want to plead today that he should perhaps impose more taxes across a broader spectrum in order to meet a very urgent and much-felt need, in my constituency, among others. The cause of the total onslaught on South Africa does not lie solely with our internal policy. There are several other causes as well. In the light of the total onslaught on South Africa it is nevertheless necessary that we implement our internal policy with precision and thoroughness, but also without delay. Our policy culminates in the creation of autonomous States for the Black people, and four such States have already accepted their independence. I agree wholeheartedly with this policy. However, the implementation of this policy costs astronomical sums of money, and because this is a matter of the utmost importance to all of us, it is also essential that this money be found urgently. We cannot accept separate development as our policy and then keep postponing its implementation simply because we lack the money. The implementation of this policy is directly related to the survival of the White people and the stability of the Black people.

I should now like to mention a few practical problems with which I am faced daily as far as my voters are concerned. When a farmer’s land is bought out for homeland development, we must bear in mind that that man is vitally affected. He has to forfeit what has been built up over years, sometimes over generations, and then he has to go and make a new beginning somewhere else. Many farmers have already been bought out, and although many have been lost to agriculture in the process—and this is cause for concern—that is still not the biggest problem. To me, the biggest problem is the farmer whose land is earmarked for consolidation and who, in the meantime, finds himself in a vacuum, as it were, until eventually there is enough money available to assist him to finalize his affairs. I could mention many heart-break cases, some more heartbreaking than others, but I should like to take one case as an example.

Last week a young man came to see me in my constituency. He had lost his father and was administering an estate. The farms in the estate were all earmarked for consolidation. If the farms could be bought out now, he could use the money to pay the estate duty and have the estate account closed. However, as matters stand, he now has to find R100 000 to pay the estate duty so that the land which in fact will not be his, will nevertheless be registered in his name for some time. No wonder I often plead that estate duty be replaced by a more meaningful form of tax. It is easy to tell that farmer that he should not worry because his farm is earmarked for purchase. However, it does not help to say that in the meantime he should carry on with his farming activities as if nothing had happened. That is easier said than done. It is not easy to go on as usual with a sword hanging over one’s head in this way. He cannot even think meaningfully about the planning of his own estate.

I should like to make an appeal to the hon. Minister today. Just as the hon. member for Sea Point called for housing to be placed higher on the list of priorities, I wish to make an earnest appeal for the finalizing of consolidation, and in particular I ask that the buying out of our people’s farms be placed higher on the list of priorities and dealt with more urgently. From a security point of view, too, a disturbing situation is developing among the farmers who have remained on the borders. The Government will have to find money to encourage the border farmers, who must form a security buffer, to remain where they are. Once they have gone, we shall not be able to replace that invaluable component.

I have at my disposal authentic figures that present a disturbing picture. In 10 districts in the Eastern Cape there are 2 774 farms, 1 569 of which are occupied. Therefore there are 1 205 that are unoccupied. This means that 43,5% of the farms are unoccupied. Can we allow such a dangerous situation to exist? Those farmers are simply disappearing, because there is no encouragement for them to endure the problems of the border. Once again I must stress in the strongest possible terms that a proper fence is essential. Urgent attention must be given to this. We cannot wait until the Black States find the money to contribute their share of the cost of the fence, even if they have to owe our Government the money until such time as they can pay it. The people on both sides of the fence urgently need the protection of such a fence.

†The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central held a meeting in my constituency at which he referred to me as a person propagating a Berlin Wall between the Whites and the Blacks. I must attack him on that. I cannot possibly pass it by. That is not what I am pleading for. I am pleading for stability on both sides of the border.

What do you want to put on the border?

All I want is good neighbourship.

*I want to ask that the hon. Minister, who is acquainted with the money resources, will find hinds to implement this highly sensitive part of our policy. I am convinced that the urgent finalization of the consolidation programme is in the direct interest of every citizen of the country. I am sure that in the so-called lean years ahead we shall be able to give meaningful consideration to the suspension of less important projects—no names, no pack-drill—and that we shall be able to use the money to finalize consolidation. I too am sorry for the tax-payer—I myself am one—but if the population of the country was able to spend R4 000 million on Christmas shopping during the last Christmas period, then I am sure that over the wide spectrum to which I have referred there are sources from which we can obtain money to spend on this important matter. I am not asking for money for sports complexes, recreation facilities, journeys overseas or prestige buildings I am asking for money for the farmers who are affected by consolidation and who have always formed part of the foundation on which the whole national economy rests. I am asking for money to eliminate for once and for all the feeling of uncertainty with regard to consolidation that prevails in the border regions among both White and Black people.

Mr. Speaker, as I look at the hon. the Minister of Finance sitting somewhat alone in his front bench and look around the Empty Government benches, my thoughts go back to an old song which goes something like this—I shall not sing it—

I can see a lot of young and old men looking far, far away and going far, far away in the next few days.

“Terug na die ou Transvaal.”

I do not want to gloat. I have lived through this. I have felt the knife and I would not like to hurt anyone. If I do touch a raw nerve here and there, like a dentist with his drill, it will be because I slipped, because I do not really mean to touch raw nerves!

Start slipping, Vause.

I want to use the words of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central and give another example of “Raw quoting Raw”, because in the notes I prepared this morning for the debate I used the words—

And, indeed, it is an historic occasion. It is a break-through, which I believe has momentous consequences for South Africa and its future. I am delighted that it has happened. I have always believed that the political composition of the Government party was artificial, as it is to a large extent in the official Opposition as well. I always believed that it was artificial and that it would have to come to an end. I also always believed that that break would be on a constitutional issue. That is how it has come about. I am sorry the hon. member for Innesdal is not in the House at the moment.

No, here he is.

Oh, he is here. I believe the hon. member for Innesdal felt the occasion. He felt too that this was a momentous occasion in the history of this country. I felt for him, and I appreciated the sincerity of his approach. I want to give some advice, however, to the hon. member for Innesdal, and to all hon. members on the Government side. This was something that had to happen. I have been through all this. I have lived through this three times. Therefore I know what it is about. I know how much it hurts. My advice to the hon. member for Innesdal and his hon. colleagues, is: Do not ask them to come back. Do not invite them back, because when one has an artificial alignment of irreconcilable elements there is no way in which one can bring about a cohesive, vibrant and strong party, able to do what it has to do as a party, whether in opposition or in government, because nothing paralyzes a political party more than irreconcilable elements held together for the sole purpose of an artificial unity, unity for the sake of unity and unity which does not have the foundation of a common ideal, a common cause and a common philosophy.

So, to the NP I say: Let them go. Do not try to bring them back because to bring them back will be to paralyze the Government and the NP again.

We will wait to see what happens in the weeks and the months that lie ahead. We will wait to see how deep the cleansing processes have gone, to what extent it is a real cleansing, a real creation of a cohesive government knowing where it wants to go and with the courage to go there, with the courage to risk and to gamble, the courage to do what is necessary for South Africa. I hope that that process which has started today will be a real process of launching South Africa into a new era. Today is more than just the end of a chapter. Whilst it closes one chapter, it also opens the book and begins a new chapter. It is how that new chapter starts which will determine for South Africa much of the shape of the destiny which lies ahead of us. We will watch to see what form, what direction and what content that new beginning takes. The NRP has gone through hell and high water since its inception just over four years ago. We have suffered much because we believe that the political grouping in South Africa is artificial and unreal. We believed it was our duty and responsibility to try to hold together the moderates in South African politics, to try to preserve and to keep as a viable political entity those who reject extremism—both to the right and to the left—those who form the centre, the moderate base in the South African political scene. Even though we have suffered we have succeeded in holding that centre together because we saw it as a possible catalyst for the sort of thing that has happened today. We saw the NRP as a catalyst for the coming together of those South Africans across all party lines who see a new future for South Africa, a future with new hope, following a new road—with new idealism born of confidence and faith in a party with the cohesion and dedication to make this possible.

The test, however, will depend on that party. It will depend on whether his is merely the removal of an ulcer or whether it cures the illness and is the start of a full recovery—a healthy new approach. If this has been merely an excision of personalities it will not solve anything. It is not sufficient just to remove or excise a sore; one has to ensure that the body from which it has been removed is clean and strong and not still diseased. The disease that has to be cured in regard to what happened today is an obsession with old-style apartheid, an obsession with policies and philosophies which history has passed by. The cure is the acceptance of new philosophies, new ideas and new thinking to which many people in the NP are already committed. However, they will be frustrated if, with the cutting off of the right wing, there is not at the same time the birth of a new dedication to what must be done on the road ahead. We in the NRP will try to play our part in influencing the course South Africa must now take.

*Over the past few weeks we have often heard the words which led to today’s event. I am referring to words such as “self-determination”, “the division of power” and “power sharing”. These are the key words in today’s politics. I welcome this event wholeheartedly, as well as the frank statement that the Government is now committed to a form of power-sharing. I just want to say in passing how interesting it was to see how flexible the rules of the SABC were in regard to the broadcasting of party-political statements. However, at this stage I do not wish to make any further comments on that issue!

Today is indeed an historic day. We now have the acceptance of a concept which is totally new to the NP, a fundamental departure from their philosophy through the acceptance of, call it what you like—consultation or co-responsibility—in the final analysis it can only mean power-sharing. This is something totally alien to the thinking of the old NP, but it is fundamental to the building of a new road and a new future.

The hon. the Prime Minister said that the concept of self-determination was a relative one. As far as the NRP is concerned, I want to say that we regard self-determination at its lowest level—where people live—as being non-negotiable. We regard the right to control and determine the character of one’s own community, one’s own residential area and one’s own facilities, as one’s right of self-determination. In that sense we see the right of self-determination as absolute and not relative. That, then, is self-determination with regard to the intimate affairs of a community. I also agree with the hon. the Prime Minister that the concept of “self-determination” with regard to a communal affairs and services becomes relative. That is where it is linked with a joint say and co-responsibility—participation, therefore, in the process of decision-making. So, as I say, in practice it is a form of power-sharing.

I am grateful that the hon. the Prime Minister had the courage to stand firm when he was confronted and that he did not back down and reach a weak compromise which would have brought the whole process of reform to a standstill once again. Now we can start a new debate. Now there are new possibilities both for debating and for South Africa’s road to the future.

†I want to set out very clearly the bottom line of NRP philosophy. It is clear and it is specific. The bottom line of NRP philosophy is the establishment of community political power bases with a plural structure to provide protection against the domination of any group by any other group or groups. Secondly, it is community control over intimate affairs with local option—the right of a community where it lives to take the decisions on the character of its neighbourhood, the composition of its community and the administration of its community affairs. Thirdly the bottom line of the NRP is joint decision-making on matters affecting all communities. On intimate affairs, there must be “selfbeskikking”, i.e. community control.

Schools too?

Yes, including schools. On schools there must be “selfbeskikking”. The right of the community to decide affects schools, amenities and the character of the community where one lives.

On common interests, however, decision-making affects all communities and all communities must therefore have a part in it.

The fourth point is that there must be negotiation amongst all groups to achieve an agreed settlement on the detail based on these cornerstones. This is the bottom line, and then one negotiates from this bottom line. The bottom line comprises the non-negotiable.

Above the bottom line, on the detail, on the method, on constitutional mechanisms we can debate. We can debate and we can negotiate and we can compromise. The NRP is prepared to debate. It is prepared to negotiate. It is prepared to make compromises with other groups, with other parties …

Really?

… but within the framework and parameters of the basic philosophy of this party. This is the other bottom line: Any talk, any compromise must be within the parameters of the philosophy of our party.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has just said that he would be prepared to compromise and to negotiate with other groups and parties. Would he also compromise and negotiate with the PFP?

Within the parameters of our policy we would be prepared to talk to anyone. We believe that there are still fundamental differences at this stage between ourselves and the NP, fundamental differences which this event today has not changed. We differ on many things and equally we differ fundamentally from the official Opposition. We have negotiated as the government in Natal with the Coloured and Indian people starting from widely divergent attitudes and we have reached agreement on local government which was accepted by both the Indian and Coloured communities. When I say “negotiate and compromise” I am talking about the spirit in which one approaches politics, the spirit in which the final picture in South Africa will be painted. It must be done through negotiation and in negotiation there must be give and take. However, there are some things that one does not negotiate. Those are the bottom line which I have set out in the debate.

When are you going to start to negotiate?

We have been negotiating ever since this party was established with anyone who was prepared to talk. We have also negotiated with the PFP, officially and unofficially, and found that it was not prepared in any way to compromise on its insistence on a non-ethnic common voters’ roll. The PFP was not prepared to compromise in any way on its denials of the right of a community to determine and have its own exclusive residential areas, and it was not prepared to compromise in any way on its philosophy of an integrated South Africa. The PFP was in favour of a voters’ roll on which everybody had political rights without any group identification, without any political power in the hands of a group. Those negotiations came to nought.

I do not want to waste time and I will not be diverted. The leader of the PFP will probably go down in history as the shortest serving leader of the official Opposition South Africa has ever had.

I have deliberately omitted in our bottom line the situation of the non-homeland Blacks, because that too forms part of the basic philosophy of this party. They must be accommodated within the South African political and socio-economic structure. I have omitted that because I do not want to side-track the debate. I do not want to block the chance of even limited progress by offering a debating “escape route” and so prevent other progress in the constitutional field. However, I want to make it absolutely clear that this is still an essential part of NRP policy. It is essential to the totality of the final solution and we will return to this issue in other debates.

For the record, since only the hon. the Minister of Finance is present, I will address myself to him. The hon. the Prime Minister, when he used the term which has led to the crisis in the Government today, talked of White-Coloured relationships. He dealt with joint decision-making in the context of White and Coloured. He did not mention the Indian community. I want to get it absolutely clear and unequivocal that what is contemplated in White-Coloured relations applies equally to White-Indian relations. The Indian population is part of those who do not have a separate homeland and therefore cannot have a separate Parliament. I hope the hon. the Minister of Finance will give us an answer, even by interjection.

I will deal with that issue presently.

The hon. the Minister will deal with it. I want to make it absolutely clear that it would be politically immoral to do a separate deal with the Coloured people which did not apply to the Indian people in exactly the same way. We in these benches want no part in something that is morally dishonest.

I have said often in debate this and last year that 1982 will be a crucial year for South Africa. It was interesting to hear in recent weeks the cry from the heart of senior Nationalist editors calling on the Government to stop fiddling and to get on with things.

Today we have had an indication of a willingness to get on with it. There was another very significant cry from the heart this week from the other side of the fence, a cry from the heart of a PFP-supporting newspaper, a proponent of “effective opposition” which this week in two leading articles called for a new Tielman Roos to appear. I am referring now to The Star. It calls for a Tielman Roos to show the way, to break the logjam. But being a realist the editor realizes that there is no such man on the horizon. There is no “miracle man” waiting to suddenly appear and break the logjam. So he has looked for other alternatives. I want to quote from this leading article in The Star because the editor has echoed the call this party has made ever since our formation. I quote—

And still looking for an alternative, other than a person, he says the following—

This is what this party has been saying since our inception—that there is a vast reservoir of moderates and the catalyst must be a cross-pollination across party lines. It must be based on pluralism, the group concept to which the editor refers in that leading artice. The traditional Nat/official Opposition confrontation is futile. I have said so dozens of times in this House that the confrontation, the talking past each other, the concept of blind opposition to Government by official Opposition, is a futile exercise which offers no joy and no future for South Africa. The only answer is this regrouping of moderates to which I have referred, viz. by cross-pollination plus the group principle.

There is a corollary to this and that is the bridging of White fears and Black aspirations. I believe that can only be achieved in a plural accommodation in which domination becomes effectively excluded, becomes impossible. Only after White fears that clutch at the old ways of discrimination like a security blanket are no longer a factor, will there be a real will and desire to remove discrimination. This is a very significant change, a shift of attitude in a major organ of the English press, viz. the acceptance that the traditional confrontation is futile and that the only answer is what I have quoted. The corollary, this bridging of White fears and Black aspirations, can only be accommodated in a plural system in which domination becomes effectively excluded. With that acceptance on the one side, with the hon. the Prime Minister having sounded the death knell of baasskap, apartheid, White domination and exclusive power, there is a new ball game. The hon. the Prime Minister has mounted a new horse and now he must make that horse run.

Where we are now at the end of 30 years in the apartheid wilderness, it can be the dawn of a new process of reconciliation. We have a long way to go yet, however. There are still fundamental differences, but even if it means only the end of the erratic, directionless handling of government to which our amendment in this debate refers, it will be a major step forward for South Africa. The weeks that lie ahead will be a time for cool heads, a time for considered and careful thought and a time for balanced decision-making. I appeal to those within the NP who have the interests of South Africa at heart to think deeply about the responsibility that rests upon each individual in that party to commit himself to a new road and new hope for South Africa. If there is one thing that South Africa cannot afford, it is that this event today should turn out to be another non-event, another internal shuffle, because that would be a blow to the hopes and expectations of the vast majority in this country which we cannot afford to disappoint. We cannot afford to find that, in fact, this is not the fundamental event that we believe it is. My appeal to people like the hon. the Minister of Finance, who I know is a conservative, is to shake off a little of his conservatism and to persuade those with him, for example the hon. member for Klip River who is just leaving, that the time has come for us really to get this horse that the hon. the Prime Minister has mounted, moving to create the new vision for which this party was established.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House with a very heavy heart this afternoon. I must honestly admit that one does not feel like participating in a debate under these circumstances, and to tell the truth, I asked my Whip whether I could not rather forfeit my turn to speak. However, this could not be done.

One is filled with many feelings on the occasion of an event like this, and to me it conjures up an image from the Bible. My personal impulse—and I am sure many of the hon. members on this side of the House share this feeling—is to seek seclusion, rend my clothing and lament the tragedy that has struck the NP today. Nor is it very pleasant when the Opposition—and one can probably not hold it against them—very piously expresses their sympathy with us, as the hon. member for Sea Point and the hon. member for Durban Point have done. However, we do not need their sympathy. Their reaction was a predictable one, but in actual fact they do not feel any sympathy, but are rejoicing because this has happened.

I did not express sympathy.

I shall come to the hon. member for Durban Point in a moment because he said other things too. He showed his true colours and those of his fellow party members when he said that he was pleased that this had happened and that he and his party would wait to see how deep the split in the NP truly is. This is what it is all about as far as these friends of ours are concerned. They are watching us like hawks now to see how deep the split is going to be. The hon. member for Durban Point said other things too. I want to put the question: In the speech that he has just delivered, did we hear a sound of rapprochement? Did we detect in him a sign of new courage for himself and for his party?

Are you going to accept him?

That hon. member is a very obtrusive suitor, but in many respects he is also a timid suitor.

It was not rapprochement. It was good advice.

The NP has a major task to carry out for South Africa, and the NP will execute its task with responsibility, and will use its tried principles as guidelines for the future. That is why we do not need the advice of the hon. member for Sea Point or the hon. member for Durban Point to tell us how we should deal with our own affairs.

That is a very arrogant attitude.

However, I want to sound a new note by dealing with a theme that I feel is extremely important. I am referring to the socio-economic problems of smaller rural communities. However, what I am going to say is nothing new. It has already been said often in the past, but I consider it so important that I feel it should be repeated and should be given attention on an on-going basis. I know that the hon. the Minister of Finance is a very willing listener because I know that, further to representations from my constituency, he set the wheels in motion which have already resulted in admirable results.

Over the past 20 or 30 years South Africa has developed in every possible sphere. This is an achievement of which the National Party Government is entitled to be proud. All South Africans, no matter what their race or colour, have shared in this development and have benefited by it. Everyone’s standard of living has increased, everyone’s personal income has increased and the general quality of life for all South Africans has improved to such an extent that foreigners envy us. Although everyone shared in this general prosperity, there was nevertheless one group that remained behind in the process of development, and their problems are on the increase. I am referring to the inhabitants of the smaller rural towns throughout our country. I have a few such small towns in my constituency too. They have become caught up in a cycle of cause and effect that has removed them even further from the centres where things are happening. The inhabitants of those towns feel that in many respects things are passing them by, and that this is happening to an increasing extent.

If we look at the origin of these small rural towns, we see that the vast majority of them originated around a church. Within a short space of time the town dwellers and the farmers of the area needed a general store and a general dealer, a mill where they could have their wheat ground, a blacksmith where they could have their ploughshares repaired and a market where they could sell their produce. The Government too made its contribution here, because magistrates courts were opened, police stations were erected, post offices were built and local authorities arose. However, as we know, the industrial revolution rapidly changed everything. The migration to the cities had begun and depopulation of the rural areas began. White urbanization was chiefly responsible for this, and the process is still under way. This had extremely detrimental consequences, for our smaller towns in particular. Economies activities gradually deteriorated, and as the population of the town and the district decreased, and buying power therefore decreased as well, shopkeepers had to close their shops and move away in order to make a living elsewhere. The advent of chain stores and tarred roads complicated matters even further for the small businessman. He was either forced out of his own business if a chain store opened in his own town, or he had to ensure that his previous clients did not travel to a larger neighbouring town in order to do their shopping there. The family grocer has disappeared completely in the rural areas.

I want to give an example from my own constituency. In years gone by, there was a flourishing business community in the historical town of Wakkerstroom, but today there is not a single White general dealer left in that town who sells groceries. Unfortunately it is a fact that we are living in the era of economies of scale. Smaller turnovers result in increased price structures. The hon. member for Wellington said here yesterday that the farmer is taking all the knocks. This is just as true of the town dweller, the inhabitant of a small rural town. His cost of living with regard to consumer articles is considerably higher than that of his cousin in the city because the transport costs are added to the price of his packet of sugar and his tin of coffee. One of these days this House is going to make the final decision to increase sales tax by 1%. The country dweller is taking another knock here, because the extra 1% is also added to the transport costs of every article that he purchases, a percentage increase that the city dweller escapes to a large extent.

The depopulation problem increases if one looks at Government services in the smaller towns. The number of pupils in our schools is dropping and this means that the teachers will move away and at the worst the school will close, as recently happened in the constituency of the hon. the Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism. Beautiful buildings that cost a great deal of money, are standing unused whilst parents have to drive their children to school in a neighbouring town at a tremendous cost or put them in boarding schools. Since there is no longer enough work in all the Government offices, the staff is being decreased. This happens at post-offices, at police stations, at magistrate’s courts and at other Government offices. Many postal agencies have closed over the past 10 years in my constituency because the postal authorities has said that it does not pay them to keep the agencies going. Other post offices are being degraded and open in the mornings only or on certain days of the week. The Railways intends cancelling the road transport service from Ermelo to Amsterdam on the Swaziland border because it is operating at a loss. Not only does this mean that the town of Amsterdam and its environs will be cut off from the transport network of the country, but also that certain residents of Amsterdam are going to lose their jobs.

One could mention many other examples. The small town dweller is also deprived of the facilities that are considered necessary for the quality of life of any community. Let me give an example. Everyone would like to watch television and have it in their homes. In order to obtain television, the community of Pongola in my constituency, had to take a loan, fortunately with the aid of the SABC, in order to erect supplementary stations from the closest television receiver to Pongola. In order to recover the capital and interest on that loan and to cover the maintenance of those transposer stations, each family in that town and community has to pay an additional R7 per month simply to enjoy that one facility.

The local authorities of these small towns are also struggling to keep their heads above water, even when it comes to the maintenance of the essential services for the residents, services such as water and electricity supply, refuse removal, etc. Here too economies of scale come into the picture. I want to quote Pongola as an example once again. This town needs new water purification works and a reticulation system. However, to make some provision for a degree of capacity saving in the future, the cost of the proposed scheme would have been so high that it would have cost each consumer R160 per month for water alone. Consequently the scheme had to be reduced in size. However, if the possible development should in fact take place, that local authority would be in trouble. The restricting factor for these small municipalities and small towns is the ability of their inhabitants to pay taxes and levies. Usually they are older people and pensioners, who are not in a position to pay high levies in order to maintain their properties. Statisticians predict that the process of urbanization is going to gain further momentum, and I therefore want to address a plea to the hon. the Minister today for special attention to be given to the maintenance of our small towns. It is indeed in the interest of the country that those smaller communities be not only maintained, but increased too, particularly in the border areas. Most of the small towns in my constituency already lie in the border areas. It is essential for the population to be increased in those areas so that economically viable communities can remain settled there.

Now, however, I want to concede at once that the provincial and Government authorities are doing a great deal in order to achieve this. I should like to mention a few examples of this. Last year the taxability of the State with regard to its own properties in such towns came into effect. This helps such local authorities considerably in balancing their budgets. Our municipalities also receive grants from the Department of National Education for establishing and improving recreation facilities for its inhabitants. I have also referred to the SABC, that made loan capital available at very fair interest rates in order to provide a television service to these isolated areas. Nevertheless I want to call upon the Government bodies to look at the problems of the small town dweller with greater understanding. If one wants to keep those people in the rural areas, the purely economic considerations must sometimes be superseded by other considerations.

For instance, when a decision has to be made to degrade a post office or to close it completely or to withdraw a school bus service, the important consideration in my mind should not be that the Government is no longer paying to maintain that service, but the question should rather be what the consequences would be for the community in question, should that service be removed. As far as I am concerned, such services should even be maintained by the authority in question at a financial loss.

If we are not prepared to give special attention to these rural communities, they are in danger of becoming ghost towns, which is something that every Government that has a responsible attitude towards its citizens, should avoid.

Mr. Speaker, on the Opposition side—and this applies to both the NRP and the PFP—this debate has over the past few days developed into a display in which the emphasis has fallen more on the players than on the theme and the actual policy we are seeking for. It reminds me of the story of the man who went to the library one fine day …

Sporie, where do you stand now?

… to the library to find a play. He took out a very bulky book. What he did not realize, however, was that it was the telephone directory. He took it home, but of course he could not make head or tail of that telephone directory, After studying the book all night long—being as simple-minded as the hon. members of the Opposition are today—he remarked modestly: “Not much of a plot, but what a cast!”

Sporie, tell us where you stand now.

What a cast are hon. members of the Opposition today? [Interjections.]

*Just look at them sitting there. The hon. member for Hillbrow ought to realize what a fix his party is in. What kind of a cast are they? They are more interested in the play itself than in the theme or anything else. [Interjections.]

Just tell us where you stand now, Sporie.

The hon. member for Hillbrow must not try to put further questions to me now. He is wrong again. There is a better way of doing things, and he ought to know what I mean. He would do well to go and consult the yellow pages in the telephone directory. [Interjections.]

Just tell us who you vote for now. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Hillbrow is speaking to me now. I am pleased about that because I want to speak to him too. The hon. member and I fought in the City Council of Johannesburg for a long time. We fought one another in gentlemanly fashion for 15 years, as we are doing today. [Interjections.] I am going to fight “clean” now. The hon. member for Hillbrow began by interpreting his role in a very soft voice, but yesterday he raised his voice and began gesticulating, thereby displaying his anxiety. The reason, of course, is the municipal election in Johannesburg on Wednesday, 3 March.

Why is that party so anxious? It is because the hon. member for Hillbrow and his colleagues in the party are fighting for their lives in the City Council of Johannesburg. In all the years that they were in power there— and it was a period of many years—they were the forefathers of the old Labour Party. They succeeded the old Labour Party. I know that those hon. members followed in their footsteps. After that it was the old United Party. At that time they enjoyed the fleshpots of Egypt together and did not look after the interests of Soweto.

Who looked after the interests of Soweto? [Interjections.] It was this hon. Minister of Co-operation and Development. It was the NP that saw to it that Soweto came into its own. Why do those hon. members take that amiss of us now? Those hon. members take it amiss of us because the Blacks are now seeking recreational facilities. But those hon. members did not look after them. When money was still in plentiful supply, when they could still have installed electricity, when they could have built dwellings, that city council of Johannesburg did nothing. We fought them tooth and nail. Today the non-Whites and the Blacks come to seek relaxation in the parks of the Whites. They also need such places.

May I ask a question?

No, Sir, I have very little time. I have a very long speech to make and I want to hammer them today. [Interjections.] Now they are charging the NP with having hopelessly and shamefully neglected our duties. Is it not the NP that can boast a budget of R554 million in Johannesburg today? [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, that hon. member can rave as much as he likes, but today I am going to put him in his place. This is not the city council of Johannesburg. We are here in Parliament in Cape Town.

Did the NP not advance R3 million for the rugby stadium at Ellis Park? Was it not the NP that did that? Was it not the NP that negotiated with the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation—this department now falls under the hon. the Minister of National Education—for an international sports stadium to be built to the south of Johannesburg?

If my figures are correct, an amount of R13 million was to be made available for that purpose. Was it not the NP that made a new and modern complex available for the Witwatersrand agricultural show by developing 200 ha for that purpose? Was it not the NP that said the old showgrounds should disappear and that the Witwatersrand University should be given the opportunity to expand?

The PFP is trying to frustrate every plan to achieve progress, that is not to speak of the President’s Council. Those hon. members are not even decently progressive. They are a party of boycotters. They boycott the traffic jam in Empire Road, Johannesburg. [Interjections.] Wait now, do not get so serious. They boycott the expansion of the Witwatersrand Agricultural Show. They boycott the expansion plans of the Witwatersrand University. They boycott the international sports stadium that we want to have built for the Blacks. They boycott the wishes of the people in south …

And you boycott your Prime Minister.

… the wishes of the people who do not have those privileges which the people in the north enjoy. Those hon. members are in favour of making the Rand Pavilion available for professional soccer matches again.

I have before me the Rand Daily Mail. After all, this is the newspaper of those hon. members over there, the Progs’ newspaper It is the newspaper they read every day; they do not read anything else. What does the Rand Daily Mail of Tuesday, 29 December 1981 have to say? However, what is stated in this newspaper is not included in the manifestos which the PFP is at present distributing in Johannesburg. I quote—

What is of importance is the following—

I am a representative of that region. I am the MP for Rosettenville, a seat which neither the PFP nor the NRP is able to conquer. That is why I am fighting, and I am still here today and I shall fight, stand and fall for the people for Rosettenville. In 1979 that stadium was closed to professional soccer. Why was it closed to professional soccer at that time? Because the people of that area complained and the police there had to take actions against riotous soccer crowds. What publicity did we have, locally and overseas, when the police had to step in there with tear smoke, batons and police dogs? How many rands did the damage to the gardens, buildings and vehicles of inhabitants amount to?

I say that the PFP does not have the interests of the inhabitants of Johannesburg at heart. The Rand Stadium, with its 50 000 seats, is too small for professional matches, and thousands of spectators were unable to gain access there. Moreover, there are no public transport services from and to Soweto to convey these people. When the Black people have to walk to the Rand Stadium and find that they are unable to gain access, they become frustrated.

Why are the hon. members of the PFP opposed to an international stadium being built on the Rand? Why can they not go to the Orlando soccer stadium, where the needs of the Black people can ultimately be met?

The resumption of professional matches in the stadium—I say this here and now—will lead to unrest and violence in the south of Johannesburg. I say this on behalf of the inhabitants of Rosettenville: We shall not permit it. It is strange, as I say, that in its manifesto the PFP makes no mention of the plans to reopen the Rand stadium. However, the voters will flock to make their crosses next to the names of the NP candidates because, despite what the hon. members may say, the NP is the only party. The hon. members can fight and complain and kick up a fuss as much as they like—it is only the NP as it stands today that will ultimately be able to save the nation.

How is the NP today?

The hon. member for Parktown does not know what is going on. For him there is a better way: Consult the yellow pages of the telephone directory.

I want to say what the NP in Johannesburg has done. Passengers older than 70 years travel free by bus. This is something that was never done in the time of the hon. member for Hillbrow. We as the Opposition had to fight on behalf of those elderly people for 15 years. Ultimately it was the NP that came forward with the new strategy and launched a five-year plan with regard to transport services. As far as road-building is concerned, the NP has maintained an unequalled rate of growth. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Finance is in the House at the moment, and I say for his edification that we still need at least R100 million to complete those parts of our roadbuilding system which are still at the planning stage.

I know that these are facilities provided by Johannesburg. I drove the members of the Johannesburg city council from their holes because they did not want to declare Melville Koppies a nature reserve. They did not want to give us a nature reserve in this region because it would have been too simple. Today, however, it is a national monument. Johannesburg is one of the cheapest cities in the world. Under Nationalist rule the Johannesburg city council has granted rates rebates of 25% for houses and 18% for flats. The rebate for houseowners was eventually increased to 40%. However, the city council was still dissatisfied and requested the Administrator to increase the rebate to 60%, and this was granted.

In addition the city council of Johannesburg absorbed a deficit of R8 million on housing.

Housing for Whites has increased by 12,5% and flats for the elderly have increased from 328 to 700. At present there are 5 528 house units for Whites and 12 610 for Brown people.

The NP appointed experts to its management committee. The NP stated that it wished to draw from the knowledge and experience of men like Mr. J. F. Oberholzer, Mr. Eddie Magget and Col. Danie Opperman. They are experts in the field of local management. The most important result was that co-operation was the greatest stumbling block of the PFP, and this is still the case today. It is so because we do not want to accept the integratiom policy of the PFP. After all, that is the policy of the PFP.

I should be untrue to myself today if I omitted to say that our people in the south of Johannesburg will not share swimming baths, community centres, health clinics, municipal tennis courts and bowling greens with other groups. If the PFP states that all these facilities should be opened to all population groups then I say on behalf of the inhabitants of Rosettenville: “No. That will not happen.”

I now wish to turn to the members of the NRP, for whom I have great respect. I want to gain clarity—because the NRP referred to us, too—as to where the NRP stands in the Johannesburg municipal election. The NRP must tell me today whether what NRP members of the Johannesburg City council are saying, is true, viz. that if they are elected, then in a checkmate situation they will throw their weight behind the PFP.

Is the NRP going to allow the PFP to govern Johannesburg? An experienced leader like Mr. Oberholzer has been kicked out, and now they want to divide votes so that the PFP can prevail. The NRP, too, is sailing under false colours.

Do hon. members know what I encountered in Rosettenville last week? It is the task of the NRP to call their canvassers to order. At one house a lady told me—

I said to her that I was the first canvasser to visit her. She told me—

It was one of the representatives of the NRP. She tore up one of the election pamphlets of the party before my eyes. I am going to pick her up an hour before the other candidate. I repeat that the NRP must call its people in Johannesburg to order. It is not our language to speak about a “Natal stand” and about a Natal plan of alliance. This plan apparently makes provision for a multiracial administration for Natal.

This is not the language we understand. Councillor Gerrie de Jong, who was formerly a Natal member of Parliament, put forward certain solutions, but those Natal solutions have never done anyone any good. There is something I just want to say to those hon. members! They may consider many things, but they will never break the integrity and the loyalty of the NP. They can make as big a fuss as they like, they can think what they like, but they will never achieve that. I just want to quote to the PFP a verse which appeared in Dawie’s column in Die Burger of 8 June 1946. This was two years before the NP came to power. It read as follows—

• Die pot is leeg,
• Die spens is kaal,
• Daar is niks te knie en niks te maal,
• Elke huis het wel sy kruis,
• Maar ons sit nog met Struis inkluis.

And the NRP is still saddled with its leader, the hon. member for Durban Point.

Those hon. members have consistently attacked the hon. the Minister of Finance, but at this time I think it is their task to support the hon. the Minister in the difficult struggle he is waging due to the fluctuating gold price, the strengthening of the dollar and all his problems. Those hon. members ought to support and defend the increase in the general sales tax to 5%. [Interjections.] Oh, really, those hon. members are sitting there laughing now. We were in New York last year and what was the sales tax there? The hon. member for Amanzimtoti is also sitting there laughing now, but he knows it was 8%. He knows that in other countries like Sweden, for example, it is 16%.

Only the other day I was speaking to Mr. Maurice Tyack, author of the book South Africa: Land of Challenge. He asked me whether I knew that prices in South Africa were three times lower than in any European country. He told me that in a two-star hotel in Geneva he had to pay R70 per day without a continental breakfast. South Africa is the cheapest country in the world and those hon. members ought to praise the hon. the Minister of Finance and the NP.

I now wish to turn once again to the PFP. They are again engaged in very strange activities. A long time ago Joel Mervis expressed an opinion on the PFP plan. This is a ghost voice from the past. On 17 January 1979 he wrote an article in the Sunday Times entitled “Plain man’s guide to the PFP plan”—

He says the following—it is important, because it has not yet been repudiated—

Then he makes this very significant statement—

I say to those hon. members: The NP will not take part in such a convention. If the NP does not take part in it, then in the words of Joel Mervis such a convention would be a waste of time.

He then mentions the following important fact—

He then also mentions that there will be rights of veto and he states—

He then says—

In conclusion I just wish to say that their policy will not work. However they flirt with the NP, it will not work. We on this side are Nationalists, we shall remain Nationalists, we shall prove our integrity and ultimately we shall prove our loyalty. Hon. members can be sure of that.

Mr. Speaker, we are living in interesting times and it is always interesting to listen to the hon. member for Rosettenville. He was telling us—I am not quite sure of the context—about a canvasser who was possibly a prophet. This canvasser was going around some time back telling voters that the old NP was dead. Perhaps that canvasser was a prophet. It was also interesting to hear the change in tone between what we listened to yesterday and today. The hon. member for Rosettenville is always a courteous and friendly speaker. Nevertheless it was interesting to see that as opposed to the “Swart gevaar” racialistic type of speech made yesterday by the hon. member for Turffontein, the hon. member for Rosettenville was far more restrained today. Is it perhaps because hon. members on that side of the House have realized that if they are going to do battle against the HNP and their allies, then the propaganda that they attempt to make against the PFP also assists the HNP because it paves the way for them?

What was also interesting was that the hon. member for Rosettenville also made a belated attempt to try to prevent the NP from doing badly and losing the Johannesburg municipal elections. In fact he devoted the majority of his speech to that subject. Unfortunately I disagree with him. I agree with the hon. the Prime Minister that there is no hope of the NP winning the Johannesburg municipal elections. That is already a lost cause. It is not worth staking one’s reputation on that. It is interesting to note, however, that the hon. member for Rosettenville does not agree with the hon. the Prime Minister on that issue. I should like to ask him whether he agrees with the hon. the Prime Minister on the issue of power-sharing. The hon. member is conveniently silent on that. However, it is interesting to note that he is disagreeing on one issue already. Perhaps he disagrees on the other as well.

I want now to refer to the events of today in the NP. I have no particular private information on the subject but what happened there was inevitable. It was inevitable, among other things, because the apartheid policies of the Government have collapsed. If one looks back to 1948 and considers the objectives that the NP had in various spheres when it came into power, one can see what has happened.

One can look at the question of the geographic separation of races, the separation of Black and White in South Africa and the subsequent Bantustan policy as it was formalized. Here was also the theory that by 1978 the flow of Black people to the so-called White areas would reverse and they would start going back to the homelands. In fact that belief was held so strongly even in the late ’60s and early ’70s that one Cabinet Minister said that if by 1978 it did not happen he would eat his hat. Unfortunately that hon. gentleman is no longer with us so there was never occasion for him to do so. However, in regard to that policy the exact contrary has happened. The number of Blacks in the so-called White areas has increased sharply and the percentage of Black people who live in the so-called White areas has also increased.

That is not true.

So that part has been a complete and utter failure. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Community Development says that that is not true. Is he suggesting to us that the percentage of Black people who live in the so-called White areas outside of what were the reserves or the Bantustans has dropped since 1948?

Yes, it has decreased, remarkably so.

Well, perhaps that can happen if one changes the boundaries. If one calls Soweto a homeland one will achieve even more.

The second issue is the one of social separation. That was one of the policies that the NP was going to implement. Today, however, we have more mixed and multiracial sport than we have ever had. We have more multiracial hotels and multiracial restaurants than we have ever had in South Africa as a whole. We have multiracial schools which, generally speaking, we did not have in those days. That policy has therefore been a complete and utter failure.

Probably most important of all was the policy to have separation in the work place; in other words, job reservation and everything that was related to that. Quicker and more thoroughly than any one of the other policies, the policy of job reservation has collapsed. Black trade unions have been legalized, and the economy of South Africa is more racially mixed than ever before. Of course, a major object that the Government was going to achieve was that of residential separation. We concede that that is an area where their policy has in fact been implemented and where they have, in their terms, brought about greater residential separation than existed before, but at enormous cost to this country—financial cost, the cost of human misery and at the cost of racial goodwill.

Apartheid has always been unrealistic and unworkable. It does not matter who tries to implement it; it cannot be made to work. It is not the fault of the present Prime Minister, nor that of any of his predecessors. The fact is that apartheid cannot work because it is unrealistic.

In the face of this collapse, the Nationalists had no alternative policy to substitute for their apartheid policy. This was recognized in the early seventies by the Prime Minister of that time, Mr. Vorster, in connection with the Coloureds, who were always accepted as being permanent in so-called White South Africa. At that time Mr. Vorster said that he did not have a solution to that problem; he would have to leave it to the next generation. It may be that the next generation was the next generation of leaders of the NP, and the present Prime Minister is saddled with the task of trying to sort out that problem that has been left to him.

In 1977 the NP came out with an elaborate constitutional plan. They fought a general election to get it approved, but they realized that it could not possibly work because, among other reasons, it was unacceptable to the Coloured and Indian people who were supposed to be part of it. That plan has therefore been put on ice. It has been shelved for at least the time being, and we have had a policy vacuum in respect of our constitutional development for some five years. 1978, the year in which the flood of Black people to the cities was going to go in reverse, has come and gone, and that policy has been discredited as well.

In the early sixties, philosophers with NP ideological approaches pointed out quite clearly that it is impossible to have economic integration and indefinite political segregation in a country. They pointed out that if we were to have economic integration we would end up with political integration. The NP has attempted to avoid that reality, although it has been accepted by virtually everybody else.

Every now and then one had a glimmer of light shining through. Arising from the collapse of their apartheid policies, the hon. the Prime Minister in 1979, in a moment of farsightedness, said that apartheid is a recipe for permanent conflict. Many of us could have told him that years and years ago, but he recognized it only then. Unfortunately, the necessary action to remedy the situation has not been taken.

It has taken a long time for the inevitable split in the NP to come about, but what is disappointing is that it has come about at a time when the NP has only started to nibble, just nibble, at the real problems of South Africa. They are not even at the heart of the matter, but are still on the fringes, just nibbling, and that has been enough to split them.

The questions that are going to be asked about the split that has taken place are these: Is the split merely over the brand of make-up that is being used in an attempt to beautify the cosmetic changes to the apartheid structures of South Africa?

Is the split over conflicting personalities, or is it over principles? In other words, is the split over real issues? I should like to mention two issues that I consider to be critical.

The first is the question of whether the Black man in South Africa is a citizen of South Africa or not. The PFP’s answer to that question is quite clear, because we do consider the Black man to be a citizen of South Africa. Many NP members, however, some perhaps on their way out and many who are still there now, do not accept that reality. They will not start solving South Africa’s problems until they abandon the fiction that 75% of the population of South Africa are to be foreigners. That fiction will prevent them from even starting to solve our problems.

The second issue is whether the Whites can expect to continue unilaterally to make all the important decisions in South Africa. Whites in South Africa need to face up to a simple fact. We share a common geographic area and a common economy. It is therefore absolutely inevitable for us to end up sharing common political structures.

The real question that we need to be asking today is how we will get to that point, by violence and revolution or by peaceful evolution? We in the PFP believe in real power-sharing. We stand unequivocally for full citizenship for all. We reject racial discrimination, the domination of one group by another and violence as means of resolving our problems. We reject those things and stand for full citizenship. This party is committed to bringing about real and peaceful change. We will support anything that assists in that process, but we will not be co-opted into supporting sham reform, pseudo power-sharing or consultation posing as negotiation.

In the last few minutes available to me I should like to say a few things about some of the economic realities of South Africa, because this Government has unfortunately also succeeded in turning a blind eye to some of those realities. I am referring, in particular, to the Government’s disastrous performance in combating inflation in this country. This has been illustrated in various ways by a number of hon. members on this side of the House during the course of this debate.

Let us just look at five of the features. First of all there is the inability, and in certain cases the unwillingness, on the part of the Government to control the money supply. This has been a major cause of inflation in this country. Secondly, the neglect, over a period of 30 or more years, of education and training has resulted in one boom after another in this country coming to a premature end because of a lack of skilled manpower. Steps have been taken, in recent years, to move towards improving this position, but one cannot make up for 34 years of neglect in a year or two.

Then there is also the question of administered prices. One only has to look at the recent Post Office price hikes, the hikes in electricity rates and bread price increases. The Government certainly does not set a good example. In raising prices it leads the field. There is also the question of the increase in the GST. The hon. the Minister of Finance queried the figures of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central who said that with the increase in the GST, and with the inflation rate of some 14% that we have, the total income that would accrue to the hon. the Minister in the coming financial year would be 40% more than accrued to him the previous year. I see the hon. the Minister shaking his head.

I do not understand your arithmetic.

Let me tell him how it is done. Say one has an item that costs R100. Last year the tax on that was R4. Now the sum has increased to R114 …

No.

… Because of inflation. That is what the hon. member was saying. That was his premise. It goes up to R114 and one then charges 5% on that.

What is 5% on R114?

Well, it works out to 5,7%, and 5,7% is over 40% more than 4%. Instead of R4 one gets R5,70, which is 40% more. That is exactly the point I made. I can well understand, if one looks at inflation in South Africa, why the hon. the Minister has problems with his arithmetic.

You would not pass Sub A on that.

Finally, there is the question of the wastage because of duplication and expenditure on ideological projects. Certainly, I look forward to supporting the amendment of the hon. member for Yeoville.

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the speech of the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens and, although I am greatly tempted to do so, I unfortunately do not have the time to reply in full to his arguments. He and his party, with their arguments, remind me of the agreement between the PFP and the HNP, the Opposition to the Government on the left and the Opposition on the right, the leftist-radical PFP says that we are doing nothing for the Blacks and other people of colour in South Africa and the rightist-radical HNP that says we are doing everything for the Blacks and people of colour in South Africa. Yet it is a fact that neither the radicals to the left nor the radicals to the right can be correct. We cannot be doing nothing on the one hand and everything on the other. Surely that does not make sense.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Langlaagte allowed to read a newspaper in this House?

I was just looking to see whether you have changed your policy.

Order! No member is allowed to read a newspaper in the House.

Mr. Speaker, could I perhaps have a little injury time? One question which the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens asked was whether the Black people who are living within the boundaries of South Africa are South Africans. Surely history ordained that when the Whites came to this country, the Vendas were living in the present State of Venda. The Vendas are Vendas. In the same way the Tswanas, who are now living in the independent State of Bophuthatswana, historically lived in that part of the country. It is now an independent State;

What about the Coloureds?

I shall have something to say about that subject in a moment. I trust that I have solved that problem for the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens.

A great deal has been said about the events which took place earlier today. I do not wish to go into the matter to too great an extent. I am still too much of a newcomer to this House to elaborate on those events this afternoon. Yet I do wish to say that the NP is a party of renewal. The NP is a party established on the basis of Gen. Hertzog’s standpoint of South Africa and South African interests first. With that as premise, the history of the NP has always been that of a party which brought about change in South Africa. It was the NP that made this country into a Republic. It was the NP which took South Africa out of the Commonwealth. It was the NP which saw to the constitutional development of the Black people to whom the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens referred. The NP is restoring constitutional independence to those people as they had it when the Whites arrived in Africa. In this way the Transkei, the Ciskei, Venda and Bophuthatswana have already had their independence restored to them. I believe that the hon. member Prof. Olivier can tell us far more about this. It was the NP which only very recently changed the sport policy, and it is also the NP which is going to change the Westminster system. It is the NP which accepts the standpoint that that system, the British system, is obsolete. To put it in the words of our chief leader, it is a system which finally failed in Africa, in Zimbabwe. It is no longer a valid system.

The hon. member put a question in regard to the Coloureds. In the new system, which is being worked out by the President’s Council, proper provision will be made for the Coloureds. However, this is a matter which is still being debated among us in our own circles.

This debate is in the first instance a financial debate. That is why I should like to express a few thoughts on that subject. It is generally known that South Africa is not really an agricultural country with very great potential. It is generally known that only 13% of our land area is suitable for cultivation.

The costs of production in our country are so high that the prices of our agricultural produce have already risen to such an extent that we have virtually been eliminated from world trade. Our climatic conditions also make farming very difficult. Therefore it is of the utmost importance that South Africa should, to an increasing extent in future, develop and strengthen its industries. We have the raw materials. We have the manpower at our disposal. We have the capital and the entrepreneurial enterprise. We shall have to develop our industries in such a way that South Africa can become a very powerful exporting country of industrial commodities. After all it is true that the rich countries in the world today are those countries that concentrated primarily and very emphatically on exports. In this way, for example, Japan imports iron ore in an unprocessed form from South Africa to be able to provide its own people with labour, and then exports the processed products.

When I say that South Africa will in future have to concentrate far more on the export of commodities, I should also like to conclude by referring to another form of export, i. e. tourism. Tourism as such is a form of export. If we take into consideration that the tourist industry is at present the largest single industry in the world, hon. members will agree with me when I say that South Africa has at this stage not really accorded this industry the full stature it deserves. Tourists visiting South Africa from abroad bring us the foreign exchange we need so urgently.

However, there are a few factors which make things very difficult for the prospective tourist who wishes to visit South Africa. In the first place transportation to South Africa is very expensive and there is also the fact that transportation in South Africa itself is also very expensive. I think that if we can make arrangements, like the Apex scheme, to make transportation to South Africa cheaper and to make internal transportation cheaper as well, we shall be able to attract many prospective tourists to our country. I am referring here to schemes like “Discount 40”, a scheme that is available in the United States and Canada under which tourists can fly from one place to another at a 40% discount. There is also the “Ameripass”, a bus ticket with which use can be made of cheaper bus transportation in the United States. Then, too, there is the “Eurailpass”, a train ticket, which makes extensive travel by train in Europe musch cheaper. I think that if the State can subsidize our agricultural exports, we could perhaps find the money somewhere to subsidize the tourist industry a little as well to make it much cheaper to visit South Africa.

I think that with all the potential in South Africa, co-ordinated action could make it possible to attract far more tourists to this country.

Earlier in this debate the hon. member for Nelspruit spoke about the national parks in our country. I think that if we are able to sell our national parks to the outside world we will surely be able to sell the public resorts of the various provincial administrations as well, but then there has to be co-ordination. All these matters should be evaluated in a combined study and their value as tourist attraction should be determined. We should market South Africa and the potential South Africa offers a prospective tourist aggressively in the outside world, particularly in the United States of America and Canada. We should market our tourist industry there and if we are able to do so, I am sure that we will be able to increase the number of tourists, who numbered approximately 750 000 last year, to 3 million or more. If we are able to do this we will in that way earn a great deal of foreign exchange for this country which would only be to the benefit of our country. It would also, through the employment generated, contribute towards making our country a more prosperous one.

Mr. Speaker, before moving the adjournment of the debate I do feel a heart-felt need to say as a member of the Cabinet that the NP stands strong and firm under the leadership of its chief leader of whom we are very proud. [Interjections.] I want to say that the spirit that prevails in the party and its morale are exceptionally high. I can give you the assurance that this party enters the future with the greatest confidence. I now move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, I think it is time for us to get on with the important work for which we are here in this House. That is exactly what I intend to do.

The share blocks system, as hon. members should know, provides for the formation of share block companies in respect of blocks of flats. When a deed of sale is drawn up and a deposit paid, that deposit must be paid into a trust account held by the agent or an attorney. If it is not done in this way such a deposit must be properly guaranteed by a bank. The second provision in respect of share blocks is that if, after the sale is concluded, the seller becomes insolvent, any moneys guaranteed or paid in accordance with the relevant stipulations will not become part of the residue of the particular insolvent estate but will be refunded to the purchaser. These are the two provisions which we fully support. The first provision has closed the door, as it were. It has obviated a loophole which previously existed in this particular legislation. That is something which we welcome.

Several of my hon. colleagues sat on a commission of inquiry into this matter. After hearing extensive evidence and after intensive soul-searching on their part they reframed the share blocks control legislation, which ultimately materialized in the Share Blocks Control Act. The objective of the legislation was to protect people who bought flats in a share block company. It was necessary because many people who had bought land previously in various companies had lost all their money. We were trying to protect those purchasers. Of course, one can never protect a purchaser against his own folly, but one can legislate to quite an extent to afford that purchaser some form of protection. Since the Sectional Titles Act was amended some time ago to achieve just what we are aiming at in this instance, it is only right and proper that the same provisions which are contained in the Sectional Titles Act should be included in the share blocks control legislation. In drafting the Share Blocks Control Act the idea was to make it as safe as possible and to include in it as many of the provisions already contained in the Sectional Titles Act as possible.

I have the same problem now, however, that I had—and other hon. members also had the same problem then—when we discussed this very point in relation to section 39(1) of the Sectional Titles Act. That is in regard to the provision which gives protection to tenants of flats sold in terms of a sectional title scheme. The Sectional Titles Act is administered by the hon. the Minister of Justice, and when he introduced this amendment we had to become involved—and rightly so—in a long argument concerning the occupation of flats, something which the hon. the Minister of Justice—although he is obviously very interested in this matter—did not actually have to handle under his portfolio. He was not really interested in the legal position of tenants occupying flats under a sectional title scheme. He was only involved in this whole matter because he happened to be the Minister whose task it was to execute the relevant legislation. Now we have the same problem again. That is most unfortunate. This hon. Deputy Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism has now come to this House with amending legislation concerning tenants occupying flats. With the greatest respect, I believe there is something wrong. It is not that I have anything against the hon. the Deputy Minister but I do believe there is something wrong with this whole set-up. I believe this needs to be looked at because the occupation of flats should fall fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the hon. the Minister of Community Development. He is the one who is responsible for it. I think that full consideration should therefore be given to transferring this particular function and the application of this legislation to the hon. the Minister of Community Development.

The share blocks scheme is applied in respect of many types of flats. Firstly, it applies to flats built on leasehold property, because the sectional titles scheme does not apply to leasehold property. It only applies to freehold property. In places like Durban, for example, the land along the beachfront is mostly leasehold property so therefore the flats built on that land can never be sold on a sectional title basis but only on a share block basis. In the second instance, where there are buildings in terms of the Sectional Titles Act as at present that were occupied prior to 21 October 1949, one cannot apply for sectional title either because the tenants of those flats are protected. In the case of buildings that were occupied between October 1949 and 30 June 1966, where there are protected tenants in terms of Section 19(1)(a) of the Housing Act who fall within the economic limit of R650 per month per family and R360 per month per single person, one cannot apply for sectional title either because, as I say, those tenants are protected. What do the owners of these blocks do under the circumstances, Sir? They convert to a share block company. In converting to a share block company they circumvent what we are trying to do by way of protecting these tenants against sale by sectional title. We have left the door wide open in the first instance for the owners to sell those flats, which they cannot sell under sectional title, on a share block basis and, secondly, we have left the door open to allow the ejectment of those people living in those flats because, although one cannot give notice to such a tenant in terms of section 39(1) of the Sectional Titles Act where the building is under rent control or where those tenants are protected, that protection does not apply in the case of a sale on a share block basis.

Let us look at the Rents Act and see who is entitled to give who notice. Section 27 or 28 of the Rents Act deals with a lessor giving a lessee three months’ notice of his intention to utilize that flat for his own occupation. In actual fact, the lessor could quite well be the share block owner of the particular flat involved. In those circumstances, therefore, we now have the situation where we have failed to protect a large number of people who should be protected. When the Fouché Commission made its recommendations in regard to the phasing out of rent control over a period of years, it in fact phased out 59% of the flats that fell under rent control prior to 30 June 1966. I have put a question in this regard to the hon. the Minister of Community Development and for that reason it is a pity that I have to address myself now to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism. I was told that there are still 63 000 units under rent control. However, if I work out 59% of a figure of, I think, 380 000 which was mentioned by the Fouché Commission, I find the number phased out to be in the neighbourhood of 97 000, and that makes a big difference. It would appear to me, therefore, that more were phased out than it was promised would be phased out at the time.

I do not know how the hon. the Deputy Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism wishes to deal with this problem. Will he pass on the problems that I have raised here to the hon. the Minister of Community Development? Even if he does so, how can the hon. the Minister of Community Development deal with these problems which have now arisen under legislation which does not fall under his department? This is one of main difficulties that I want to highlight here today. I do not think it was ever contemplated that this state of affairs would arise.

There is one further provision in this legislation with which I would like to deal, namely, a penalty of a fine of R1 000 or imprisonment for six months in respect of specified offences in terms of this legislation. Generally speaking, we will go along with this. We feel that because such an offence can have serious repercussions the penalties imposed must be fairly strict. All in all, however, our attitude is that where it is principally a commercial transaction, the penalties should not be so strict, certainly not as far as imprisonment is concerned. Commercial law takes cognizance of the fact that the courts are open to breaches of contract, to actions for damages and to granting the necessary relief in civil proceedings. I hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will bear that in mind. As I say, however, in this particular case we will go along with it because it has already been enshrined in the legislation in regard to other provisions.

With those few remarks I want to say that we shall support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Hillbrow was a very industrious member of the commission that collaborated in the formulation of the legislation we are amending this evening. This Bill deals with share block companies, and the hon. member will concede that these share block companies are very closely allied to the set-up of the Companies Act. They are administered by the department and are also under the control of the Registrar who has certain powers, and it would therefore be impossible to allow this legislation to fall under another department.

The hon. member spoke at length about the question of leasing and the provision of housing. However, the hon. member will concede that the legislation is relatively new and must therefore to a great extent still be tested in practice. However, I have no doubt that representations addressed to the department of the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister will receive sympathetic attention, as they were concerned with consumer protection, one of the important functions of this department. Has the hon. member previously addressed specific representations concerning these problems to this department with a view to possible consumer protection?

I addressed representations to the other hon. Minister, but he told me it fell under yet another hon. Minister.

Surely the hon. member knows that this legislation is not dealt with by the other hon. Minister, but by the hon. Minister whose department deals specifically with consumer protection. Therefore I would courteously suggest to the hon. member that he address his representations in this connection to this Ministry. The hon. member for Hillbrow is also well aware of the existence of the Permanent Advisory Committee on Companies, and he could even have addressed his representations to that body with positive results. The hon. member should bear in mind that this Share Blocks Control Amendment Bill has nothing to do with leasing as such, but that it is merely aimed at the orderly regulation of share block schemes. On this occasion, i.e. the first amendment of this Act since it came into operation, we are grateful that this is the only amendment being made, since the Act was an entirely new development in the property industry in the Republic.

This legislation is not only aimed at affording greater legal certainty, but also, in particular at affording the consumer protection against malpractices where the so-called developer who does not intend to carry out the development he is contemplating and already marketing while it is still no more than a dream, and against developers who fail to carry out planned developments, by at least establishing a share block company.

The hon. member for Hillbrow rightly pointed out that one cannot of course protect a person if he wants to make a fool of himself. I am therefore not suggesting that this legislation affords absolute protection. At present the Act affords protection to buyers who buy a share after the share block company has already been established. The importance of the amendment for the buyer lies particularly in the fact that the company registered as a share block company, must disclose full particulars of the immovable property it owns. Consequently, buyers of shares in such a company are at least protected in so far as the share block company must be the owner or registered lessee of the land on which the development is planned. The Act is being circumvented in that certain entrepreneurs, particularly with a view to obtaining capital flow, sell an option on the acquisition of shares in a share company which is still to be established. From the buyer’s point of view this is a very risky transaction, particularly because there is no obligation on such a seller or giver of the option to cause the money to be kept in trust. The amendment which is now being effected seeks to ensure that the share block company will be established and that the buyer’s money is protected by the provision that moneys for an option or a right to obtain shares in a share block company, shall be paid into a trust operated by a legal practitioner or estate agent, or by furnishing such a buyer with an appropriate unconditional guarantee issued by a bank, building society or insurance company as surety that the seller will meet his obligations and that the buyer’s money will be protected. People easily buy things in good faith to satisfy their desire to own their own house or holiday home or perhaps to make a little money. In the process tremendous obligations are entered into, but unfortunately they do not always acquaint themselves with the validity in law of their monetary performance. Agreements in terms of the Share Blocks Control Act are complex and of a particularly technical nature and I cannot therefore place sufficient emphasis on the fact that the buying public must obtain advice from expert advisers before they sign sales agreements, and that they must take special note whether the company is in fact the registered owner of the land it has at its disposal.

Clause 1 of the Bill is similar to the provisions of section 26 of the Alienation of Land Act, which was passed last year, and it is therefore also in accordance with the school of thought of the commission which formulated that Act and the existing Share Blocks Control Act.

Finally, we are grateful that the Share Blocks Control Act was very well received in the industry and that it will undoubtedly make a contribution to the benefit of the industry and the public, as well as to property development in our country. I should therefore like to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House welcome the measure of protection that this Bill affords those persons who purchases flats under the share block system. It would seem a tragedy that we have to enact legislation of this description to protect people from businessmen who act without any scruples whatsoever. The measure is long overdue and it is a pity that so many people have been caught and that those who have caught them have already been let free with little chance of them being brought to book.

With these few words we support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for Hillbrow and also the hon. member for South Coast for supporting the Bill before the House.

*Mr. Speaker, you must allow me just to tell the hon. member for Hillbrow that I listened very attentively to the representations he addressed here in respect of the protection of occupiers of blocks of flats who are going to become involved in the share block scheme. My problem is that this particular aspect does not fall under this legislation. Yet I want to give the hon. member for Hillbrow the assurance that if he wants to put his problem to the department, we shall consider it to see what possibility there is of doing something about this. I think it is important that one should protect the consumer against exploitation and against any other kind of unfair treatment. As far as the Companies Act is concerned, I think that the hon. member for Klerksdorp made it quite clear that it would be rather difficult to transfer this legislation to the hon. the Minister of Community Development. I want to refer to the hon. member for Hillbrow to paragraphs 13 and 14 of the third interim report of the commission on which he also served and in which special attention was given to the relationship between the Companies Act and share block schemes. If one reads those paragraphs it is clear that we are going to have problems, as the hon. member for Klerksdorp in fact indicated, transferring this legislation to the Minister of Community Development. However, there is no reason why we cannot look into this matter. In any case I want to thank the hon. member for supporting the legislation.

I also want to thank the hon. member for Klerksdorp very sincerely. The hon. member made a very interesting remark, one of which we must take cognizance, with his reference to the commission that examined this legislation. In my opinion, and according to the evidence of the hon. member for Klerksdorp, who was the chairman of this commission, the commission did an exceptionably good job of work. Proof of this is that now that this legislation has been in operation for quite some time, the only amendment to it, is the amendment before the House this evening, not an amendment in principle, but only a minor amendment to make protection against unscrupulous people an inherent part of the Act, as the hon. member for South Coast rightly pointed out. I think we in this House should take cognizance here of an excellent piece of legislation, which was well investigated by a commission and subsequently placed on the Statute Book.

Once again I extend my cordial thanks to the hon. members for their support.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 1:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) In the English text, on page 3, in line 6, to omit “matter” and to substitute “manner”;
2. (2) in the English text, on page 3, in line 27, to omit “of” and to substitute “or”.

What is basically involved is simply a correction in line 6 of the English text. Actually it is a minor translation problem. The word should be “manner” and not “matter”.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The provinces may receive movable and immovable property, but are not able to donate or to exchange museum pieces, for example, unless an equivalent consideration is given. In the running of a museum service provinces quite frequently receive museum pieces more suited to some other museum, pieces which could be donated to that museum, or a province may have surplus pieces it wants to exchange for items that are not necessarily of the same monetary value. Sometimes a province has species of game or wild animals not suited to a specific game reserve or zoological garden which could be donated to or exchanged with other game reserves or zoological gardens. It is not always possible, or desirable in the interests of good relations, to exchange the wildlife for an equal monetary consideration and the owner of the game reserve or zoological garden or other person may not be able to afford to buy the game or wild animals. Besides the cases mentioned above, Administrators also find themselves in the position in which, as a token of appreciation or esteem, they wish to present a gift to a specific person or body on a special occasion. There have also been occasions, and such occasions will undoubtedly arise again in future, when visiting dignitaries from abroad have been the guests of a province, and the Administrator was in fact expected, as a custom, to present that person with a gift at a suitable function as a token of esteem.

The new section 24A, proposed by clause 1 of the Bill, will give the Executive Committees the necessary power to make donations out of funds appropriated by the provincial councils or of movable property belonging to those provinces. Because the central Government contributes financially to provincial funds, this power is made subject to the approval of the Minister of Finance.

†Paragraph 1 of schedule 2 of the Financial Relations Act provides that the provinces may pass legislation in respect of the destruction of vermin. According to the provinces the word “destruction”—“uitroeiing”—is incompatible with the modern approach to nature conversation and control. The combating of vermin and other animals causing damage does not necessarily entail the destruction or elimination of vermin. The purpose of clause 2 of the Bill is to bring the wording of paragraph 1 in line with this approach.

Mr. Speaker, as the hon. the Deputy Minister indicated, clause 1 of the Bill bestows wider powers of donation on the Executive Committees of provincial councils. I want to say at once that it is really surprising that provincial Executive Committees did not have these powers before. The powers of donation they have had up to now are so strictly defined that it is actually ridiculous. Mention is made of wreaths which may be purchased for the purpose of wreath-laying on certain strictly defined days of national importance. In my opinion it amounts to contempt for, and even an insult to, the status of provincial councils that such restrictions have thus far applied to them, and I believe it is a good thing that they are to a great extent being done away with. A provincial council, and therefore a provincial Executive Committee, is a duly elected political body and authority. Owing to its composition it is subject to the same control as this House. The same political pressure applies to both and there is therefore no reason to believe that a provincial Executive Committee will be more inclined to abuse such powers than the Cabinet would, which is in actual fact the executive committee of this House. We are therefore extremely satisfied with what is being proposed in clause 2. What still bothers us, though, is the fact that the Minister of Finance still has to give his consent for such donations. We hear that an identically worded provision also applies to heads of State departments, namely that they may also make such donations but only with the prior consent of the Minister of Finance. However, I want to point out at once that the position of Executive Committees is not entirely comparable. As I have already pointed out, provincial councils are duly elected political bodies, and the mere fact that they receive the greater part of their funds from the Treasury of the central Government and that this is their greatest source of income, ought not to lead to provincial Executive Committees having to obtain the consent of an official or a Minister to a decision which is actually of little importance, i.e. that of making a donation, which in most cases will be a small or limited donation. For that reason an hon. colleague of mine will move an amendment in this connection during the Committee Stage.

Clause 2, as the hon. the Deputy Minister indicated, merely brings the wording and spirit of the legislation before us into line with the modern concept of the protection of our natural heritage and the extent to which this has to be reconciled with the combating of destructive vermin. This reminds one of the times when one could get five shillings for the head of a baboon and could dispose of jackal pelts, etc. With the attitude adopted nowadays towards nature conservation, this sort of thing is no longer popular, and it is therefore a good thing that the legislation is being adjusted accordingly. For this reason we find this piece of legislation acceptable, and we shall support it.

Mr. Speaker, it is probably not necessary to add much to the motivation the hon. the Deputy Minister has already provided in connection with this legislation. One can understand that there will frequently be occasions when a provincial administration will make use of the power granted in terms of clause 1. There are, for example, occasions for making donations, for recognizing extraordinary services rendered to the administration or to the community. This is usually in the form of a cash donation or something purchased with money. It may, however, assume various other forms as well. These days the phenomenon of exchange is fairly common, for example the exchange of species of fish and animals in reserves. Sometimes it may happen that a collector has a certain species which is not available in that province’s reserve, and vice versa. It is therefore very useful to have this power to be able to make such exchanges. Such occasions frequently arise and it is only logical to make use of this power. At present the provinces have the power to sell goods, but they do not yet have the power to make donations, even in the case of a quid pro quo in natura. I think it is therefore a necessary addition to the powers of the provinces, and for this reason I am glad that there is general agreement on this. In this connection we take cognizance of the attitude of the official Opposition with appreciation.

Clause 2 is more specifically concerned with the question of terminology than with any principle. Actually it reflects an evolution in our concept of the term “vermin” and the concept of “destruction of vermin”. From time to time we have amended and adjusted our standpoint on such matters and later on we did not speak of “vermin”, but referred instead to “problem animals”. However, science has taught us that we should not think merely in terms of the destruction of problem animals or vermin. Incidentally, the way, it is not easy for a farmer to understand this, because he must suffer the consequences of problem animals like jackals, lynxes, etc. Some farmers therefore find it strange that scientists are advocating the protection of those animals from destruction. Yet it is necessary, and from a scientific viewpoint it is essential, to prevent any specific species from being totally exterminated. Hence the concept of an endangered species. It is even necessary—although it is sometimes difficult for farmers to understand this—to protect the farmer’s enemies against total extermination, and here I am thinking specifically of animals like the jackal and the lynx. However, we realize that it is very important to prevent total extermination from taking place. Here again it is a question of terminology. The provinces do not like the concept “destruction” and for this reason the new concept “combating” is now being introduced. I understand that the provinces would actually have preferred us not even to have used the concept “combating”, but to have used the term “control” instead. Perhaps we are moving in the direction of eventually amending the Act to introduce the concept of “control”, but in practice it will amount to the same thing. I do not believe there can be any objection to this new principle.

As for the point raised by the hon. member for Green Point, in respect of which he indicated that an amendment will be moved during the Committee Stage, I do not believe the hon. members need be concerned. The consent requested from the Minister is merely a technical matter. As the hon. the Deputy Minister also said, this is necessary by virtue of the fact that the provinces receive their funds primarily from the central Government. However, it is merely a technical matter because in practice the Minister will probably delegate his power in this connection to his department. It will therefore be a mere formality to obtain that consent.

I support the Bill gladly.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. members for Green Point and Sundays River have covered virtually everything that can be said about a small Bill such as this. There is just one point I should like to re-emphasize in respect of clause 1, and that is the question of why it should be necessary to get the Minister’s approval for something that is relatively small. The executive committees of the provinces handle hundreds of millions and even thousands of millions of rand per annum while the amount we are likely to be talking about is so small that I cannot really appreciate the necessity for this. As an ex-member of an executive committee like the hon. member for Sundays River, I cannot help but feel that this is an unnecessary piece of red tape.

So far as clause 2 is concerned, quite obviously this modernizes the procedure because even vermin are part of the ecosystem and automatic destruction should not be necessary. We support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank hon. members for their support and also for the contributions they made here. The hon. member for Green Point pledged his support for this amending Bill on behalf on the official Opposition. We are very grateful for this. He also raised the point that the approval of the Minister of Finance has to be obtained. It has been indicated that an amendment will be moved in this connection and I shall therefore reply to this in the Committee Stage.

I also want to thank the hon. member for Sunday’s River. He spoke from years of experience as a member of the executive committee of a province. In addition he frequently acted as Administrator of the Cape. I also want to thank the hon. member for Umbilo who is a former member of the executive committee of Natal. He also referred to the approval which has to be obtained from the Minister of Finance. I shall reply to this during the Committee Stage, when we deal with the amendment concerned.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage

Clause 1:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

This amendment suggests the deletion of those words in terms of which the approval of the Minister of Finance is required. This aspect has been dealt with by the hon. member for Green Point, and he has mentioned why, in a measure such as this, the prior approval by the Minister of Finance is unnecessary. One is dealing here with a second tier of government, the provincial council, which, as the hon. member for Green Point has indicated, is to a certain extent a self-controlling body. Because funds are received from central government, it is obviously not totally autonomous. If one aims through this clause, however, to deal with items such as game exchanges and museum item exchanges, then it is quite clear that one is dealing, relatively speaking, with minor aspects of the provincial administration. If one takes into account that one of the aims of the second tier government is to decentralize power, to bring government closer to the people, to cut red tape, etc., I can only submit that a provision such as this—the prior approval by the Minister of Finance—goes exactly against that strain. It would increase red tape. If one takes, for example, a situation in which game is exchanged, the red tape required in order to obtain the permission of the Minister of Finance would be completely out of proportion to the type of transaction one is undertaking. It is, in our submission, an unnecessary provision in the clause. It makes things more difficult for the provincial councils and, I believe, it really interferes with the autonomy which provincial councils should have in matters such as this.

Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban Central, for the reason which I largely gave during Second Reading. I can appreciate that in the other three provinces it may be necessary because there may be some degree of irresponsibility … [Interjections.] There may be a degree of irresponsibility in so far as the autonomy is concerned. I am quite sure, however, that the hon. members of the Executive of the other provinces—joking apart—are perfectly responsible gentlemen, and, as has already been indicated, one is literally dealing with money which is of the order of a variety of peanuts. [Interjections.] The amount of work that is going to be involved—going through the various departments and the various officials that will have to handle this—is just going to be out of all proportion to the benefit that is to be derived.

In so far as game transactions are concerned—if that is the major problem—I do not know whether the other three provinces are in a position to operate in the same way as they operate in Natal, but the Natal Parks Board is a semi-autonomous body and has its own board. They handle their transactions in a somewhat different way to the other provinces. So we do not have this particular problem in respect of game.

I do most sincerely feel, however, that in so far as this particular part of the clause is concerned—obtaining the approval of the Minister of Finance—it is defeating one of the prime objects stated some time ago by the hon. the Prime Minister when he said they were going to cut down red tape, to consolidate and really to try to streamline the machinery. This is the sort of thing that puts gum in the works and clogs up the machinery. Therefore I would very strongly support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Durban Central.

Mr. Chairman, I listened carefully to the hon. member for Umbilo. He said that Natal had their own way of doing things. That was very clear to me last Saturday when they ran out Western Province players in an unsporting fashion. [Interjections.]

Wait until you have to deal with the Marriage Bill!

Well, actually I would prefer a marriage.

*I wish to draw the attention of hon. members—there are a number of hon. members present who have in the past served on Provincial Executives, there are also former Administrators and hon. members who have acted as Administrators—that as far as smaller donations are concerned, the Minister of Finance may be approached by the Executive of the province in question for a standing authorization to approve such donations. I say that this is the case as far as smaller donations are concerned.

The principle that the approval of the Minister of Finance should be obtained in advance is already contained in sections 21 and 22 of the Financial Relations Act, 1976. In terms of those sections a provincial council, with the permission of the Minister of Finance, may make provision for the payment of contributions to a person or body to discharge the expense incurred by such a person or body in connection with a matter of national interest. Since we already have this in the Act in terms of sections 21 and 22, and with a view to eliminating possible overlapping of donations by the State and the provinces for the same purpose, it is essential that the approval of the Minister of Finance be obtained, as in the case of section 21 contributions, for any donations as envisaged.

I repeat that in the case of smaller donations the standing authorization may be obtained. We already have the principle in question in terms of sections 21 and 22 in the Act and I therefore believe that hon. members will understand that it is not possible to accept the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, I give this House the assurance that I shall make very sure that the provisions of this Bill relating to marriage are not changed in any way!

†Section 8 of the Births, Marriages and Deaths Registration Act, 1963, provides for the alteration of a person’s name in his birth register. At present the person himself may apply if he is 21 years of age or older, and if he is under the age of 21, one of his parents or his guardian must apply on his behalf.

In clause 2 of the Bill it is proposed that a person may from the age of 18 years apply for a change of name without the assistance or approval of a parent or guardian. At present persons are entitled to enrol as voters and to vote from the age of 18 years. In terms of section 4 of the Wills Act, 1953, a minor above the age of 16 years is competent to make a will, and in the Childrens Act, 1960, a child is defined as a person who is under the age of 18 years.

In the case of minors in the age group of 18 years and older, many of whom have already left their homes, and in cases where parents are deceased, estranged or divorced, problems are encountered in finalizing such applications. Since in many cases the applicant’s employment or earning capability is affected, such application must be dealt with expeditiously.

*In the case of certain population groups, in particular, it is customary or it often happens that children are brought up and educated under the supervision and control of the grandparents or other relations. In most of these cases, no court order has been issued with the result that the persons raising the child have to act on behalf of the child, as in the case of a change of name and surname. In order to provide for these circumstances, it is being provided in the proposed sections 8(2) and 8A(4) that “guardian” includes any person who has in law or in fact the custody or control of any person. The circumstances under which a child grows up largely determine his family connection, with the result that in his community he is associated with the persons who are raising him and identified with their surname. Therefore it is a great shock and embarrassment to the child to discover at a later stage that the surname by which he is known is not his real surname and that his birth was registered under a different surname, a surname with which he may not want to associate himself. It is now being provided in clause 3 that under the circumstances set out in that clause, a person may adopt the surname under which he is known instead of the surname under which his birth was registered.

The proposed amendments are specifically being made applicable only to persons under the age of 21 years, since at the age of 21 a major cannot really claim any more that he did not know that the surname under which he is known is not the same as the surname under which his birth was registered.

Section 8A(2) of the Act at present requires that if the man by whose surname the person referred to in paragraph (b) or (c) is known is still alive, the application must be accompanied by that man’s written consent to the change of surname. Provision is now being made for a discretion in order to finalize applications in those cases where this consent cannot be obtained due to circumstances beyond the control of the applicant.

Mr. Speaker, as in the case of the Financial Relations Amendment Bill which has just been before the House, we shall support this Bill as well. The hon. the Deputy Minister has probably said just about everything there is to be said about this amending measure. I think it makes sense that this kind of legislation be streamlined in order to remove all obstacles and to make it easier for people who find themselves in this kind of predicament to put the matter right. We should take cognizance of the fact that this measure is not really concerned with the alteration of names as such, but with bringing the population register into line with a situation which already exists in reality. In other words, the measure is aimed at bringing the population register into line with the names under which people may be known or which they may bear. During the discussion of an amendment last year, an amendment concerning the alteration of names in the normal course of affairs, I said that we should take a closer look at the question of the alteration of names and that we should streamline it further to make it easier for a person to alter his name if he has a good reason for doing so. There is no moral or religious reason why something of this nature should not be allowed, and if a good reason is advanced for it, there is no reason why the Act should not provide for it.

As the hon. the Deputy Minister has indicated, the question of a change of name is often associated with embarrassment. Often persons who find themselves in this situation are people who have grown up under peculiar circumstances. They may come from broken homes or from homes from which one or both of the parents have disappeared. Or they may have grown up in the homes of other persons, people who were not always directly related to the applicant. Therefore it is also a good thing that provision is being made under those circumstances for a guardian to render assistance in the case of the alteration of a person’s name. The word “guardian” must then be defined widely enough in the legislation to enable virtually any person to quality if the Director-General approves.

Purely from a legal technical point of view, the possibility of course exists that more than one person may profess to be the guardian, but I believe this is a problem which is so unlikely and so unimportant that it need not really be taken seriously. Under the circumstances, therefore, we are prepared to give this Bill our support.

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad that this Bill is not a contentious one. I largely agree with what the hon. member for Green Point has just said. I myself have often encountered people in practice, young people under the age of 18 years, who were very anxious to change their names, but because they were adopted children, this was not possible without the consent of a parent or guardian. We are aware of the fact that the original Act of 1963 only provided for the possibility of altering a name in the birth register. Now clause 2 of this Bill provides for a young person of 18 years to apply to have his name altered without the assistance of a parent or guardian, and I think one of the many good motivations for this is the fact that he is already able to draw up his own will, for example, at the age of 16 years. Therefore I think this is a very consequential and logical Bill, and for that reason it is a pleasure for all of us on this side of the House to support it.

Because the hon. the Deputy Minister finds himself in special circumstances in view of his approaching marriage, and we all share his joy about this event, my wife and I have decided that I shall pair off during the week they are on honeymoon, so that we may go along with them to prevent people from saying that he is going on holiday with a girl, just the two of them.

Mr. Speaker, we are supporting this Bill for the very good and simple reason that the amendments which are before us are very simple and logical and that they are updating the nomenclature of the officials concerned. The question of reducing the age to 18 is logical in terms of modern practice. In so far as the other clauses are concerned, these streamline the whole procedure. We support this Bill because, as I say, it does keep in touch with reality.

Whilst I am on my feet, may I on behalf of hon. members in these benches wish the hon. the Deputy Minister all good fortune in connection with his forthcoming nuptial.

Mr. Speaker, I want to convey my sincere thanks to hon. members for their support of this amending Bill. The hon. member for Green Point expressed his support on behalf of the official Opposition, and I agree with him that with this measure, as in the case of a previous Bill, we have to a very large extent succeeded in eliminating the present cumbersome procedure for the alteration of names and surnames. This Bill represents a further attempt to streamline it. The hon. member for Green Point rightly said that applications are not refused in cases where there are good reasons and proper motivation. However, it used to be a tedious and complicated process, and by means of this amendment we are making it easier and in many cases saving people from embarrassment.

I should also like to thank the hon. member for Brits for his support. I should very much have liked to take him along on my honeymoon, but since he used to be a minister of religion like myself, I must tell him that on an occasion such as this one I do not trust a minister.

†I want to thank the hon. member for Umbilo for his support and also for his good wishes.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

During its existence, the Coloured Persons Representative Council passed the following laws: Coloured Persons Rehabilitation Centres Law (Law 1 of 1971); Coloured Farmers Assistance Law (Law 1 of 1973): Coloured Persons Social Pensions Law (Law 1 of 1974): and Rural Coloured Areas Law (Law 1 of 1979). The implementation of these laws was a function of the Executive of the Coloured Persons Representative Council. Subsequently, when the Coloured Persons Representative Council was dissolved and the South African Coloured Persons Council was established, provision was made for the Executive of the latter council to perform these functions.

The standpoint that the South African Coloured Persons Council would serve merely as an interim representative body was expressed even in the Act concerned, the South African Coloured Persons Council Act (Act 24 of 1980), in the provision that the term of office of members of this council would not extend to a date beyond 1 April 1982. The Government subsequently indicated, through the mouth of the hon. the Prime Minister, that the Government did not intend to establish the South African Coloured Persons Council in terms of the Act concerned.

Prior to the rationalization of Government Departments, the then Minister of Coloured Affairs performed the functions and duties entrusted to the Executive of the South African Coloured Persons Council, and since rationalization these functions have been performed by the Minister of Internal Affairs. Until a new constitutional dispensation can be implemented, the executive powers derived from the laws of the Coloured Persons Representative Council must be vested in the Minister of Internal Affairs. From the nature of the case, he already exercises powers in terms of Acts of Parliament relating to the Coloured community. It is for this purpose that this Bill is now before the House, i.e. to include under these the laws of the Coloured Persons Representative Council. All that is being done, in fact, is to bring the laws concerned into line with existing Acts of Parliament, which amounts to a rearrangement of executive powers. Since, in the absence of an Executive, the functions and duties have in fact been performed at the ministerial level since 1 April 1980, when the South African Coloured Persons Council Act came into operation, it is deemed necessary and practical to make the Bill retrospective to 1 April 1980. All decisions taken at the ministerial level since that date in connection with laws of the Coloured Persons Representative Council will be deemed to be decisions taken on the authority of those laws as such.

Mr. Speaker, we shall be supporting this Bill as well. It is obviously a Bill which is concerned merely with questions of a formal nature, and it seems that the intention is to bring the statutory provisions in this connection more into line with present-day circumstances in a legal technical sense.

Unfortunately, one must take cognizance of the fact that the introduction of such a Bill is a result of the fact that there is actually a political vacuum in South Africa when it comes to the political control of the Coloured people. It is a pity that this should be reflected in such a Bill. In supporting this Bill, however, I just want to express the hope—especially in the light of today’s events—that we may move more rapidly towards a solution of that situation and that the affairs of the Coloured people in South Africa may be put right so that they may at last have a say once more about the matters which require their participation.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Green Point for his support, and I want to endorse his remarks about the question of more rapid progress concerning the constitutional dispensation for the Coloured people in our country. However, I want to add that if his party had supported us better, we might have been closer to that goal today.

The purpose of the legislation which is before us is merely to give continuity to services rendered to the Coloured population in terms of the laws which the hon. the Deputy Minister mentioned in his speech. When the CRC was dissolved, the Minister of Coloured Relations took over the functions of the Executive of the South African Coloured Persons Council in terms of section 2(4) of the South African Coloured Persons Council Act. Upon rationalization the hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs took over these functions until such time as they are amended by the new constitutional dispensation. Important aspects of the Coloured people’s lives are affected and regulated by these laws—including social pensions—and for that reason we consider it important to support this piece of legislation, and we do so with pleasure.

Mr. Speaker, we shall also be supporting this Bill. That makes it very easy for the hon. the Deputy Minister. As has already been said, this legislation is consequential upon the disbanding of the CRC and merely involves being able to effect certain laws that were applicable at that time. I have only one query, however, because I am still a little doubtful about the actual legality of the application of the laws in the interim period. Who, in fact, has had the legal authority and what is that authority? I am a little doubtful about the authority that is actually involved, but quite obviously the laws have to be applied and we are therefore quite happy to accept the Bill before us.

Mr. Speaker, I once again convey my thanks to hon. members for their support of the Bill, which naturally, as the hon. member for Green Point said, is only a formal measure. The hon. member for Green Point mentioned a vacuum which had arisen. The hon. member for Namaqualand also referred to that. I am glad that hon. members have not taken the opportunity tonight of covering that much-trodden ground once again. I think we should all try to find a solution to this problem, if I may call it a problem. Actually, it is a constitutional question. I want to convey my sincere thanks to the hon. member for Namaqualand, too, for the support he gave the measure on behalf of this side of the House.

I also thank the hon. member for Umbilo for his support and that of his party. I did not quite understand what the hon. member was referring to, but I think he was referring to the provision relating to the date of 1 April 1980. Subsequent to that date, that authority was vested first in the Minister of Coloured Affairs, and after rationalization in the Minister of Internal Affairs.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In terms of section 30(1) of the Health Act, 1977, the Director-General of the Department of Health and Welfare shall be the local authority in respect of any area where there is no local authority. The main purpose of this provision is to ensure that services for the prevention of communicable diseases and the provision of health are rendered in rural areas where no local authority exists.

These are services in respect of which local authorities are subsidised by the department. It was never the intention that the department should provide those services specially pertaining to a local authority such as rubbish removal, night-soil removal, sewerage services, the supply of pure water, etc. in such areas. Such facilities must be established by the owner or occupier of land in such areas. The amendment of section 30(1) is intended to clarify the matter.

The Mining Commissioner of Klerksdorp was appointed as the local authority for the alluvial diamond diggings in the Klerksdorp District in terms of section 23 of Act 36 of 1927, which was repealed by the Health Act. According to legal opinion the Mining Commissioner cannot be appointed in such capacity in terms of the present provisions of section 30(2). In order to enable the Mining Commissioner to continue rendering the particular services, the insertion of section 30(2)(b), (3) and (4) is proposed, as well as the provisions of clause 1(2) which will cover the period from the date on which section 30 came into operation.

Clause 2 and 3 contain only consequential amendments as a result of the insertion of section 36A and the establishment of community councils in terms of the Community Councils Act, 1977.

Mr. Speaker, we support the Second Reading of this Bill. In the amendment to section 30(1) we find stated the activities for which the Department of Health and Welfare should obviously not be responsible. Some of the activities, for example sewerage works and water purification, are basically infrastructural activities which should not be the responsibility of the Department of Health and Welfare.

The other clauses of the Bill speak for themselves. The hon. the Minister has indicated why the proposed sections 30(2)(b), (3) and (4) are necessary. The provision which makes clause 1(1) retrospective to April 1978 is one of which one ought to be careful. I should merely like to ask the hon. the Minister to give the assurance that no one is being prejudiced by the retrospective effect of this provision.

Retrospective clauses are always suspect in that people who may be affected by them could be prejudiced. If the hon. the Minister can give us the assurance that no such prejudice exists to anyone in this particular case, then we can have no problem in respect of this retrospective clause. I am actually referring only to the proposed new section 30(1). The other two clauses of the Bill are merely cosmetical. We support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, in taking cognizance of the replacement of section 30 of the principal Act, one should actually read this together with section 20 of the Act concerned. Section 20 very clearly lays down the duties and responsibilities of a local authority. In this particular amendment, where the Director-General of Health accepts responsibility when there is no local authority, it was never the intention of the legislature, of course, that the Director-General should accept responsibility for the provision of services such as those mentioned in clause 1 of the Bill. I am referring now to services such as rubbish removal, a sewerage service, etc.

Therefore I should like, on behalf of hon. members on this side of the House, to support the statutory amendments which are before us. We know that problems have arisen, as the hon. the Minister indicated to us tonight. I believe that this amendment to the Act will put matters beyond all doubt. It is now being clearly stipulated that the Director-General, in those areas in which he acts as local authority, will never accept responsibility for the provision of the services set out in the clause concerned.

In the proposed new section 30(3), in which a mining commissioner is also being authorized to act as a local authority where necessary, with the duties and responsibilities as set out in the subsection concerned, there is nothing to which we can object.

In terms of clause 3 of the Bill, section 48 of the principal Act is being replaced. In this case it means, briefly, that the department accepts the responsibility for burying the remains of people who have died of a communicable disease, when this has happened within the area of jurisdiction of the local authority of the administration board concerned. This also applies in the case of unclaimed bodies. In this case, the community council is also being involved and being entrusted with the responsibility for providing certain services in those cases in which community councils can be active. We gladly support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we in the NRP will be supporting this Bill. We do, however, have one or two queries. The exemptions applying to the responsibilities of the Director-General are somewhat disturbing to me. There can be no doubt now about what exactly can be expected from the Director-General when he is acting as a local authority. When the Director-General is acting as a local authority—more so in a rural Black area—the owner or the occupier of land in that area will have to provide the water, the sewerage or whatever other services are necessary. I believe this is going to cause a problem because, particularly in the prevention of diseases in rural communities, I believe, it is very important that if we do not want to be faced again with the possibility of further outbreaks of communical diseases, this will have to be looked at. After all, there are four conditions essential to maintaining even minimum health. Those conditions are: safe drinking-water, adequate food, basic sewerage and waste removal.

In terms of this legislation the Director-General will only be responsible for three of those functions. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister therefore what the position is going to be if the owner does not provide that service and the occupiers cannot do it. I believe this can lead to serious problems. I think it needs urgent attention.

Then, where a mining commissioner acts as a local authority in the case of alluvial diggings for precious stones, will this appointment be done in conjunction with the Department of Health? That is the other question to which I should like the hon. the Minister to reply.

Finally, in so far as community councils are now being included in the definition of local authorities for the purposes of the removal and burial of dead bodies, where are the funds going to come from to cover the costs of these functions? Will those funds come from the Administration Boards? Could the hon. the Minister please reply to this question as well? Otherwise we support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank all hon. members who have expressed their support for this legislation.

The hon. member for Durban Central raised the question of possible prejudice. I should like to tell the hon. member that this is merely a retrospective provision to legalizethe expenditure that has already been incurred by a particular commissioner out of certain funds. The reason for this was that a certain amount of time elapsed between the withdrawal of that particular Act and the passing of the present one. These things do happen. I do not think it was realized at the time that there was no real authority for such action. Therefore, nobody will be prejudiced. As I say, we are dealing here with money that has been spent and we are simply legalizing the spending of this particular amount of money.

*I think the hon. member for Witbank made it quite clear that it was never in accordance with the spirit of the Act that certain functions should be performed. I think one should very often read legislation in the spirit in which it was intended. However, it sometimes happens that when it comes to the legal situation, those who have to implement the legislation do not understand the spirit of the legislation. In such case problems arise, and therefore it is necessary to stipulate very clearly how the legislation is to be implemented.

I thank the hon. member for the concise and very lucid way in which he expressed support for the Bill on behalf of this side of the House.

†The hon. member for South Coast also raised one or two matters. I think the important thing to remember is that when the Department of Health and Welfare does act, it acts in relation to health matters in that area. We are not a local authority. We have experienced a problem in the hon. member’s province in that whenever we have had to provide health services in an area the local authorities have simply withdrawn and left us with the problems of refuse removal and so forth which is not part of our job. The function of the Department of Health and Welfare is to ensure that there are no health hazards in that area. However, there should be an authority in every area dealing with these other matters. If, then, there is still a problem in that particular area, it will have to be dealt with under different legislation. It must not be dealt with under the Health Act. It should be dealt with in quite a different way. As far as health matters in a particular area are concerned, we want to make it very clear that we are only responsible for certain specific matters and that it is not our intention to go into business as a local authority on a large scale.

The hon. member also raised the question of whether we would be involved in the appointment of this particular commissioner. I do not see it that way. The commissioner is appointed by the Minister concerned to do a particular job and he only comes into the health picture when he acts as agent for the Department of Health and Welfare on any particular alluvial diamond digging. He will now be able, on proper authority, to carry out the function of a local authority. He will be working in a circumscribed area and he will be able to carry out the particular functions that are his responsibility.

The last item the hon. member mentioned was who was going to pay for the burial. I can assure the hon. member that it will not be the Department of Health and Welfare. The body that will now be responsible for this will be the community council. They will now undertake this responsibility because they are a new authority that we are now introducing into a certain area in terms of an other piece of legislation. The Black Affairs Administration Act of 1971 gave certain powers to the administration boards. We now have this new authority being included and it is simply to enable certain functions to be carried out. I want to repeat that the Department of Health and Welfare will not be paying for any burials. We are not in the funeral business at this stage and I do not intend that we should enter it.

I think, Sir, that with that I have replied to all the points raised by hon. members. I want to thank hon. members once again for their contributions.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker I move—

Today there are specialists who concentrate mainly on a subdivision of the area of speciality in which they have been trained and who specialize further in such a subdivision. They are known as superspecialists. To enable the S.A. Medical and Dental Council to register the qualifications of such a person with regard to the subdivision of an area of speciality, a definition of “speciality” is being inserted which also includes this aspect.

Section 24(2)(b) of the Act provides that a qualification which was obtained abroad may only be accepted for unconditional registration in the Republic if that the country recognizes the corresponding qualifications which are granted in the Republic. Such recognition of qualifications existed between the Republic and the United Kingdom as well as certain Australian States. The United Kingdom has, however, amended its legislation so that mutual recognition of qualifications with other countries has been done away with. In future, qualifications will only be recognized if they comply with the local requirements. In Australia similar legislation has been passed, or is in the process of being considered.

The result of this change is that the qualifications of the countries involved cannot be accepted for registration in the Republic, unless section 24(2)(b) is deleted. With the deletion of this stipulation it will only be necessary for the council to determine with regard to the recognition of a foreign qualification whether—

1. (a) the qualification grants the holder the right to practise in the country in which it was issued;
2. (b) the standard of training for obtaining such a qualification complies with the requirements of our country.

In terms of section 53 of the Act, a patient may, within three months after receipt of an account from a practitioner, apply to the council to determine the amount which, in the opinion of the council, should have been charged for the services to which the account relates. This provision has been inserted to protect the public against the charging of exorbitant fees. As a result of legal advice obtained by the council, it is only competent to determine such an amount if the account has not yet been settled. The provision is now being amended so as to enable the council to determine the amount in a case where the account has already been settled.

The cost of the travelling and subsistence allowance of Public Servants who serve on statutory bodies, is borne by the State, and the relevant provisions are being amended to bring them into line with what is being done in practice.

As the request of the Governments of the independent States which were formerly part of the Republic, the S.A. Medical and Dental Council is continuing to perform its functions in such States after such territories have attained their independence.

Since there are reservations as to whether the council has the power to perform any function for another State, such power is now being created.

Mr. Speaker, we support the Second Reading of this Bill. As far as clause 1 is concerned, I understand that the new definition of “speciality” has the support of the medical profession. For the reasons indicated by the hon. the Minister, it is a welcome definition because it more accurately reflects the various branches of specialization in the medical profession.

Clause 2, which proposes the deletion of paragraph (b) of section 24(2), is understandable because of the change in the legislation and the attitude of the United Kingdom. However, I understand that even though an applicant with foreign qualifications may be able to pass through the necessary procedure in South Africa and practice here in terms of the Act as it stands, in practice red tape often results in long periods elapsing between the time of application and the time the final decision is made by the board. In other words, Mr. Speaker, red tape causes a lot of time to be wasted before the applicant hears the result of the application. I would like the hon. the Minister to look into this aspect—as it affects a large number of individuals who wish to practice in South Africa—with a view to speeding up of the procedure whereby foreign qualified medical practitioners can get the necessary approval to practise in South Africa.

The clause which relates to the amounts which have to be repaid once a determination is made by the board protects patients and is, in terms of the legal opinion which has been obtained by the department, aimed to make it clear under what powers the department is entitled to act.

The remaining clauses of the Bill, particularly the one relating to independent Black States, are merely there to clarify an existing situation and does not introduce any new procedures into the Act.

We support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, when one considers this Bill, it is very clear that it is basically concerned with four aspects, and in this regard this side of the House pledges its support to the hon. the Minister. Tremendous development has taken place in the medical sphere as far as specialization is concerned. As far as ordinary medical practitioners are concerned, one only needs to go to Tygerberg Hospital to have a look at one aspect, viz. that of bioengineering. It is a completely new direction and active in this field are the superspecialists. It is amazing to see what young engineering students are accomplishing in the field of medicine. By the application of their engineering ingenuity, limbs and other prosthetic aids are being developed for people who have been injured in serious accidents or in war situations, in order to help them to live a worthwhile life. I am very grateful that provision is being made for these people, and the same applies to dentists and orthodontists. Excellent work is being done in that regard as well at the tooth and mouth hospital at the University of Pretoria. In the sphere of the psychological sciences, completely new methods of therapy—such as logotherapy and psychotherapy, each with its own subdivisions—are being developed, in fact, a new world in the service of mankind. We can be proud that these services are being offered in South Africa. What is even more important to me, is that it is being provided in clause 2 that if these superspecialists should for example overcharge a patient, that specialist shall pay the difference back to the patient, through the doctor. This affords protection to the patient, whose interests, I believe, must be looked after and in whose interests we must act. What is of extreme importance, since we are now entering a confederal structure here in South Africa, is that it is becoming increasingly necessary to have the same type of supervision across national boundaries, so that disciplinary measures may be applied, if necessary, when mutual specialist services are rendered and, on the other hand, to see that the training and facilities are of the same standard so that the standards of the medical profession will in no way be lowered. In conclusion, I should like to associate myself with what a previous speaker said, viz. that since there are many specialists overseas who want to settle in South Africa in order to practise their superspeciality, the idea that the procedure ought to be streamlined has merit. My real argument tonight, and I want to address this to the hon. the Minister, is in connection with our own students at our medical schools who are training to become so-called superspecialists. It is an extremely expensive kind of training, not only for the student himself who has completed his medical studies and then wishes to specialize further, but also for the medical institutions which have to provide those facilities. I know that the hon. the Minister has a sympathetic ear for the notion that we should, as far as possible provide the funds for these research institutions, to make it possible for them and for us in South Africa to be self-sufficient in this area. I think that this is one of the most practical and most relevant little amendments to the health legislation which we have had in a long time, and I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister for bringing it to this House.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Pinetown permitted to read his newspaper in this House?

Order! The rules provide that hon. members may not read newspapers in the Chamber. The Chair has already pointed this out earlier on this evening.

It is a special edition, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House shall be supporting the Second Reading of this Bill. I have however, one or two queries and I am sure that the hon. the Minister will clear up these queries. In so far as clause 2 is concerned in terms of which section 24 of the principal Act is amended by the deletion of paragraph (b) of subsection (2), I put it to the hon. the Minister that, with the deletion of this paragraph, the position will be that the S.A. Medical and Dental Council will decide whether a person with an overseas qualification may practice or not without the necessity of an examination. What will the position be of a person with an overseas qualification who is not accepted by the council? Will that person have to start de novo in South Africa? Will he have to go back to university or may the council give him credit of so many years and allow him to complete a further two or three years of study to qualify for our South African standards? That is the one question.

I accept that we wish to maintain the high standard of our medical profession, but at the same time we do not wish to discourage immigrants, least of all doctors.

Clause 3 is to be welcomed, and we agree with it.

Clause 4 raises one query in so far as public servants are concerned and the exclusion of the allowances. May I just inquire whether they will still get the S and T which is normally allowed. That is the other query that I have.

Clause 5 is to be welcomed as this will only encourage the same standards in our neighbouring territories that we ourselves have become use to.

If the hon. the Minister can answer these few questions we on this side of the House shall support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank hon. members who took part in the debate. The hon. member for Durban Central raised a few points and I can assure him that the clause he referred to has the support of the medical profession. With regard to doctors from overseas who wish to settle in South Africa and the red tape they have to contend with, I think one should see this in a different light. It is actually the task of the Medical and Dental Council to ensure that these doctors are cleared and to ascertain whether they can practise in this country or not. If their qualifications are in order and they are graduates of a medical school that is recognized by the Medical and Dental Council, they will encounter no real problems. If, however, their qualifications have to be investigated to ascertain whether they graduated at a medical school where the curriculum conforms to our standards, it could be a lengthy process. The council is very strict and makes every effort to ensure that no practitioner who does not have the proper qualifications is allowed to practise in South Africa. This does take time. I have, however, in the past asked the council not to delay their decisions in this regard unnecessarily, but they informed me that the processing of all applications has to follow a certain procedure.

The hon. member also referred to clause 3 which seeks to protect the public, and that is the actual reason why it was included. In the past the position was that if the account had been paid, there was no redress after the lapse of three months. This clause now enables a patient to complain even if the account has been paid, and if the council finds that the fee was excessive the doctor involved will have to refund the patient.

*I thank the hon. member for Brits, too, for his support. He referred very briefly but effectively to the wide scope of the work being done today. One cause for concern is the continuous increase in costs which specialization involves, and I think that in many instances it calls for our attention. Perhaps there is a tendency for too many physicians to specialize, but it is not my task to decide on that, because my only task is to see to it that it is organized. The hon. member said inter alia that the standard of medical services has improved significantly in the past few years, and I can assure him that we are constantly trying to make more money available for research. Millions are spent on research annually, not only by the MRC, but also by the Department of Health and Welfare, by our universities and by our medical schools as well.

†The hon. member for South Coast who also supported the Bill, asked whether the S.A. Medical and Dental Council decided on the qualifications of doctors from abroad who wish to practise in South Africa. If these doctors graduated at medical schools especially in the United Kingdom and some of our other sister countries, there are no problems, but if the council are not happy about a doctor’s qualifications they may grant him a restricted right to practise, for example in a hospital. Recently a doctor from one of the South American countries— I think it was Brazil—who was actually a professor in orthopaedics in his country, decided to come to this country. As there is no reciprocity between Brazil and South Africa, the council were not quite sure of the standard of his qualifications, but they allowed him to fill a post at one of our teaching hospitals. They have now, however, recognized his qualifications and all he has to do is to sit for a final examination, in which in the main questions will be answered orally. This is merely to ensure that his qualifications conform with our standards. So I am quite sure that the example I have given will prove to the hon. member that there is a special dispensation for people who are qualified. This is just to make sure that we protect the public against people who come from countries in which there was perhaps not a reasonably high standard.

This brings me to the question of subsistence and travel allowances. The people will be getting their subsistence and travel allowances as they should be. The relevant provision actually deals with allowances for people in the Public Service, but it will not exceed the allowances laid down by law and by certain regulations. It is just a matter of getting things into line so that there is no difference between statutory bodies and the Public Service as such.

I think I have now dealt with the questions put to me. I should like to thank the hon. members for their contributions which have proved that in certain matters we can agree, even though there may, at other times, be matters on which we have to agree to disagree.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Pharmacy Board receives many applications from foreign pharmacists desiring registration in the Republic. Although in most cases there can be no question of full registration, as such persons do not comply with our requirements, it is regrettable that they cannot practise their profession in South Africa. It is therefore proposed to amend the Act so as to create the opportunity for them to obtain registration as pharmacists’ assistants. This will enable them to pursue their careers, and their services will then also be available to our country.

In terms of section 41 of the Act, the board may make rules specifying the acts or omissions in respect of which the board may take disciplinary steps. The proposed amendment of section 22(2) is only aimed at bringing the provision in line with section 41. It is fairly common practice, particularly in residential areas, for pharmacists as a group to render after-hour services to the community. Because of the high cost involved in rendering such services, it is often only a viable proposition if the pharmacists involved render the services personally. Problems arise when members of the group rendering the service are managing directors of other corporate bodies. In order to overcome this problem the amendment of section 22(4) is proposed.

Section 33(1) of the Act prohibits a person or institution from offering a course of training in pharmacy, unless such training has been approved by the board. The Act does not comment, however, on the procedure according to which such approval must be obtained, and it is therefore proposed to insert the two new provisions in section 33 so as to clarify the matter.

Provision exists in the Act for the contingency of the liquidation of a corporate body. However, the Act does not stipulate the effect of a judicial management order on a corporate body. The board is of opinion that it is advisable to permit a corporate body to continue acting as a pharmacist under a judicial management order and that this can be accomplished by the addition of paragraph (d) to section 37. In the performance of its functions the board also registers pharmacies, corporate bodies carrying on businesses as pharmacists and managing directors of corporate bodies. The Minister is therefore also empowered to prescribe, by regulation, fees for such registrations. In accordance with agreements between the Government and the Governments of States, the territories which formerly formed part of the Republic, the board will continue performing its functions in such territories. The provision of clause 6 will empower the board to render services in such territories.

Mr. Speaker, we support the Second Reading of this Bill as well. A provision which makes it easier for the public in South Africa to make use of qualified pharmacists who have trained in other countries is always welcome, particularly since the Bill now makes provision for easier access for these people to a pharmacist’s job in this country, albeit as a pharmacist’s assistant.

The provision relating to directors of bodies corporate being entitled to act as pharmacists or to do the jobs of a pharmacist is welcome as well. One wonders why such a provision was not included in the original Act. The same applies to clause 4 which makes provision for a body corporate carrying out a pharmacist’s functions to act under a judicial manager. Quite clearly, although a body corporate such as that may be under judicial management, the person who actually runs the business and acts as a pharmacist has to be a qualified pharmacist. The Bill does ensure that that will be the case.

While dealing with a Bill like this, one does want to make a plea for pharmacists generally. The pharmacist, particularly in platteland areas, has traditionally been the first port of call for the public at large when it comes to minor ailments. A great deal of time has been saved for district surgeons and other medical practitioners in small towns because of the valuable advice and assistance given by pharmacists, and a great amount of money has also been saved because ailments were identified by pharmacists at an early stage or at a stage at which it was not necessary to go any further and consult a medical practitioner. There are more and more complaints by pharmacists, mainly in rural areas, that their functions are being undermined and taken over by various institutions and bodies. We know that in the Cape the pharmacists in rural areas are worried by the provision the Provincial Administration is now making for pensioners to obtain the services they require through hospitals instead of pharmacists themselves. They are worried that this may be the beginning of a trend in the medical field where they are being bypassed and their functions are being taken over by hospital services. Also, if one takes into account that in terms of legislation which was passed last year nurses now have the right to prescribe drugs in areas in which they were not entitled to do so before, this too is a worrying aspect for pharmacists because they face the threat of a large number of drugs and prescribed medicines now being prescribed by nurses as they are entitled to do at this stage. The pharmacist, particularly in rural areas, is an institution and one ought to guard against inroads being made into his viability in small towns where he plays an essential part in the services that are being provided.

The last clause in the Bill, clause 6, is similar to one that was dealt with in the previous Bill. It merely formalizes the activities of the Pharmacy Board in the independent areas. It once again illustrates that, although these areas may be independent legally, they are in fact a part of South Africa and that the administration, be it in regard to health or any other aspect, can function properly in those areas only if it is one combined effort by all South Africans, which is what this Bill provides for. We support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for Durban Central very sincerely for being so amiable tonight as to support the Bill under discussion, just as he has supported the previous Bills relating to health. This only goes to prove that he originally came from a very good environment, although he is now a Natalian. [Interjections.] It is nevertheless proved by his positive attitude in this House tonight.

In supporting the legislation concerned on behalf of hon. members on this side of the House, however, there are a few aspects that I wish to emphasize. The first of these relates to the registration of people who come here from abroad, people with pharmaceutical training, who have to prove that they comply with the exacting requirements and high standards of the pharmaceutical profession in South Africa. They are now being accorded an opportunity, therefore, in terms of which their knowledge will not be lost and they will not have to seek employment in a different field, but will be able to register as pharmacists’ assistants. Therefore it affords them the opportunity of proving themselves. If their qualifications are not up to the standard required, it also gives them the opportunity of qualifying themselves properly as pharmacists and eventually proving that they can in fact practise as pharmacists in South Africa and meet the high standard set in this country.

Furthermore, the Bill also authorizes— and is intended to authorize—the Pharmacy Board to operate in independent national States. This confirms the principle of rendering assistance to independent national States, which we apply in specific fields. The object of this is of course to assist the independent States, and it is certainly not intended to keep them under a kind of tutelage. The intention is merely to help them until they are able to act independently. It is in fact in the same spirit that the British Pharmacy Board also performed a function in South Africa years ago until the pharmaceutical profession in our own country had attained a level where we could handle it ourselves.

For the rest, the legislation seeks to rectify certain shortcomings and to remove certain deficiencies which existed in the old Pharmacy Act. Therefore we on this side of the House take great pleasure in supporting this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we in the NRP have no problem with the Bill now under discussion, and we will be supporting it.

The amending provisions contained in clause 1 of the Bill are to be welcomed. It makes it easier now for people holding qualifications obtained in other countries to be accepted as pharmacists’ assistants in South Africa, subject to certain requirements, of course. This will of course also be beneficial to many immigrants.

Clause 2, which seeks to amend section 22 of the principal Act, contains a more specific provision in respect of the omission to perform certain acts. It is a very pertinent provision, and tightens up the present situation, I believe. It is a provision which is also to be welcomed. The proposed new section 22(4) also brings about a welcome change. The amendment contained therein allows for more leeway in respect of people involved in more than one business. I believe that this is in fact in keeping with modern business trends, although involvement in business practices to which this provision will apply will still be subject to the board’s approval.

Clause 4 of the Bill, which seeks to amend section 37 of the principal Act, poses a problem. I have yet to see the business of a pharmacist being placed under judicial management. With the present state of the economy, however, I suppose this may well be possible. It may also be indicative of the signs of the time; who knows? We also welcome the proposed new section 50A, which is to be inserted in the principal Act in terms of clause 6 of the Bill. I believe this will enable us to assist our neighbouring territory in maintaining high standards. We support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, once again I wish to convey my sincere thanks to hon. members who have participated in the debate for their support of the Bill.

To begin with, I want to point out that the amendments contained in the Bill have virtually all been introduced at the request of the Pharmacy Board, which was established a few years ago, and by means of which pharmacists were given full professional status. I co-operate very closely with the members of the Pharmacy Board and we have regular discussions. I can assure hon. members that the speeches made in this debate furnish ample proof of the extent to which the pharmaceutical profession should actually be cherished and to which we should also ensure that pharmacies remain in the hands of the private sector.

†The hon. member for Durban Central made a special plea for pharmacists in the rural areas particularly in regard to the services of the district surgeon and the fact that prescriptions are now being sent to the provincial hospitals. I have discussed this matter on two occasions with the members of the executive committees because the district surgeon services have been taken over in most of the provinces by the provincial administrations. The Department of Health and Welfare has always sent all prescriptions to private pharmacists but over the past while some of these prescriptions have been dealt with by the hospitals. Personally, I do not like this idea and I have discussed it with the members of the executives. There is the question of costs. This can be done cheaper through the provincial hospitals. However, it is a matter which I shall discuss again when we meet in the policy council.

As far as the question of nurses being permitted to prescribe drugs is concerned, I think hon. members will remember that this will only happen in very special circumstances. The nurse does not actually prescribe. All that happens is that when she runs certain clinics she is provided with a pack of certain types of medicine with full instructions. It is not a question of the nurse deciding what the dosage will be. Whether it is medicine for gastroenteritis or for a cough or an antibiotic, all the dosage instructions and so forth are written on the pack itself. In the area in which such a nurse operates, no doctor or pharmacist is usually available unless one travels long distances, sometimes 50 or 100 km. This provision was introduced into the principal Act in order to regularize certain procedures that are being followed at present. I do not think that this will in any way affect the pharmacists. If we had pharmacists in those areas we would not need the services of these nurses to carry out this sort of treatment. It certainly does not take any work away from the pharmacists. In actual fact, these packs are made up by full-time pharmacists themselves and they are then given to the nurses.

The hon. member also wondered why these provisions which appear so obvious were not introduced originally. With all my years of having to deal with ordinances and Acts, it took me a long time to realize that one can never make a piece of legislation completely watertight. In fact, we may even be amending some of these provisions next year again. All we can do is try to improve legislation in close co-operation with the bodies that are involved in these particular professions.

*The hon. member for Middelburg made a very interesting contribution. I do not think the historical facts he mentioned are generally known, and this indicates to me that he went to some trouble to find out how all these matters fit together as far as the pharmaceutical profession is concerned. I think the principle which he mentioned in connection with assistance to the national States is a very important one. It is in line with the department’s programme and we try to lay down everything in legislation wherever we can, and we do this precisely because we want to help the national States wherever they may need our help.

The hon. member also made a very good contribution concerning the pharmacists who come here from other countries. I agree with him that we are very keen to have those people with us. I should like to thank him for his valuable contribution.

†The hon. member for South Coast found no difficulty in supporting this Bill. He said he had not heard of a chemist being placed under judicial management. I suppose there is nothing like facing up to facts. This could happen at any stage, particularly if times get harder. I do not think this would normally happen, although we have had the request from the board. The board probably knows of one or two cases. I remember one case in particular where a special request was made to me that I should not do anything about it. In this particular case the husband died and there was a problem with this particular pharmacy because the wife was not a pharmacist and they had to get somebody in. This amendment is simply an attempt to deal with cases such as these. One cannot alter legislation to meet every individual case, but it can lead to a great deal of hardship if this amendment is not effected.

Mr. Speaker, I want to convey my sincere thanks to hon. members for their contributions.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Bill not committed.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The amendments as proposed in the Bill, are being made at the request of the South African Medical Research Council. The objective in replacing the title of Vice-President with Deputy-President is to enable the council to appoint one or more officials of the council as vice-presidents should the council be of the opinion that circumstances demand it, as is the case at other scientific institutions. The council at present consists of the president, vice-president and 12 members. The council is of the opinion that it could be advantageous for the number of council members to be increased by two, the additional two council members not to be restricted to the narrow group of medical and related scientists, for instance, an economist or a lawyer. In addition, the council has also requested that the number of members of the executive committee be increased from four to five, so that one of the additional two members can serve on it. In terms of the existing powers of the council, the Minister is required in all cases to grant approval to purchase or otherwise acquire movable and immovable property. It is considered that as far as immovable property is concerned, such approval is unnecessary.

In order to promote external co-operation and enable the council also to furnish assistance in those states the territories of which were once part of the Republic, it is being proposed that the council be empowered, with the approval of the Minister, to undertake research outside the Republic. It will be noted that it is being proposed that the president, vice-president and members of the council will in future have to be appointed by the Minister, instead of the State President. This amendment is being proposed with a view to reducing administrative work. In terms of section 13(1) the council may appoint officials and employees at the salary and allowances approved by the Minister in consultation with the Minister of Finance. This provision is being amended to state clearly that it includes all conditions of service. At present the council has no power to make advances to the staff to enable them to obtain better pension benefits. This shortcoming is being rectified and will be in line with what is being done by other similar institutions. At present the Act makes no mention of the use of interest on investments by the council. This shortcoming is also being eliminated.

The provisions of the repealed Treasury and Audit Act, 1956, relating to the recovery of losses and damage, was also applicable to statutory bodies, but the new measures in this regard incorporated in the Treasury and Audit Act, 1975, no longer apply to those bodies. As a result, the necessary arrangements in this regard must be made separately for each body, and the insertion of the new sections 22A and 22B is being proposed. The stipulations have been taken from existing legislation, viz. the Atomic Energy Act, with the necessary adjustments.

The power to make regulations is being transferred from the State President to the Minister with a view to eliminating administrative work. For the most part, the subjects concerning which regulations may be made include matters intimately connected with the activities of the council, and therefore it is deemed appropriate that the council, being an authority on these matters should advise the Minister.

Mr. Speaker, once again we support the principle contained in this Bill. The enlargement of the board from 14 to 16 is understandable and the fact that two members of the board need not necessarily be specialists in the medical field again makes common sense. As the Minister has explained, it may well be to the benefit of the Medical Research Council to have for example a qualified economist or businessman or a qualified legal man.

If one looks at the track record of the Medical Research Council, one can be satisfied that during their more or less 12 years of existence, some valuable service has been rendered as regards research into the many areas into which the council has looked. During the 12 years of its operation it has had to face many problems. One of the major problems it has been facing all along which it faces now is obviously an acute shortage of funds. That is a problem which many health and medical research bodies face today, even more so than in the past.

The Medical Research Council appears to have concentrated to a large extent on those diseases which affect, or which potentially can affect, large sections of our population. It appears to be looking again into the possibility of research into tropical diseases, which is also a welcome move, particularly if one takes into account that the research into tropical diseases in neighbouring countries such as Mozambique, Zimbabwe and Angola is not the same it used to be and that the public in South Africa may well be affected by the spreading of those diseases in neighbouring countries.

We also welcome the fact that foreign scientists intend to play a part in research in the tropical diseases section. I understand that some interest has been shown by Israeli scientists in assisting with the programme to the benefit of both South Africans and Israelis.

There are many other areas which I do not intend to deal with and in which great progress has been made through the Medical Research. Council. One of the problems which the Medical Research Council faces is that it finds it difficult to keep in touch with the various research bodies in the country in order to find out what research is being done at a specific moment by various institutions in South Africa. Nor does it always know where the various bodies get their funds from. That is an aspect which one ought perhaps to look into with a view to remedying this weakness at the moment. I have sent the hon. the Minister a draft amendment which I think may well deal with this. I will obviously go into detail in the Committee Stage. This comes at a late stage, not by design, but because it has only been dealt with at a very late stage. If one had a Medical Research Council which was representative of at least the major research bodies in the country or which had representatives from the major research bodies in the country, it would appear to me to be easier to keep check and to be in touch with these bodies as to what is being done in the field of research and where, inter alia, funds are obtained from and where funds are required. No doubt that amendment will be discussed in the Committee Stage.

About two years ago the hon. the Prime Minister expressed the wish here in Parliament that the activities of the Medical Research Council ought to be spread from their present concentration here in the Western Cape to other areas of the country, particularly to the Reef, where the major proportion of the South African population lives. Nothing or very little appears to have been done about that. If the hon. the Minister could perhaps indicate whether the Medical Research Council does intend to move a substantial portion of its operations to the larger areas such as Johannesburg, it would be welcomed. It makes sense to establish institutions and to concentrate research in those areas where specific diseases occur or in those areas where the people live who are affected by these diseases.

The Bill is supported by the Medical Research Council. It proposes amendments that improve the Act and introduces new aspects, such as the proposed section 22B, which provides for a streamlining of those spheres where in the past a grey area existed and a lot of procedural problems occurred. Therefore we in these benches support the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, if one looks at this legislation, one notices that the principal Act was placed on the Statute Book more than 12 years ago. Therefore I think it is only right and fitting that after such a long period of time, when an amendment is being effected for the first time, one should perhaps draw attention to the activities of this important scientific body, which are being carried out in the constituency of the hon. member for Tygervallei. This research council has a vast number of achievements to its credit after a relatively short period of 12 years. In spite of the chronically limited research funds at its disposal, it has nevertheless established an effective and purposeful nation-wide research structure under the able leadership of its president, Prof. Andries Brink, and supported by an exceptionally effective administrative component. This is due in particular to the policy of the Medical Research Council of supporting research financially and otherwise, where it can best be done. As a result of this, besides the financial support and numerous short-term research projects, approximately 30 research units and groups under the leadership of internationally recognized researchers, have been founded at almost every university in the country. As a result we can look back on the exceptional and nationally and internationally recognized achievements of South African researchers, of whom we can justifiably be proud. To mention only a few of these recent achievements, one calls to mind, for instance, the extensive research into heart diseases in this country. Thus, with the aid of the coronary risk factor study, the so-called Coris project, risk factors were identified which have a particular pattern in the South African context. There is, for instance, the high incidence of familial high blood cholesterol among Afrikaans-speaking families. There has also been the identification of multiple factors causing oesophagal cancer among the Black population of the Transkei in particular. During a visit, we saw some very informative research in this regard, where mildew in certain types of grain is an important cause of this disease. Furthermore, there is the distribution and identification of the risk factors, for instance in the South African form of porphyria. This is being researched intensively. The efforts to prevent the rejection of transplanted organs, have been crowned with a high degree of success in South Africa. One could continue in this vein. It is, of course, necessary for an organization such as this research council constantly to take stock of the country’s research needs. One of the reasons for submitting this Bill, is to provide a place on the council for members who are outside the sphere of medical science. This will ensure that such people will be able to contribute towards the identification of the country’s needs in the field of medical research.

The Medical Research Council is well aware that continual note must be taken of the changing circumstances which must necessarily influence its policy on research. Accordingly, it was decided recently to set up an advance planning committee to identify and constantly monitor such requirements for the council. Many needs have already been identified and are now demanding attention. The Medical Research Council is, for instance, fully aware of the harmful effect of the environment on the health of the inhabitants of the Republic. The increasing urbanization of the South African population, as is very clear from the Smith report of the CSIR, also has a profound influence on the welfare of people of all race groups. Not only do pollution and industrial diseases play a major role in this regard, but changing life styles, eating habits and housing problems, too, are detrimental to health. It is for these very reasons that the MRC is expanding its research efforts and is concentrating especially on the highly industrialized areas, especially in the Transvaal, where these environmental factors play an important part. On this occasion, therefore, I wish to appeal to the hon. the Minister to regard as a high priority the establishment of a branch of the MRC in the Transvaal, but I realize that anything of this kind can only be done if enough funds are made available for research. The MRC is suffering from a chronic lack of funds. This is not in accordance with the needs of the country, and does not compare favourably with the availability of funds for medical research in other countries. I believe that this is a matter that calls for urgent attention.

In terms of clause 3 of the Bill, the MRC may now undertake research outside the borders of the Republic of South Africa. Therefore it will now be possible to undertake research in the neighbouring States where it will be of value to and to the advantage of the respective population groups. Diseases such as tuberculosis, tropical diseases and other problems in the neighbouring States also influence the health of our own citizens, and it is therefore necessary that we research the distribution and prevention of these diseases. The MRC already enjoys excellent co-operation with Israel, and this legislation will further encourage this, since there are many social problems and fields of research which create the ideal opportunity for joint efforts to control diseases which afflict both countries. I therefore take pleasure in supporting the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, we on these benches will be supporting the Bill before us. The hon. the Minister has been having an easy time tonight. Maybe it is the after-effects of the Administrator’s party.

We particularly welcome clause 3 as this will provide assistance to our neighbouring territories, because it is well-known that some of these areas are the prime areas for cholera and bilharzia, and this type of co-operation can only be of benefit to all of us.

In respect of clause 8 (b) I should like to ask the hon. the Minister why it is necessary for the council to advance funds to enable a member of its staff to become a member of the pension fund.

Clause 10 deals with accounting procedures and puts things on a par with other departments. It also deals with the recovery of moneys and recourse to staff members in this regard. This is essential as it will maintain discipline and the sense of responsibility that is required, while at the same time making allowance for appeals and payments by instalments. With these few remarks we on this side of the House will support the Bill.