Mr Chairman, this Government can no longer be believed. Not even Little Red Riding Hood can believe this Government any more. [Interjections.] They do not think before they act or speak. [Interjections.] This budget, and the agricultural budget in particular, is further proof that the farmers can no longer believe the Government. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Lichtenburg is the chief spokesman of the Official Opposition. He must be given an opportunity to state the standpoint of the Official Opposition. I expect that, and that is what will happen. The hon member may proceed.

Thank you, Sir. I am saying that this budget, and the agricultural budget, in particular, is cast-iron proof that the farmers can no longer believe the Government. The two budgets together—the general affairs and the own affairs budgets for agriculture—have decreased by R233 million in comparison with last year—19,7%. When we add to that the effect of inflation, this budget is worth 35% less than that of last year. Then the hon the Minister and the hon the Minister of the Budget come forward and say that with this budget they are going to provide a better service, and even more services than last year. That is simply nonsense! How can one provide a better service with 35% less funds? Or do those two hon Ministers think they are going to increase productivity by 35%? Surely they are simply talking nonsense.

These two budgets together constitute 1,5% of the total budget. As far as agriculture is concerned, that is the lowest percentage in history, while agriculture is the most productive economic sector in South Africa, and also the largest employer in South Africa. In the meantime they are destroying it. [Interjections.]

They say they are serious about agriculture. When we look at this budget, one thing is very clear. It is the most peculiar budget one has ever seen. [Interjections.] There are nine programmes in the budget with regard to agriculture. Programme 2 deals with "Plant production promotion”. There are six items, and five of those items are exactly the same as those in the original budget last year—not even in the revised budget, but in the original budget! Only one item has changed, and that is the item with regard to the costs of administration. This increased from R5 million to R14 million. Last year the allocation to the other five was R42 million, and it is now again R42 million. The hon the Minister now wants to tell us that inflation only affects administration, and that it does not play a role with regard to agronomy, horticulture and the like.

Programme 3 deals with “Animal production promotion”. Five of the six items are again the same as they were in the original budget last year. Not in the additional appropriation! All that has increased, are the costs for administration, and those have risen from R3 million to R5 million. The allocation for the other five was R27 million, and it remains R27 million. Those include animal production and animal product research, veterinary research, livestock improvement schemes, vaccine production, and so on. Is the hon the Minister now saying that he can provide the same service, and even a better service with the same amount of money that was allocated last year? That is simply not true!

Programme 4 deals with “Resource utilisation”, which is vitally important! Eight out of the nine items are exactly the same as in the original budget last year. Only the costs for administration have been increased from R2,75 million to R12,78 million. For the rest, the amount of R52 million remains the same. This includes resource research, agricultural-economic research and soil conservation. Does the hon the Minister think that he can provide the same service with the same budget?

Programme 5 deals with “Entrepreneur development”. Five of the seven items remain exactly the same! The costs for administration increase from R10 million to R16 million, and the allocation for agricultural colleges rises from R8,4 million to R10,8 million, but the rest, which includes extension, advisory services and agricultural engineering services, remain exactly the same!

Programme 6 deals with “Agricultural financing”, and this is also vitally important! Eleven items remain exactly the same. Ten items have increased since last year, but two are repayments made by the farmers. Six items have decreased, and those items affect the essence of agriculture, namely “Land and improvements”. Here there is a decrease from R35,9 million to R10,5 million, and the consolidation of debt decreases from R142 million to R50 million. The total expenditure decreases from R322 million to R204 million. One can continue in this way with regard to this agricultural budget. The hon the Minister did not even compile a budget! He simply used last year’s figures, and the hon the Minister of the Budget and Works did not even notice it. Now these hon members want to say that they are serious about agriculture. The hon the Minister did not even look at his revised budget. He simply submitted the old figures, because he was too busy with problems which had developed in the political arena, and for that reason he did not have time to pay attention to agriculture. That is why I am saying that the farmers cannot believe these hon members, even if they say that they are sympathetic and serious, and that they are going to provide a better service. That is nonsense, because the hon members are not capable of doing so.

However, it is not only the farmers who cannot believe these hon members, members of the NP cannot believe their party and their leaders either! With this I again return to the Windmill Park affair. On 29 August last year, after negotiations on 10 August with Nationalists from the constituencies of Boksburg and Germiston District, the hon leader, now the leader-in-chief of the NP, wrote with regard to Windmill Park, Dawn Park and Villa Liza, that the recommendation of the Group Areas Board was that Windmill Park should remain a White-controlled area, and that it was an accomplished fact—this was a statement which was issued on the matter—that it was being maintained as such by the Government. The hon member said that the Group Areas Board had made a thorough investigation of the matter. This area must remain a White-controlled area! The hon member went further and said that he considered that to be the end of the matter. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Germiston District also sent out a letter before the election, entitled Nuusbriefaan Inwoners van Wyk 1, Boksburg. In this letter he wrote the following:

[Interjections.] He says only the NP can be trusted! He says:

That is an irrefutable statement. The hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning then said the following in a letter to the hon member for Germiston District on 2 August 1988:

Softer, F W!

With that they are undoubtedly telling the voters before the election that they will ensure that Windmill Park remains a White-controlled area.

On 9 March 1989, that hon Deputy Minister said that permits were now going to be granted, and that they were considering making it a free settlement area. I am saying that one cannot believe them, but they also do not think before they speak or act. In August last year, when they issued all these statements, the debates with regard to the Free Settlement Areas Act had already progressed quite far. They knew about that. Why did they not tell the voters that they would consider making it a free settlement area? No, that they did not do. Not even their own members and their own people can believe them. The fact is that in Johannesburg, the city council of Johannesburg is refusing to supply electricity to Coloureds and Indians who do not have group areas permits. An article in this regard appeared in this week’s edition of The Citizen. The city treasurer or the department of the city council which deals with this, refuses to supply electricity. I am now asking whether the Ministers’ Council and the Government are going to give them permits on humanitarian grounds. Are they going to turn against the city council of Johannesburg and rally their newspapers to publish all the propaganda against the city council of Johannesburg in the same way that propaganda was published against the town council of Boksburg? [Interjections.] I want to tell hon members that this Government is not honest with the voters. Afterwards in the “oeloe-oeloe” meetings, they want to say that only the NP can promote the interests of the voters. They say: “Look at how we protected you in Johannesburg, but in Boksburg, the CP could not protect you.” That is what they do behind the scenes.

I want to ask the hon the leader-in-chief of the NP a question. I found a very interesting little set of minutes in his constituency. These were the minutes of an informal meeting of councillors with the South African Police.

“Oeloe-oeloe”!

It was an “oeloeoeloe” meeting of a town council with the South African Police. There they said the following about problems with regard to the Group Areas Act:

I am asking the hon the leader-in-chief whether or not he has already received such a request from the “oeloe-oeloe” meeting, and what he is going to do about it. Is he going to ensure that the Group Areas Act is enforced in his constituency, but not in the rest of the Transvaal?

What is also significant in this budget is the Vote of the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, who was appointed to this post by the State President. His Vote grows by 166%. As far as I could establish—I did not work through the entire budget—this is the greatest increase to be found in a Vote. No other Votes grew more than this one. I can even see the reason for this.

Surely you know what the reason is.

The reason is that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council wants to stage a little coup d’état. [Interjections.] He needs money and soldiers for that. The ministerial representatives must now come to him. The fact is that as is the case in the rest of Africa, the State President of South Africa cannot even afford to be ill today, because he is ousted in his absence, at a time when he cannot defend himself. [Interjections.]

The hon the State President cannot even believe them. Neither their party members nor anyone else for that matter can believe them. Not even the hon the State President can believe them. On 2 February 1989, the hon the State President wrote a letter to the caucus of these hon members in which he stated two things very clearly. [Interjections.] He said that the office of the leader-in-chief of the NP should be separated from that of the State President, and that he wanted to remain on as State President only. Those two matters were stated very clearly in the letter to the caucus of 2 February. The four provincial leaders discussed that letter separately. They thought about the letter, but that thinking meant nothing. After deliberation, they presented the caucus with the unanimous result, and the caucus unanimously decided to accept the decision of the hon the State President that the offices should be separated and that he would remain on as State President. They accepted that unanimously.

At the beginning of this week they accepted, once again unanimously, that the offices should not be separated. [Interjections.] I am saying that those meditations of theirs meant absolutely nothing. They can no longer think, and when they do think it is as good as if they had not thought at all. Furthermore, the hon the leader-in-chief accepted that the offices would be separated and that Mr P W Botha would remain on as State President. The week before last he said that the hon the State President must go. Mr Hendrik Schoeman gets up onto a stage and says that the hon the State President must go.

He did not say it in my presence.

The hon the Minister did not repudiate it, and he was at the meeting. [Interjections.]

Order! I have the list of speakers in front of me. I see here that there are many capable Nationalists, PFP members and members of the CP who have yet to make their speeches. [Interjections.] Let us give them the opportunity, and not try to steal all their thunder with these noisy interjections. The hon member may proceed.

Not only did the hon the leader-in-chief do that, but he went further. After the hon the State President indicated that he wanted to address the federal council and the caucus, and that he would be in his office on Wednesday, 15 March, the hon the leader-in-chief called a meeting of the caucus and the federal council on Monday evening, before the hon the State President arrived. The hon the leader-in-chief is being incited by his members and the newspapers to dethrone the hon the State President and thereby to show his power, and in Africa, in particular, he will then be able to show what a formidable statesman he is, because he staged a coup d’état. After the hon the State President had said that he wanted to attend those meetings, the hon the leader-in-chief brought the date of the meetings forward, because in his heart of hearts he knew that he would not be able to stand up to the hon the State President if he met him face to face. He is too weak.

That is why you are sitting where you are!

The entire caucus and all the newspapers could just as well have told him that they were all behind him and that the whole of South Africa was behind him. He should knock out Mike Tyson; then he would be the biggest hero in the world. He knows that he has as little chance of meeting the hon the State President face to face, as he has of doing that. For that reason he called them together and climbed into the ring alone. He climbed into the ring alone and knocked out President Botha. [Interjections.] Do hon members know what such an imaginary victory means? President Botha is as unaware of having been knocked out on Monday evening, as Mike Tyson is, because the hon the State President takes as little notice of this as Mike Tyson does. The hon the State President calmly goes on as if nothing on earth has happened, because it was an imaginary knock-out punch which the hon the leader-in-chief gave him. [Interjections.] The hon the State President knows something else as well. They could change their decision within a week. He knows that they are so temperamental and that they do not think before they act. They may change their decision again, but, and this is of the utmost importance, in their over-zealousness to stage this little coup d’état, they have exposed the character of the NP and its approach to power-sharing, and they have left their jaw exposed as never before in the history of South Africa, because in their over-zealousness and in their worthless reflections, they have demonstrated that the NP must fill the office of State President and that no one else may fill that office. No one else may fill that office. No leader of the majority party of another House may fill that office. Only a Nationalist may fill it. [Interjections.]

They then say that they stand for equitable power-sharing, that the colour of the State President does not matter and that they want to enter into negotiation with the Blacks. That falsehood has been exposed by this step of theirs which they took without thinking, because they are acting like someone who is being pushed from one corner to another in a boxing ring. They do not think. They are acting instinctively, just to survive. [Interjections.] They have exposed the fact that this power-sharing and everything which they uphold is a pretext. They are trying to keep power in the hands of the NP.

That hon leader-in-chief cannot and will not even share power with the hon the State President. He wants to stage a coup d’état. He wants all the power for himself. I now ask how he is really, honestly, sincerely and justly going to share power with other population groups. He is not.

For that reason we know that these dishonest practices in politics have their price. One cannot continue in that way because one pays a price for doing so, and the price is the Whites of South Africa, whom the NP are sacrificing with the dishonest politics they are practising.

Furthermore, I want to say that when there is a weak leader at the helm, the little plans to create all kinds of ploys, are more plentiful and more skilful. However, as the little plans become less effective, so the price increases. [Interjections.]

For that reason I want to say that that party cannot be believed. That party no longer thinks. When it speaks and acts, it does so instinctively, because it has painted itself into a corner with its dishonest politics.

After all the things that have happened recently, one fact is as clear as day, and that is that the CP can be believed. [Interjections.] The next fact is that the CP has thought profoundly. [Interjections.] Hon members can believe what the CP says. Before the CP talks and acts, they think the matter over carefully. [Interjections.]

The NP is engaged in dishonest politics when it makes use of these ploys, but the politics of the CP is the only real answer for South Africa. [Interjections.] That is partition, where every people will have its own land, where every people will be able to live out its ideals, where it can obtain maximum utilisation of the resources and the opportunities which are granted to it, and where it can develop to the greatest heights. [Interjections.] For those people who are unable to live in their own country and who come here to sell their labour and want to remain here, provision is made by means of separate amenities. This has materialised over three and a half centuries in South Africa. It is a way of life which has been tested over those three centuries. [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Lichtenburg says we did not think, but I am of the opinion that he did not think either. He did not think or realise that he is too feeble to drive a wedge between the hon the leader-in-chief of the NP and the hon the State President. [Interjections.]

Nor do I think he is competent to suddenly want to assume, in this debate, the role of protagonist for the hon the State President. [Interjections.] Last year this hon member was judged and censured in terms of the Rules of the House when he impugned the hon the State President’s integrity. [Interjections.] Now he acts as a champion for the hon the State President. [Interjections.] He is in no way competent to do so, but the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council will duly take this matter further. [Interjections.]

The hon member began with a virulent attack on the budget of the Department of Agriculture and Water Supply. Let me tell him that he is not competent to assess an agricultural budget. [Interjections.] I shall prove this.

In characteristic fashion the hon member began to be very derogatory—we have come to know him as a very derogatory person—by saying that what the hon the Minister professed to be the Government’s sympathy for the South African farmers was the biggest joke in South Africa. [Interjections.] Let us elaborate slightly on the hon member’s jokes. I have here dozens of letters from farmers in that area expressing their thanks to the Government for the interest subsidy of R100 per hectare. I am going to quote hon members one of these letters from that hon member’s constituency:

Nampo and I have not always been bosom buddies. We frequently clash:

So much for the motion. I now want to ask the hon member whether that is a joke. [Interjections.] There is a further question I want to put to the hon member. Did he himself make use of this subsidy?

Yes. [Interjections.] What is the problem with that?

I do not have any problem with that. The hon member is quite right. He can make use of it.

I want to ask a further question. If he thinks that this assistance the Government rendered in that area, as an act of sympathy, is a big joke, why does he not give the R40 000 back? [Interjections.] He says it is a joke, does he not?

I said that the Government’s sympathy was a joke. [Interjections.]

That hon member makes use of the Government’s sympathy, but says it is a joke. I challenge that hon member to give back the R40 000. [Interjections.]

I want to come back to the hon member’s assessment of the budget.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is it permissible for a Minister to discuss the private affairs of a member of this House in public? [Interjections.] Is it proper and is it ethical?

Mr Chairman, on a further point of order: The hon the Minister is welcome to place everything he knows about me on the table. I have absolutely nothing I need be afraid of. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Minister may proceed.

The hon member has the tendency, in this House, to become personal and to place people’s integrity at issue. The hon member is quite entitled to receive the subsidy. He need not be that sensitive about it. [Interjections.] That hon member need not be that sensitive about it either. We are not ashamed of one another. We have known one another for years now. [Interjections.] I am saying there is nothing scandalous about it. [Interjections.]

Order! I should like to put it in these terms. As far as I know the hon the Minister has not said anything that is unparliamentary. The hon member for Lichtenburg said he was completely satisfied with what was said and that he had nothing to hide. The hon the Minister may proceed.

I told the hon member that he was not competent to assess an agricultural budget. If one looks at the agricultural budget, one sees that it consists of two elements—the operating facet and the aid or assistance facet.

If one looks at the operating facet, one sees that there was an increase of more than 18% in this budget. Meanwhile a major rationalisation of expenditure has taken place. One cannot simply compare last year’s figure with this figure and then say the budget is being encroached upon. All of us, every department, takes every possible step to rationalise and economise. I want to tell hon members that for this department this budget is an achievement in every sense of the word.

What the hon member forgets, however, is that in last year’s budget an amount of R100 million for flood damage was included. There was a further R30 million on my budget which was transferred to the Treasury in regard to compensation in terms of the State guarantee. That is already an amount of R130 million. What is important is that the amount requested by farmers for further assistance has decreased, and proof of this we find in the stronger reflux under the agricultural credit account.

Consequently this budget is in fact one that indicates that there is an improvement as far as agriculture is concerned. We do not need any further flood aid. If we look at the previous two years, 1987-88 and 1988-89, we see that we are dealing with the largest allocation ever made in the history of this department, ie R1,3 billion. The largest ever in the history of this department! The hon member is free to check on this. One cannot assess a budget, and definitely not an agricultural budget, merely on the grounds of how the figures compare with those of the previous year. [Interjections.] Does the hon member perhaps want to tell me we should have budgeted again for a flood? Does he see a flood in the offing? [Interjections.] The hon member is completely wrong.

We are seeing where the problems of agriculture are most acute, and one specific area is that of interest subsidies. We have looked into the position. This is one of the most sensitive matters in agriculture which could hamper its future development. That is why the Ministers’ Council resolved, specifically as a result of the interest rates that could influence the effectiveness of aid schemes, that it was going to render further assistance in this connection. It adopted the following resolution:

1. (i) dat die uitleenkoerse van die Landbank wat ingevolge die bestaande hulpprogramme met ’n sekere vaste marge gesubsidieer word, met ’n verdere 2 persentasiepunte gesubsidieer word;
2. (ii) dat die hoër rentesubsidie vir die kalenderjaar 1989 geld en dat die grootte van die rentesubsidie gevolglik teen die einde van 1989 hersien word.

We are therefore keeping an eye on the situation. If interest rates were to get further out of hand, we would take further steps. It was also resolved—

1. (iii) dat die hoër rentesubsidie geld ten opsigte van die volgende skemas …

Now the hon member must listen, because these schemes are applicable to his part of the world:

1. (a) die 1987-droogtehulpskema vir veeboere in die ekstensiewe weidingstreke. Die skema strek tot 31 Maart 1990;
2. (b) die sesjaarskuldoorlaatskema in die somerreënvalsaaistreke, beide ten opsigte van somer- en wintergewasse wat tot in 1991 strek—31 Augustus 1991 vir somergewasse en 30 April 1991 vir wintergewasse;
3. (c) die tienjaarskuldoorlaatskema …

That is the scheme which is chiefly in operation in that specific area—

1. (d) die sesjaarhulpskema ten opsigte van die vloedhulpprogramme wat oor die tydperk 1 Mei 1988 tot 30 April 1994 strek.

The aid programmes we present in a budget are geared to the problem weighing the most heavily on the farmers. The impression being created by the CP and by that hon member is that the agricultural industry should be an aid organisation, a social organisation offering social services.

That is the impression the hon member is creating. Lavish aid on the farmers. [Interjections.] That is the impression he is creating, but we believe in the development of an independent farming community in South Africa.

I want to tell the hon member that the CP’s political credibility is increasingly coming under fire. Allow me to mention the one example from the hon member’s speech in Pretoria last year at the commencement of the municipal election campaign. Does the hon member remember making the statement that the CP should take over the. municipalities because they controlled the regional services councils? His words were that the CP “hulle stukkend moet slaan deur hul begrotings te weier”. That is typical of the hon member’s politics. That is how we have come to know him. [Interjections.] Yes, that was his argument: Boycott them!

What happens in practice? The CP councillors cheerfully—and in some cases effectively—participate in regional services councils. They are not demolishing them, but they do not only participate for the benefit of the White community, but also for the benefit of all the other communities involved. [Interjections.] I am now waiting for the hon member to tell them once again that they should demolish the regional services councils, because people no longer believe him. His political credibility is at issue, and we hope that the next election will come as quickly as possible so that we can bring all these aspects to light. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the hon the deputy leader of the CP says that the CP can be believed. Ask Boksburg whether the CP can be believed. Ask Boksburg businessmen whether the CP can be believed. Ask the Boksburg CP members whether the CP can be believed.

I want to read hon members an extract from a letter written to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition by a Boksburg businessman. He writes:

This is his letter to Dr Andries Treurnicht. [Interjections.]

I shall not mention that name—

He telephoned me a week ago and then said that he was advertising it for R35 000. He telephoned me the day before yesterday and told me that he could no longer use any of the help I may have been able to give him. He was starting work for an employer on Monday and his wife would now try to run this business, or what remained of it. The letter to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition further reads:

I now want to ask what the hon leader of the CP did. He replied to this letter to acknowledge receipt of it. What did he do afterwards, however? Nothing! This is the impression we retain of the credibility of a CP which, after being in power in Boksburg for five months, is forcing to his knees the small businessman, the CP member, one of those people whom he told that this Government was impoverishing them. [Interjections.] Who is impoverishing whom in this country? The CP …

Order! I cannot permit a chorus to be raised on my left as soon as the hon member draws breath. This must stop. The hon member may proceed.

I want to tell those hon members that they will contribute to many towns in South Africa having this type of experience. I now get to the next point which the hon member made. The hon member said that the leader of the NP …

Which one?

… Mr F W de Klerk had made certain statements. I now want to tell the hon member that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council advised in that letter that further investigation was to be conducted as regards areas which were to be created for people of colour. That is exactly what the East Rand intends doing. On the instructions of the hon the Minister we went to look at more areas. There is an urgent need among Coloureds—hon members from the East Rand who are sitting there will be able to tell us this—and that is why we identified further areas.

The Free Settlement Areas Act also provides that a developer may come and lodge an application. This is what this developer did because he knows that that area has been struggling to grow for years. After five years and millions of rands’ investment in infrastructure, there are only 21 houses on the 253 erven which can be developed there. Only 20 erven were later added to the existing 253, in other words only 16% five years later. Five years later the Boksburg ratepayer is still paying for that infrastructure which is lying there and that CP town council tells them that they have to continue paying for it because the town council does not mind that there are no Whites who want to go and live there. The ratepayer has to continue paying because it is a White area.

This is why the hon the Minister realised that we could not go on like this in this country because those Boksburg Whites have to keep on paying. Over and above the losses which that town council is forcing onto them, they also want us to pay rates on land which is lying there unutilised. Surely this state of affairs cannot continue in this country. [Interjections.] Who is impoverishing whom? That hon member himself made a speech in Boksburg as well as the hon member for Barberton. I now want to ask hon members what the hon member for Barberton knows about Boksburg. He cannot even provide leadership to the people in his own area so why does he go there?

I want to tell hon members that, if we are engaged in a free settlement investigation in Boksburg, we are doing this because there is a need for it. There is a need among Coloureds, there is a need among couples who have contracted mixed marriages. I am telling hon members what that CP town council is doing. It sends traffic officers in to establish which people in Windmill Park have dog licences. What a despicable manner to try to establish whether people of colour are living there! Then that traffic constable visited an Indian lady and he was so arrogant that he apparently slapped her at some stage or other. The same traffic constable at some stage visited an Indian whose mother is of Irish descent and whose father is of Indian descent and he is so white in colour that some hon members sitting there …

Would call him sir.

Yes, would call him sir. The hon member is right. [Interjections.] He is whiter than most of us sitting here and particularly on that side of the House. [Interjections.]

That Indian was then asked where his dog licence was because they could not discover whether he was an Indian or not. He was also asked where the Indians were living who had moved into the neighbourhood. Can one believe the CP if it does this type of thing? [Interjections.] All I want to tell hon members is that the hon the Minister said that an investigation had to be made into places where free settlement areas could be developed because there was a need. If that infrastructure has to be paid for in those local government areas, one must look into this.

I want to go further to see what the chairman of the Boksburg CP said. They held a meeting on Tuesday evening and on their agenda that chairman of the Boksburg CP management committee recommended that a free settlement area be established in Boksburg.

Where was that?

In Mapleton; this is stated in his report to the city council. I shall give the hon member that report.

That is not true.

The hon member will want to deny this because, when we picked it up here, the hon member for Overvaal rose and ran out. Surely he is the general who has to take preventive measures if there is something amiss and he went to make a call. Now we also have the other motions which have been changed because the motion which was introduced there was the CP motion that Mapleton could become a free settlement area. Let us take a look at Mapleton.

The owners of plots in Mapleton are all CP members.

Is the hon member telling the truth now?

Yes, I am not a member of the CP; I tell the truth.

A member of the management committee, a woman, has a plot in Mapleton herself. She offered her plot at a price of hundreds of thousands of rands for sale to the House of Representatives. When they told her that it was a ridiculous price because the property was situated on dolomitic land, she went to the town council. The town council was then directed to investigate whether the council itself should not buy the land. Now the town council of Boksburg is to buy White land. White land now has to be bought up. That is what the CP wants to do to Boksburg. One asks oneself where credibility comes in.

I want to revert to the chairman of the CP and his town council in Boksburg. In the report which he submitted to the town council, he said that they were in agreement with Mr F W de Klerk that Windmill Park should remain an area under White control. An area under White control is one in which people can go and live and then apply for an occupation permit. He therefore says that the area is to remain as it is and that people may then apply for occupation permits. If they dare apply for occupation permits, however, the traffic police are there and they are taken away. Is that a party worthy of credibility? Is that a party which we can trust with White affairs in this country? If I had more time at my disposal, I could really disclose many more aspects of this policy of partition.

The members of the Boksburg town council allege that murders were committed at Boksburg Lake. When one examines this, one finds that it was White on White. They are building a fence, however, to keep Black people out because Black people may be the victims of such murders. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I think that I should say to the hon member for Boksburg that the name of his constituency will, I believe, go down in the history of South Africa. Perhaps its name will be more important than that of any other constituency because the name Boksburg, when the history of South Africa comes to be written, will be regarded as a symbol of the last stand of reaction in South Africa in the race relations field as well as a test for the governing NP of its willingness to face the realities of South Africa’s race relations situation.

I would like to ask your permission, Sir, actually to speak about the address of the hon the Minister of the Budget and Works and about matters pertaining to finance … [Interjections.] if you will allow me just a short period of time to deal with that issue.

Order! To which Rule is the hon member referring?

I am trying to deal with the subject matter of this debate, if you will allow me! [Interjections.]

I am not going to re-debate the whole issue of own affairs, because I think that our stand on it is known. I want to test the Government’s stand on it. Therefore I am pleased that the hon the Minister of Finance and the hon the leader-in-chief of the NP are here because it is a policy matter which concerns them.

We were told that two things would arise—firstly that we would look at the issue of the three communities here on a 4:2:1 basis. That was the basis. I am now taking it on NP policy. If one looks at the amounts which have been voted in the main Budget we have R6 400 million for this House with an increase of 13,4%, and we have R2 742 million for the House of Representatives with an increase of 12,4%. That is significant. In respect of the House of Delegates we have R1,6 billion—an increase of 15,4%.

There are two testing questions for both these hon Ministers—not so much for the hon the Minister of the Budget and Works, because he simply has to take what is given to him. I want to ask why these figures do not reflect the 4:2:1 situation. If it is said we need time in order to achieve that situation, why then is it so that the House of Representatives has a lesser percentage increase in the amount allocated to it than the House of Assembly? Why, Sir, when the idea is, as I understand it, ultimately to bring about parity in the provision of social services?

In other words, I ask the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council whether it is the policy of his party to remove discrimination from social services. If he intends to do that, he is certainly not doing it in this Budget by allocating a 12,4% increase to the House of Representatives and a 13,4% increase to the House of Assembly. Both rates, I may say, are below the inflation rate.

In those circumstances I ask the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council how he will bring about parity in social pensions. How does he bring about parity in the hospital services which fall under own affairs administrations? How does he bring about parity in respect of services in which there should be no discrimination? To my mind this is a fundamental issue of principle in respect of which, I believe, we are entitled to an answer.

Turning specifically to the Budget, the question we have to ask is the following. Is the money being provided for the services which are essential and which have to be provided in terms of this Budget? I am going to demonstrate that in some respects there is indeed inadequate funding for this purpose.

Secondly, is the hon the Minister keeping increases—where he can do it and where it is appropriate to do so—below the inflation rate, therefore reducing in real terms the expenditure in respect of those services? To his credit I must say I believe he has tried to keep the increases, in certain respects at least, where they should be kept—below the inflation rate. I congratulate him on doing that. I think that is an achievement.

It is very difficult of course to judge the figures because of the continuous transfer of services, so that comparative figures are in fact misleading in this regard. An analysis of these figures does, however, show that in many respects, where he could do so, the hon the Minister has kept the rate of increase below the inflation rate.

The third question is one of whether the money available is indeed being allocated in accordance with the correct priorities. We have very real problems in this regard. I must tell the House that we who sit in these benches are very concerned about the state of education in South Africa. We are very concerned about the state of education for which this administration is responsible. We are concerned about the plight in which many private schools find themselves. We are concerned about difficulties existing in the public schools.

Then, when it comes to health services, I must tell this House there are very, very real problems in the health services of South Africa. There are real problems in our hospitals. There are real problems in relation to nurses. There are problems relating to providing the kind of service which is required. We deal, for instance, with pharmaceutical services, and I am pleased that we not only have the pleasure of having present here today the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare, but also the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development. I should like to hear somebody’s comment on the statement by the chairman of the Retail Pharmacies’ Association that in some cases the private sector pays 40 times more than the Government pays. Either there is a complete exploitation of the consumer when he buys his medicines privately, or there is something drastically wrong with the whole system.

Somewhere we need to know. How can one entity pay 40 times more than another entity for an identical article? If that is not consumer exploitation, then I would like to know what is!

Let me deal with social pensions. The hon the Minister conceded in his speech that one could not wait in order to have an announcement regarding social pensions. I want the hon the Minister to tell us when he is going to make an announcement in regard to social pensions or when one of his colleagues will make one in regard to the increases that should and will be given and are necessary to be given beyond what happened on 1 January. I will tell the hon members when it will come. It will come about two months before the next general election. [Interjections.] We are using social pensioners as political footballs in an election game that the NP is playing! [Interjections.] That is the truth!

Let me deal with the housing needs. One of the things that worries me very substantially—it should worry other hon members of this House as well—is the plight of the middle classes in regard to housing—that is what this House is particularly concerned with—particularly because of the changes which are taking place in the building society movement. It is going to become more and more difficult for people who do not qualify for assistance from the State to get housing for themselves. The building society movement, I think, is under stress. There are very serious problems that are going to develop in relation to the making available of money for housing, and I am worried about the plight of the middle class.

I would also like to refer to the fact that the hon the Minister, with some pride, stated how he dealt with the number of employees he had. Let me give hon members two figures which I find very startling. There are 4 371 persons employed by the White own administration in South Africa who earn R170 per month or less! Is that a matter of pride for this administration? R170 or less!

Labourers!

“Labourers", the hon the Minister interjects! Are labourers not allowed to eat? Are labourers not entitled to clothes or housing? Who can live in South Africa today on R170 per month? [Interjections.] I would like to know who can live on that?

Do you want to leave them unemployed?

Let me go one further if hon members do not like that figure. Do the hon members know that 45% of all people employed by this administration earn R500 or less? Is that a matter of pride? I do not think so! I think one should hang one’s head in shame. [Interjections.]

I would like to come back to the question of the formula. [Interjections.] The formula in terms of the law, section 84(a) of the Constitution, lays down that the exchequer shall—I stress the word “shall”—pay from the State Revenue Fund an amount calculated in accordance with a formula prescribed by any general law.

Five years after this Constitution came in, after innumerable promises, excuses and evasions, we now find the situation that the hon the Minister says that when it comes to the formula he has promised a further announcement and his announcement is:

Are we now, after five years of messing around with this, going to abandon the whole thing? With great respect, that shows complete inefficiency and an inadequacy to deal with the problems which exist in South Africa.

I would now like to address the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. One of the things which I consider to be important is that he is the leader of the governing party of South Africa. It is the party which has the power in South Africa and which makes the decisions. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council started his leadership of the party with an interesting, stimulating and very welcome speech, which showed a high degree of enlightenment. Since he made that speech, I think we would like to see some action.

We have had the talk about Boksburg and we have had his Heidelberg speech in which he said that something had to be done. Now he has to get up and tell us what he is going to do about the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act. What is he going to do about people who take retrogressive steps concerning the opening up of facilities? It is attractive—I welcome it and I do not knock him for it—that he has made some very good and enlightened speeches but the time for action is now here.

I would also like to ask him what his approach is to the whole question of negotiation. I would like to see a complete thawing of relationships between the NP and, for example, the LP in the House of Representatives. I would like to see people start with real negotiations in South Africa.

I do not have to say what my attitude toward the ANC and the use of violence is. I have said it often enough in this House but I would like to ask the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council whether he does not think the time has come for him and Mr Nelson Mandela to talk. I appeal to him to consider whether the time has not perhaps come, considering the existing circumstances in South Africa, for him as the new leader to say to Nelson Mandela to leave that prison, to come out, participate in the politics of South Africa and to come and sit around a table with him. Nelson Mandela is not the only leader. I want the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council to do the same with other Black leaders. I want him to talk to leaders of status from all the communities and all the colours. Whichever way one looks at it, in the international and national fields Nelson Mandela is not a figure who can be ignored.

I think, on any basis, he has been in jail long enough. I should know as I was one of the counsel in the Rivonia trial, so I remember the dates very well, even though I did not defend him. I may add that, needless to say, my accused got off! [Interjections.] In all seriousness, I believe that that time has now come.

I think we also need to look at the Population Registration Act. Some very interesting speeches have been made in this regard. There have been speeches about freedom of association. I think the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council should now enlarge on that and tell us what legislation he is going to introduce. We may well be entering a new era with him at the head of the NP. If that is so, he must know that, whatever political affiliation one has, he will be supported if he takes the right steps. If he takes the wrong steps then he must obviously be opposed. In the light of what he has said we think there is hope that we may be entering a new era.

Let me talk about negotiations as a whole. It is not enough that we merely have discussions between the leaders. We have to look at how we are going to create a new constitution in South Africa and give that new constitution legitimacy. It has to be done not only through the actions of the existing Parliament but also through the will of the people as a whole.

Sometimes when one has negotiations, those negotiations are designed for a transference of power. Negotiation as a transference of power from one group to another is not what we are looking for. Whether one calls it a national convention or an indaba, what is needed in South Africa is a coming together of the legitimate leadership of the people of South Africa in order to frame a new constitution and to enable everyone to participate in the government of South Africa, and to see to it that we have no discrimination and domination in South Africa.

Mr Chairman, it is always a great pleasure to follow after the hon member for Yeoville. His speeches are always rational. He tries to debate rationally. He is very seldom emotional except at certain times but at least I can say that I appreciate the fact that he approaches matters in a rational manner.

This of course forms a very sharp contrast to the first speaker on the Official Opposition’s side whose contribution to this debate can be described as nothing more than an emotional, vociferous and noisy tirade. [Interjections.] He devoted very little of his time to the discussion of the Budget before us. Instead he preferred to devote most of his speech to political matters which to my mind proves the fact that this Budget is a success to such an extent that there is very little criticism to be levelled against it from the Official Opposition.

Looking at the hon member for Lichtenburg in action and his physical actions, and listening to the way he tries to whip up emotion, one is tempted to think that he would have made a very wonderful actor in a soap opera. However, I am amazed at his sanctimonious remarks and analysis of recent events surrounding the leadership of the NP. The hon member expressed great sympathy towards the hon the State President and that is why I say this is a sanctimonious approach. The hon member for Lichtenburg and many hon members on the side of the Official Opposition were also once members of a caucus which was led by the hon the State President, first as Prime Minister and later as State President.

When it comes to expressing loyalty towards him and when the hon member had to show and prove his loyalty towards the hon the State President, what did he do? He turned his back on him and betrayed him. He followed another course.

On a point of order: The hon member said that the hon member for Lichtenburg had betrayed the hon the State President. Is that permissible?

Order! The hon member must withdraw that remark.

I withdraw it, Mr Chairman.

I want to say in conclusion that when it comes to turning one’s back on a leader, many of those hon members in the CP benches have first-hand knowledge. So when the hon member for Lichtenburg talks with so much feeling about turning one’s back on a leader, I think that all we on this side of the House can say is: “We bow to your superior knowledge”. [Interjections.]

That is a feeble effort Piet! [Interjections.]

Order! While we are in the mood for withdrawing I wish to point out to the hon member for Soutpansberg that he may not call the hon member for Kuruman by his first name. The hon member for Kuruman may proceed.

Let met return to the hon member for Yeoville. He referred to the question of parity in social services, pensions and so forth. I want to ask him whether, given the set of economic circumstances in which we are operating at the moment, he would have gone for parity in one, two or three budgets.

I would have increased the percentage for them more than for the other groups.

But that is exactly what has happened in this Budget.

No. You must read the Budget.

If the figures provided by the hon the Minister of the Budget and Works are correct, that is exactly what has happened, and I will return to those figures later on.

You see, to me 12,4% is less than 13,4% … [Interjections.]

It must be clear to hon members that one cannot win in debate against an opposition party like the PFP.

That is because we have the facts.

If one provides more social services, one is accused of overspending. If one underspends, one is accused of neglecting the interests of people. [Interjections.] One cannot win.

The economy of South Africa has gone through a very difficult period, and on reflection one is grateful for the fact that South Africa has survived this huge onslaught on its economy in latter years. There have been tidal waves that have not only rocked the economic boat but threatened to overturn it. We only have to think of boycotts of South African products, sanctions, disinvestment and the denial of access to foreign loans. All these things have had a negative effect on our economy.

I say that the opposition parties on the left and on the right that try to make political gain out of a time of economic trouble for South Africa must admit today at least that the survival …

Order! I notice that two hon members are having a very interesting chat. Perhaps they should rather conduct it over a cup of tea. The hon member for Kuruman may proceed.

Those two opposition parties must admit that to have survived in these circumstances with no assistance from either of them—it should be remembered that the NP did this all on its own—is an economic miracle. [Interjections.]

We remember the days that we were told from the right that reform was going far too fast and that we had to stand father for aspirations that could not be satisfied. From the left we were told that we were moving far too slowly and that reform had come too late. [Interjections.] There it is—“hear, hear!”. In spite of all this criticism and those adversities we have come out of the valley of shadows and the NP today can walk tall if we look at its economic achievements. [Interjections.]

I want to say this. The hon the member for Constantia can shake his head.

Look at the rand.

What about the rand? [Interjections.] I want to ask the hon the member for Constantia one simple question. Does he want to see the rand rise to its previous levels and lose all the export markets? [Interjections.] Does he want to do that? [Interjections.] We must stare facts in the face.

Has Japan lost its export markets because it has a strong yen? [Interjections.]

Does the hon the member for Yeoville honestly want to compare the situation in South Africa with that of Japan? [Interjections.] I cannot think that a man who has so much knowledge of economics can come forward with a comparison like that. In any case, he knows the old adage that comparisons are odious. I do not know why it is, but every time this Government succeeds in balancing its books, in cutting down overspending and in fiscal and monetary discipline, we only hear criticism from those benches. I address this especially to the hon member for Yeoville. One would have expected at least one little word of praise from the hon member in public.

I did it right now.

I do not know whether the hon member made great play of it because I certainly think that even this Budget before us today is an achievement. I think it is an achievement for the Government to have introduced budgets on two consecutive days which are both success budgets. I think the hon the Minister of the Budget and Works and his staff and the hon the Minister of Finance, whose budget we will discuss later, and his staff should be congratulated on their achievements during such a short space of time after the very difficult time we had had in South Africa’s economic situation.

With these few words I want to support the First Reading of the Bill.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to speak after the hon member for Kuruman, and as a point of departure I want to make the statement that own affairs as a constitutional pattern has been very well and firmly established and is overcoming any teething problems it may have had.

It is true that the establishment, the building up and the development of an effective own affairs administration is a time-consuming process. It has been demonstrated during the past few years that the establishment of own affairs cannot simply be accomplished by means of a few entries in a ledger. Over the years there has been vehement criticism of the concept of own affairs from both the opposition parties.

The PFP opposition is understandable. They do not recognise the diversity in South Africa and therefore they reject own affairs. The CP recognises the diversity of the South African population structure, but they also reject the present concept of own affairs. I want to come back to this later in my speech.

In the meantime the NP carries on, and constant attention is being given to determining which functions should be transferred to own affairs and which should not. In this connection reasonable progress has already been made. The identification of the functions which should be transferred inevitably requires in-depth investigation and evaluation, which must be carried out with great responsibility. A haphazard, ill-considered transfer would simply lead to incorrect decisions, which could bring about fatal delays. The most important fact, however, is that own affairs has already been so thoroughly established as part of the State administration that it already forms an irrevocable part of the constitutional process which can no longer be undone.

An important test which the establishment of own affairs will have to pass is that the transfer should not result in additional and heavier administrative costs, expansion or duplication of personnel. This is an important prerequisite which has to be complied with in order to implement own affairs successfully. The hon the Minister referred to this in his budget speech.

I really want to congratulate the own affairs administrations, and specifically today the Administration: House of Assembly, on what has already been achieved. Attempts at further rationalisation in respect of specific services have already been successful. Duplication is being eliminated and they are even succeeding in eliminating specific services completely.

The funding of, and the allocation of funds to, own affairs also remains a further important requirement in order to establish this concept in a reasonable way. The finalising and implementing of formula financing is in the investigation stage. It is necessary for own affairs to operate independently. I should just like to advocate this again to the hon the Minister as a matter of urgency.

To my mind it is therefore an accomplished fact that own affairs have been established and that the importance of this concept has been accepted by most people in South Africa. Own affairs and the necessity for them is not merely a political whim of the NP. They give recognition to an important and irrefutable constitutional reality, which is that specific groupings exist in South Africa. These cannot be undone. They exist. They are there. What we can differ on is how the groups in South Africa should be accommodated in the various spheres of life.

The CP wishes to confine, separate and isolate each group in a specific, secluded geographic area. The latest is the snoek area of the West coast, the expanses of the Karoo, the Namaqualand area and part of the desert. [Interjections.] It is really is a wild shift away from Morgenzon to the Kalahari.

The PFP advocates a completely open society. How that is going to be dealt with is the question to which we must give attention. The various groups and the recognition of such groups do not simply presuppose total and complete separation. Groups do not mean separation and isolation. Nor does the existence of groups presuppose an inevitable elimination of co-operation and contact. It is in fact the diversity in the South African set-up which makes it so necessary to seek and promote co-operation.

In addition, however, the recognition of the existence of specific groups does not imply that it does not remain important that recognition be given to unique needs and preferences. Each group has the right to a specific entrenchment of its way of life, its group needs and its desire to maintain and preserve a unique way of life.

This is the right which can be claimed by each group, but as I have already mentioned it does not mean general and total secession and a trek into a wilderness. Interdependence will continue to exist as long as there is a common fatherland and a South Africa of one’s own. The whole of South Africa will remain our fatherland. I am really not prepared to be part of a process in which parts of South Africa are smuggled away in a manner which is not in the interests of South Africa. Interdependence will continue to exist as long as there is a common fatherland and a South Africa of our own. Together with this there is also the fact that one South Africa will in future have to remain the important consolidating factor that has to accommodate groups in South Africa.

I have no illusions that in South Africa we will have to continue to nurture and develop the group concept. Eventually a South Africa of today and tomorrow will also have an inevitable effect on the future formation of groups. In future groups will have to rearrange themselves into groups which are not necessarily merely a continuation of existing groups. Eventually we will have to bear this one fact in mind and take it into account, which is that each identified group will possess a specific uniqueness which will have to be accommodated in the constitutional structure. For that reason I should like to support the concept of own affairs.

Mr Chairman, in his well-known work Germanicus the South African writer N P van Wyk Louw told us more about the subtler intrigues of a power struggle during the existence of the Roman Empire. The main character in this work is the noble Germanicus, who comes to the following sobering conclusion: “’n Mens die moet ook modderig wees as jy wil heers.”

During the past few months we have again witnessed a power struggle—one which is definitely not over yet. The question now arises whether one must inevitably be spattered with mud to be able to rule. I believe the answer to that is an unequivocable no. But after what has happened in South Africa during the past ten years, I am afraid Germanicus is perhaps right.

Consequently, I should like in the first place to dwell on the constitutional implications of the events of the past six weeks, and then on the political implications of those events. As regards the constitutional implications of the events of the past six weeks, nothing much happened in fact. On 2 February 1989 the hon the State President requested the NP caucus to elect a new national leader. On that occasion Mr F W de Klerk, Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Assembly was elected with 69 votes as against 61 votes for the hon the Minister of Finance.

This election should be seen against the background of the provisions of section 21 (2) of the Constitution of the RSA, Act 110 of 1983, which provides, and I quote:

In consequence of this provision the hon the State President appointed Rev Hendrickse as Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Representatives, and Mr Rajbansi as Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Delegates, but when he appointed the national leader of the NP, Mr De Klerk, as Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Assembly on 1 July 1985, he took a great chance. At that stage it had not been demonstrated that the national leader of the NP enjoyed the majority support of the majority party in the House of Assembly. This election has now merely ratified that decision of four years ago. In reality that was all that happened that day in the caucus in the constitutional sphere. At present the hon the State President still has all the powers and authority which he previously possessed.

In the political sphere, however, it is a completely different matter. Here things have changed dramatically. The first mistake the hon the State President made was to contravene his own rule for survival in politics, one which he devised for himself. That rule is never to give up your political power base. First it was the George constituency. Subsequently the Cape leadership of the NP and the post of Minister of Defence became the power base of the hon the State President. Even after the hon the State President became Prime Minister he at first clung to the power base of Minister of Defence. He even created a post of Deputy Minister of Defence and took Mr Kobie Coetsee into his own home. Only later did he relinquish this power base in favour of his confidant Gen Malan, the hon the Minister of Defence.

He continued to retain his power base as leader of the NP in the Cape until as recently as 1986. Now, however, he has relinquished his final power base as national leader of the NP. The hon the State President is nevertheless of the opinion that he still has a political power base, and referred in his interviews to the large number of people of moderate goodwill in South Africa who write letters to him. That is not a power base. They do not have a single vote in the caucus. It is nothing more than a perfectly ordinary fan club.

The second, far-reaching political implication of these events of the past six weeks has been the conduct of the former Minister of Transport, Mr Hendrik Schoeman, together with the conduct of the national leader of the NP, Mr F W de Klerk. Not only was Mr Schoeman a senior member of the Cabinet of the hon the State President, but he is still a prominent member of the NP and, according to newspaper reports, chairman of the NP’s financial committee in the Transvaal. On Wednesday, 1 March 1989, South Africans saw him on television entering the Nigel City Hall right behind the national leader, Mr De Klerk. Certainly they did not meet one another for the first time on the way to the platform. What did Mr Schoeman say when he welcomed the leader of the NP, Mr De Klerk? I quote: “South African wants him as State President.” Die Burger of Thursday, 2 March 1989, reported on page 6 that this statement was greeted with tumultuous applause. Mr Schoeman went further and said: “For the sake of the NP President Botha must now give Mr De Klerk a chance”. What did the national leader of the NP say about this? He said nothing. He accepted it with equanimity. Apparently he agreed with it—and he did so while constitutionally nothing had changed and he was serving in the Cabinet solely on the invitation of the hon the State President. He even went so far as to announce new policy initiatives in connection with the concepts of group and indaba. This compelled the hon the State President to say subsequently that the indaba was actually his idea—an idea which in turn he actually acquired from Dr Pathudi.

The same newspaper that cried hosanna to the hon the State President for 11 years, is now crying crucify him. Die Transvaler, mouthpiece of the NP in the Transvaal, even went so far, after the resolutions of the NP federal council and caucus, to announce in banner headlines: “NP stem teen P W Botha—koukusmeerderheid sê ‘ons wil FW hê’.” This was on the front page of Die Transvaler of Tuesday, 14 March 1989. But what did the hon the State President subsequently say, on Sunday, 12 March 1989, in a television interview. He was firmly resolved to at least complete his term of office, and then he reminded us that his term of office only expired in March 1990.

The question which immediately arises is how this problem can be solved. Sometimes one can learn from the past. Ten years ago South Africa was in an almost similar situation.

The no-confidence debate at the beginning of 1979 Parliamentary session was dominated at the time by the Information affair. In debates repeated attacks were made on the Government, during the which it was insinuated time and again that the State President, Mr Vorster, should resign. These attacks placed the Government in a very difficult position. Mr Louwrens Muller, then leader of the House, confidant of Mr P W Botha and his proposer in the caucus for the premiership, stated the position as follows in a sworn affidavit:

Does that not sound like the present standpoint of the federal council and the NP caucus to hon members?

Mr Louwrens Muller went on to say under oath:

After the appearance of the final Erasmus Report, on Tuesday, 29 May 1979, a deputation of senior ministers, under the leadership of Mr P W Botha, went to see Mr Vorster to discuss his future position with him. Am I imagining things or did a similar deputation of senior ministers, under the hon the national leader of the NP, also pay such a visit to the hon the State President last Friday to discuss his position?

On Sunday, 3 June 1979, at 15h00, the entire Cabinet went to Mr Vorster’s home, and Mr Louwrens Muller described the events as follows:

Hereupon Mr Vorster was asked to leave his own sitting-room and the matter was discussed further in his absence. I shall quote further:

The next afternoon, Monday, at 14h15, the Prime Minister, Mr P W Botha, announced the resignation of Mr John Vorster in the House of Assembly and said the following, and I am quoting from Hansard, 4 June 1979, col 7649:

The Prime Minister thereupon read out the statement of the previous afternoon to the House of Assembly.

What happened here was possible in view of the position which existed under our previous Constitution. In that Constitution the State President did not possess any real political power, but the Prime Minister did. In other words the position is similar to that in which the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council now, to a certain extent, finds himself. Under those circumstances it was considerably easier to solve such a problem. The present hon the State President will probably remember these events very well, since he himself as Prime Minister played a major part in them.

Under the present Constitution an identical repetition is not possible. Hon members will still remember very well how the NP piloted this Constitution through Parliament with every means at their disposal and in record time. Before opposition parties could point out deficiencies and problems in that Constitution the guillotine was used to force through the Constitution. [Interjections.] In this new Constitution the hon the State President does possess real power, and the national leader of the NP is merely a member of his Cabinet on the invitation of the hon the State President. To tell the truth the hon the State President said on Sunday evening in his television interview that he had created the post of Leader of the House and Chairman of the Ministers’ Council for the national leader of the NP because of the goodwill he felt for him. In other words he was saying that he liked him.

We are all acquainted with the statement “power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely”. In this stalemate situation we will probably have to change these words to “power obstructs; absolute power obstructs absolutely”. [Interjections.]

Only one solution remains for the NP until the end of the term of office of the hon the State President—power-sharing. But this is nothing strange; on the contrary, this is the magic word which the NP has accepted as policy. The NP has accepted the principle of sharing power in such a way that one group does not dominate another. In this case this ought not to be too difficult either. After all, both leaders are members of the NP. Both of them hold the same convictions. They are both Afrikaners. They both have the same cultural background and religion. It is therefore far easier for them than the kind of power-sharing which the NP envisages with Chief Minister Buthelezi, Bishop Tutu, Dr Motlana and Nelson Mandela of the ANC, after he has renounced violence.

South Africa therefore looks forward expectantly to a way in which these two leaders, the hon the State President and the hon national leader of the NP, are going to share power in such a way that the one leader does not dominate the other leader. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, by using the example used by the hon member for Randfontein at the beginning of his speech it seems to me as though it is in fact the CP that became good disciples of Germanicus. If there is anyone who has excelled during the past seven years at slinging mud at the person of the hon the State President it is in fact the CP. [Interjections.] Seldom in my life before have I experienced such a venomous attack on a person of a single man as the CP has been doing to the hon the State President during the past seven years. Now suddenly the CP emerges here as a champion of the hon the State President. One can only ask with justification: Whence comest thou, Gehazi?

One point must be clarified here. The issue in this entire situation involving the national leader of the NP and the hon the State President is not a power struggle between two people. What I am now going to say I want to say with reference to a remark made by the hon member for Lichtenburg. The hon member for Lichtenburg said that the NP, with its demand that the office of national leader and head of state should be one, has in fact been unmasked and in reality has no intention of sharing power. What is the situation? The NP, through its national leader and the hon the State President, has committed itself to meaningful reform. This nevertheless entails reform, also within the framework of the NP’s policy. After all the NP has always said that the reform that must take place in South Africa must be brought about by Parliament. That is why the NP has seen itself as the initiator of this reform. The reform envisaged by the NP, the ultimate reforms, may possibly therefore amount to there perhaps not being a head of state in whom all the power is vested.

Therefore the issue here is not a person who wishes to acquire power. The issue here is meaningful reform and its implementation. In the interim, however, one must have effective power at one’s disposal in order to have those meaningful reform steps implemented. That is what this entire situation is all about.

The CP is forever accusing the NP of watering down the rights of self-determination of the Whites with this own affairs concept, as embodied in the Administration: House of Assembly. The CP then says that it will restore the right of self-determination of the Whites by way of its partition policy. I now want to make the assertion that if the CP is not able to apply its partition policy, it is not in a position to do justice to the self-determination of the Whites either.

Of course there is a great lack of clarity as to what the CP means by partition. The CP has been in existence for seven years now, and to this day the CP has not yet said how and where it is going to apply partition. Unlike Prof Carel Boshoff, who had the courage of his convictions to draw a map, the hon the leader of the CP said in Ceres that the CP were not looking for people who drew maps; it was seeking hands that made crosses. [Interjections.] People must first vote for him; then he will tell them what they have voted for.

The only hon member of the CP who went out of his way to elucidate the partition policy was the late Dr Connie Mulder. Shortly after his election in 1987 he tried to give substance here to the partition policy of the CP. I am not going to repeat it verbatim now. Hon members can verify it in the Afrikaans Hansard, May 1987, col 271. According to him it amounted briefly to the following: The CP was going to partition South African into thirteen states. Consequently this means that besides the ten states which now exist, one each will still be added for the Whites, Coloureds, and Indians. [Interjections.] Within this White state citizenship would be reserved for Whites, and there had to be White majority occupation. The Black people then remaining inside this White state would be linked politically to their own homelands.

This policy, as elucidated by Dr Connie Mulder, I accept to be the standpoint concerning partition that is still held today by the CP. However, this does not mean all of them see it in this way, because there are, after all, five AWB members in the CP caucus, and they have different views on partition.

Let us now consider the policy as it has been laid down. Firstly, if one wants to establish White majority occupation within that White state, one must bear in mind that there are 10 million Black people present there. Five million will therefore have to be relocated, otherwise White majority occupation cannot be established. I am not going to elaborate on the costs involved. The minimum amount calculated is R80 billion and this country does not have the means to do that. I shall say nothing about the aspect of persuasion.

Let us consider the matter of the linking policy. When Dr Verwoerd formulated the linking policy in 1959 there was a specific presupposition which was that in the year 2000 there would be only 2,5 million Black people present in White cities. Dr Verwoerd also qualified it. He said that they would be here on a fluctuating family basis, and that they would return frequently to their homelands. On that presupposition he formulated the linking policy. That supposition was not borne out. For years the NP tried to apply the linking policy but it did not succeed. Just as Dr Verwoerd was obliged to change NP policy because he accepted the permanence of Indians, so the NP was compelled to abandon its linking policy owing to the reality of permanence.

For these reasons this partition policy of the CP cannot succeed. But it is not only the NP that says this. The Volkswag says it and the chairman of the cultural arm of the CP says it. He labels this plan as being “without a moral basis” and he goes away and draws his map. He would not have drawn his map if he had thought that this plan could work. The AWB, too, says the CP policy cannot work. In Pretoria Mr Eugéne Terre’Blanche says he is going to ask the AWB members to vote for the CP; not because he thinks their policy is going to work but because he is then, if he thinks the CP is going to gain the majority of seats in Transvaal, going to ask the CP to cause the Transvaal to secede from South Africa. He said this last week. [Interjections.]

I think the CP is under a moral obligation to tell the voters of South Africa, the CP voters and the AWB members in their caucus and elsewhere whether they are going to relinquish the Transvaal if they were to gain the majority of the seats there. They must say this in advance to the AWB, because the AWB is going to support them.

From what I have said here—I covered the ground very rapidly—it is clear that the partition policy cannot work. The NP, the Volkswag and the AWB say it. Sooner or later this reality will have to get through to the CP. Consequently the CP will not be able to preserve the right of self-determination of Whites effectively, unless it does so here in terms of the own affairs concept, as the NP is doing. This will not be the first time that the CP implements NP policy. It is already being done in Windmill Park, where permits are going to be issued. In addition it is being done in all the local authorities in which the CP came into power, and told the people there in advance that those particular places were going to become White. If the CP implements its policy there the town will be destroyed. Consequently the CP simply decided to implement NP policy. The hon member for Lichtenburg asked who could believe the NP. I want to ask who can believe the CP? I support this budget with apologies to the hon Minister for not having referred to it.

Mr Chairman, it is always a pleasure to follow the hon member Dr Geldenhuys, and it is again a pleasure.

Today I want to refer to a sensitive and contentious subject which was dragged into the public debate by the CP. I want to refer to the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act. This is an Act which I have always considered to be nothing but a measure to prevent friction. It was nothing more and nothing less than this.

In the past this Act could be implemented effectively to achieve that objective, namely the prevention of friction where it was practical and possible to implement the Act. Where it was not practical or possible, i e where facilities could not be duplicated, the point of departure was that those facilities would be shared, as was the case in Boksburg. [Interjections.]

All the facilities are there!

This was a pragmatic approach which was also supported by the CP when they were still Nationalists. None of us ever doubted that this way of arranging matters would eventually become obsolete and outdated.

As is the case in False Bay!

The hon member would do well to wait a moment. Eventually, and we all knew this, this method would be of little value in practice. That is also my approach. In my own constituency, the constituency of False Bay, and here I am referring specifically to the Strand bathing beach, I make no secret of the fact that I want to swim with my own people. This is no secret in my constituency either. What I am saying now I have said from public platforms. Nor is it a secret that I do not begrudge my people the right to swim with their own people if they prefer to do so. [Interjections.]

Disgraceful!

They should take the sea away there!

What is more important is that I want to swim with people who share my views regarding the maintenance of civilised norms and standards. The question which must be answered is how to realise that ideal in the South Africa of today without resorting to hurtful and impractical measures.

Then the Boksburg debacle occurred. On the one hand it is an interesting story, but on the other it reminds one of a cheap, long-drawn-out and third-rate radio serial. Although it may not look that way, the Boksburg debacle had a far greater impact on the organisation, customs and habits of South African society than would appear to be the case. It is in this regard that I want to address the CP. With Boksburg and what ensued, the CP proved a few matters very effectively.

In the first place the CP proved that in certain cases sanctions can work. In the second place the CP proved that they are mortally afraid of sanctions, because when Boksburg boomeranged, they made a left turn. I am referring to Brakpan, Potchefstroom and …

What about Carletonville?

… Vanderbiljpark and quite a number of other CP controlled towns.

Who is controlling Welkom now?

Yes, Welkom too. In the third place the CP showed the White voter in South Africa that it was prepared to allow itself to be held to ransom. In the fourth place they proved that they were not going to enforce their policy consistently in every town and every city. Consequently, through their actions the CP proved that they could not be trusted by the White voters of South Africa. The CP will not consistently keep its promise to the White voters of South Africa, in contrast with the hollow words of the hon member for Lichtenburg that the CP can be trusted.

However, the CP also achieved something else. They succeeded in increasing the tension between the different population groups in South Africa. The CP taught people to boycott. The CP brought people dramatically into revolt against the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act—an Act which in the past was implemented by the NP in a judicious and pragmatic way. That is why it is dishonest of the CP to say today that they merely implemented NP policy in Boksburg. The CP subverted NP policy in Boksburg in an idiotic and reckless way, a ham-handed and crude way, and established their own policy there.

Like you did to Allan Hendrickse!

As a result of the CP’s behaviour the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act has suddenly became so internationalised that it has even become an item on the agenda of the proponents of sanctions and disinvestment.

Suddenly separate amenities throughout our country are in jeopardy, including those in Strand, because of the hon members of the CP.

Well, I never!

If we have learned one lesson from this entire episode it is that the orderly and civilised use of our amenities, viz our beaches, is not in the long run—hon members must listen to what I am saying—going to be guaranteed by measures such as sign boards and laws. When hon members look at what is happening in practice, they will agree when I qualify this with the words “not in the long run”. No political party in this country is going to succeed in ensuring this ideal in this way at all times and in all places. Even the CP has shown that they do not have the moral courage to enforce that Act consistently.

Lastly the CP has achieved something I do not think they were hoping for. They stimulated fresh ideas on the matter. They convinced people that alternative measures to ensure the peaceful and civilised use of our facilities will have to be sought. They proved the impracticability of their own policy in practice, but lastly the CP have also left a bitter taste in the mouths of the White voters in the constituency of False Bay and in Strand, about which the hon members are now suddenly so concerned. After all is said and done, I do not think Boksburg only did South Africa harm.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for False Bay dealt mostly with the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act, which he says was passed in an attempt to prevent friction. I think my friend the hon member for Berea, who is sitting next to me, and I are the only two members present here today who were in the House at that time, and I want to assure the hon member that the introduction of that legislation had much less to do with any friction that existed at the time than with the racism of his predecessors in those benches.

I am rising here today, as other hon members have done, to make use of this appropriate Parliamentary occasion to discuss the matter that all South Africans have been so much concerned with in recent weeks, and that is the constitutional problem which has been created by the governing party. My friend the hon member for Sea Point has already dealt with it briefly by way of a Press statement, and I agree with what he said, but I wish to deal with some other aspects of the matter today.

The events that took place on 2 February this year are of decisive importance. On that day the hon the State President presented his letter to the NP caucus and the new leader was elected. The first thing that must be emphasised is that that letter of the hon the State President was not an ordinary letter of resignation. It was something very different. It was a proposal for nothing less than a new constitutional dispensation.

Before I go any further, I want to ask hon members opposite not to say that I am acting on behalf of the hon the State President or that I am supporting or defending him. I am not doing that, nor am I attacking him. I am examining the conduct of those hon members in this connection.

The hon the State President’s letter has been widely publicised, and everyone knows what it contained. It contained three elements. Firstly, the hon the State President resigned as national leader and asked the caucus to elect a successor. Secondly, he expressed the clear intention of staying on as State President only, but definitely staying on. Thirdly, he indicated that he hoped and intended to become a unifying factor in South Africa in future.

As far as the third element is concerned, the hon member for Sea Point has rightly questioned whether, in view of the method by which the hon the State President was elected, he could ever be or become a unifying factor. I share his reservations, but I shall not take the matter any further. It does not form any part of my argument today. I am demonstrating—this admits of no doubt—that the hon the State President made it absolutely clear in his letter that he had no intention whatsoever of resigning from his public office. The letter was a proposal for a new constitutional dispensation, and that was indeed spelt out in it. The two offices were now to be separated.

How did the caucus react to this proposal? They promptly set to work and held an election. In doing so, they were undoubtedly accepting the hon the State President’s proposal. If the caucus had not approved of the separation of the offices as such, they should at least have asked for a postponement or discussion before proceeding to hold an election which would give effect to the proposal; but they did not do so.

Surely there was no reason to act in haste. The hon the Acting State President was performing his duties and there were no complaints about his conduct. Especially in view of the fact that the hon the State President’s health still left much to be desired at that stage, there was every reason for this fundamental constitutional change to be subjected to careful consideration before any action was taken which would serve to confirm it. However, as I have said, an election was promptly held and the two offices were indeed separated, and this was done by and at the behest of the caucus. [Interjections.]

In the weeks that followed, we began to hear the rumours and to see the Press reports that gradually began to suggest that there were caucus members—and their numbers kept growing—who no longer wished the hon the State President to return. These suggestions became stronger and stronger—this has been mentioned here—until the second part of the drama was enacted during the past week.

†First the hon the State President appeared on television. In his interview, amongst other things, he fully confirmed his attitude as contained in his original letter. He was coming back as he had all along said he would.

Next there was great consternation in the Press and many suggestions that this would make the position of the new leader-in-chief of the party untenable. But there was never any doubt what the position of the new leader-in-chief of the party was going to be. It had been spelled out in the hon the State President’s letter of 2 February.

Then the Federal Council of the party was summoned—unusually, it was summoned very quickly—and it passed a resolution apparently confirmed unanimously by the caucus that the offices of State President and of leader-in-chief should not be split, but should be combined in one person, which directly contradicts what the caucus by its own action had confirmed a few weeks earlier. The caucus explicitly reversed its attitude of 2 February when it had acted on the hon the State President’s request to separate the two offices.

There is another important and I think distasteful aspect in this story. In his television interview, the hon the State President made it perfectly clear that he wished to discuss matters with his colleagues and with the caucus. However, as far as the caucus is concerned, he was given no such opportunity. On the contrary, these meetings were called with unseemly haste to slam the door in his face by committing the caucus to the rejection of the concept he had put forward. What has now become of the audi alteram partem rule? Where is the willingness of the hon gentlemen to discuss matters and to debate them? How do they come to decisions? It seems that audi alteram partem has been cast aside to make way for catch-as-catch-can political opportunism on the part of the Federal Council and especially the caucus.

What this whole sordid story actually makes clear is that we are dealing not with a constitutional amendment but with a power struggle. That is what it is and I think the public knows it. [Interjections.]

Finally, there is another important dimension to all of this, namely the office of State President as it exists in terms of the present Constitution. As the post is described and defined in today’s Constitution, it is simply too big and powerful. We said so during the referendum campaign of 1983 and I concede that very few people paid attention to us at that time. We have gone on saying it ever since. [Interjections.]

I will not go into detail now but the Constitution requires this single person in whom we are now told the function of party leader must also be combined to monitor, supervise and control all that goes on in three unnecessarily separate Houses of Parliament, to rule like an absolute monarch over the whole Black population which has no parliamentary representation, to look after the foreign affairs and other affairs of the country on a day-to-day administrative basis and at the same time to perform the important and demanding functions of the ceremonial head of State. It is a badly conceived job and it had to be badly conceived because the State Presidency is the keystone of a badly conceived Constitution which has to go and be replaced with something quite different—a democratic constitution.

In conclusion, I warn the Government that what is going to be questioned more and more from now on is the very legitimacy of the present Constitution—not its legality but its legitimacy. Thirty-five million people are being governed under it. The vast majority of those people had no say in the making of it and have no effective say in the day to day operation of it. The drama of which I have spoken today has been played out deep within the confines of the NP caucus. That caucus on the most generous of assumptions can claim to represent something like 8% of the people. That is what I mean when I question the legitimacy of the whole system. Eight percent of the people are simply not entitled to take far-reaching decisions effecting the lives of 35 million. That is why we have chronic unrest in our society and that is why we have been governed under a state of emergency for over three years.

We on these benches are clear about what we wish to do. We wish to open the system of South Africa to all. We wish to share power—there has been much talk this morning of power-sharing—in the only true and tested way the world knows of sharing power and that is the democratic way. [Interjections.]

The hon members on my right have a policy which, as they well know, we completely reject, but they put it clearly and I understand them when they speak.

It is honest.

I did not say that. I said I understand them.

We know where we stand but in constitutional matters, as in the whole matter of group areas and as in so many other matters, the people do not know what the governing party’s policy is. We know it is not that policy and we know it is not this policy but there is a great wide space in-between and where in that space the governing party is positioning itself, is unknown to us, unknown to the gentlemen on my right and unknown to the people outside. It is the people in particular who have the right to know—all the people. It is high time that they were told, very high time indeed.

Mr Chairman, I listened with great astonishment to the hon member Dr De Beer. In the first part of his speech he saw fit to occupy himself with the internal affairs of the NP.

I am astonished now because if I read correctly, and I remember correctly, this hon member is on his way to a funeral. Tomorrow in three weeks’ time it will be the funeral of the party of which he is at present the leader—the PFP. Moreover, if I read correctly, this hon member, who is at this stage leader of a party in this House, is involved in a leadership crisis and struggle.

This hon member, however, sees fit to stand up here and occupy himself with the internal affairs of a party which is functioning well and thoroughly. I can tell the hon member that he may very safely leave this matter to which he referred, of the hon the State President and the hon chief leader of the NP, in the hands of the NP. We shall deal with it, in fact we have already dealt with it, with esteem and respect for our leaders.

There is not a single hon member sitting on this side of the House who does not have great respect and appreciation for the hon the State President—great appreciation for what he has done over the years and has meant to the NP and to South Africa. Then I also want to say to this House: On this side of the House we are solidly behind our chief leader. [Interjections.] We shall give him all the support he needs. We shall go along with him with dedication and commitment and serve our country and our party. We support our chief leader in the same way the Eastern Province cricket team supported Kepler Wessels in the Currie Cup match. [Interjections.] At the next election the NP will win more than the Currie Cup—we shall win the election!

But you are going to lose Oudtshoorn!

Oh please, I want to tell the hon member for Overvaal that there were two other hon members who sat here, Mr Jan Hoon and Mr Daan van der Merwe, who said the same thing to me repeatedly. Where are those two gentlemen now? I am still in Oudtshoorn and I shall stay there. [Interjections.]

I want to tell the hon member Dr De Beer that we shall deal with this matter as a constitutional matter. After all that was the decision of the caucus. Surely we stated in our resolution that we would deal with this matter within the constitutional development of and consultation on South Africa. We shall deal with it with great understanding. I want to inform this House that we shall deal with this matter by putting the interests of South Africa first.

In the second part of his speech the hon member Dr De Beer referred to the policy and the Constitution which are ostensibly not working now and not affording satisfaction. I am astonished. Hon members know that the NP has been governing this country for almost 41 years. During those 41 years there were no fewer than 10 general elections. During that time two referendums were held.

The question is: Where are the hon members of the Opposition? If they are so convinced that this is the worst policy for South Africa, why do they not succeed in gaining the support of the voters of South Africa? [Interjections.]

This is the third appearance of the hon member Dr De Beer in the South African Parliament. Now the hon member has seen fit to dissolve his party and to help establish a new party. I want to ask the hon member whether that new party will have the solution. Will that new party have the constitution and the policy which will bring peace to South Africa? [Interjections.]

Let us serve the interests of this country. Let us put South Africa first, and then we can find the solutions to our problems.

I should like to thank my colleague, the hon the Minister of the Budget and Works, very sincerely for the wonderful increase in the amount for welfare. The increase amounts to 17,3%, which represents an amount of R150 million. This increase is not only for pensioners, as the hon member for Yeoville would so much like it to be. We do not only have pensioners in this country. This money is of course intended for the aged, yes, and for pensioners, but it is also going to handicapped, to children, to the blind and numerous other categories I could enumerate.

This is primarily a financial debate, and in the sphere of welfare it is also a question of funds, which frequently gives rise to criticism being expressed and to dissatisfaction being indicated if the needs cannot be satisfied. This morning the hon member for Yeoville referred once again to the underprivileged, who in his eyes are being ostensibly neglected by the Government, and he went on to point out that we had not given pensioners an increase. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Minister may proceed.

Before I confine myself to finances again, I also want to pay attention today to child and family care. I have one great concern, namely the quality of family life in South Africa. When I express this concern, it is not unfounded. If we look at the divorce rate we see that in 1986 18 288 divorces involving 22 123 children were finalised in South Africa. During the three-year period from 1984 to 1986 a total of more than 52 000 marriages involving 63 000 children were terminated in South Africa.

The family is the cornerstone of our community, and if this disintegrates the socialisation of not only individual children but of a generation of future citizens will be affected. The image of the family in our country has definitely changed. A recent HSRC investigation into single parenthood in Pretoria revealed that 4% to 5% of the children at some primary schools are from singleparent families. The majority of these families are experiencing disruption, and problems are arising which lay claim to the services of welfare sources. The investigation to which I have referred found for example that support is necessary in the form of divorce counselling, psychological guidance, legal aid, child guidance, childcare services, affordable housing, assistance in finding a job and other practical assistance.

I am sketching a comprehensive picture of the situation so that hon members can see what the implications are of only one aspect which we have to deal with every day. That is why it is the policy of this department that children should as far as possible grow up in their natural family environment. Where substitute care, such as that of a children’s home, foster care or adoption is necessary, a high standard of care must be maintained.

In only one year, 1986, 2 834 children’s court investigations were carried out and 1 948 children had to be removed, 1 007 were placed under foster care, 558 were committed to children’s homes and 382 were committed to industrial schools. Hon members can form a picture of the financial implications if I mention that during the 1988-89 financial year an amount of R31,5 million was made available for subsidies to 75 existing children’s homes, accommodating approximately 5 200 children.

Foster parent grants cost us R12,8 million for the 7 600 children in foster care. Enabling 31 000 children to remain in the care of their parents costs us R64,1 million in the form of maintenance grants.

I am very pleased to be able to announce that the Department found it possible during the present financial year to pay a higher subsidy to children’s homes. For the first time a system of differentiated subsidies was introduced. In this way children’s homes are being subsidised in accordance with the quality of treatment and care services. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, one can understand the opposition parties rather enjoying the fact that a change of leadership is taking place in the NP. My question today is whether these opposition parties want to hold an election under prevailing circumstances—yes or no. Are the hon members up to an election today? [Interjections.] The CP says yes it would like to hold an election. Now I must ask the CP: Guess who wants to have an election? From the noisy reaction I get the impression that the CP is hoping for an early election. The hon members must know that it would be scandalous to make a political spectacle of themselves because they feel that way.

Normally an opposition party would ask for an early general election because they wanted to strengthen their position. But what is the situation in their case? Hon members know that the earlier the election, the smaller the damage as far as the practical implementation of CP policy by the CP town councils is concerned. [Interjections.] In the case of Boksburg and many other CP town councils the CP is bleeding. It is a fact that they are bleeding politically. The longer it takes to have an election, the less capable they will be to contest that election. [Interjections.] This side of the House knows that despite these events an election would leave the NP unscathed. [Interjections.]

The CP wants to conceal its political embarrassment about the situation which has arisen in the country behind claims that so-called constitutional crises are developing around the whole change of leadership question and the dissension in the NP. They are going to be disappointed. Here time is also on our side since it will be demonstrated in good time that the leader-in-chief of the NP and the hon the State President will clear up all uncertainty by dealing with the matter in a calm and sensible way. This side of the House knows that the recent events will leave the NP unscathed. The fact of the matter is that as it is both the hon the State President and the leader-in-chief of the NP fully support the programme of principles and policy of the NP. Both these leaders continue to adhere fully to the programme of principles and the policy of the NP.

Furthermore, the fact of the matter is that both the hon the State President and the leader-in-chief of the NP have committed themselves to a reform programme which in the words of the leader-in-chief, “volwaardige regte aan almal bied en jaloers sal waak oor u”—referring to the Whites—“en ander minderhede se sekuriteit en belange.”

There is consequently no difference in the policy or approach to reform in NP ranks. As far as I am concerned it is presumptuous, arrogant and opportunistic of people like Eugéne Terre’Blanche, and other hon members of the PFP and the CP who spoke here today, to try to attach all kind of labels to the hon the State President and the leader-in-chief of the NP while the confusion in their own ranks could be likened to a veritable confusion of tongues—one could not put it more lightly—with regard to their own party’s policy and, particularly the PFP, with regard to who should be the leader.

My good advice to the CP is that they should formulate a clear policy on the important political questions of the day or should at least make a final choice between the homeland of Prof Boshoff, the homeland of Eugéne Terre’Blanche and the stubbly homeland of the hon member for Lichtenburg. At least make a final choice so that the voters can know where they stand with the party.

Since I am in a good mood today, let me give them another piece of good advice with a view to the election. [Interjections.] Instruct the CP town councils to stop the implementation of their policy as soon as possible. South Africa, including the CP, is being harmed as a result of this policy, and they know it. They know that they will be whipped in the coming general election as a result of the implementation of this policy.

My advice to the PFP is that not only do they need a new party, but also new and strong political leadership within their party. Until they have completed this—for them essential—identification of a new leader, it befits their current interim leaders to refrain from making comments about the political leadership within the NP. [Interjections.]

The CP says all affairs are own affairs and own affairs are all affairs. Let us take a closer look at this policy approach of the CP. Surely the CP does admit, in its programme of principles, that provision should be made in its so-called White South Africa for own affairs to be dealt with by separate communities, for example, by means of regional councils for Blacks. Furthermore the hon the leader of the CP admits that a high level of autonomy should be granted to large Black communities. I wonder whether the CP still adheres to this policy? The question that remains is: What is to become of these separate Black communities which, in terms of CP policy, are to obtain a large degree of autonomy and which, according to their programme of principles, also have to be organised into regional councils, in accordance with which they share all services and living space with one another? What do these Black communities share with one another? These Black communities share much more with their neighbouring White and Coloured communities.

There is no doubt that a governmental structure must be created within which joint decisions can be taken on matters of common concern. The CP admits that at least in the Southern African context various groups which share the same economic system must consult with one another and must surely also decide jointly on matters affecting everyone.

The CP’s Southern African state is described as a body which all independent states may join without relinquishing their sovereignty. In the words of a CP leader, Dr Connie Mulder—the hon member Dr Geldenhuys also referred to Dr Connie Mulder earlier on—certain common interests such as the monetary system, defence, the economy, etc, would be discussed on this council. The NP takes into account the reality of the economic system, which is shared by all peoples and groups in South Africa as well as the independent self-governing states.

This reality of one economy will, in the course of time, compel every government in South Africa to create structures in which joint decisions can be taken on a fixed and permanent basis.

A random association of interest groups, as a governmental structure to administer a divided economy, will never stand the test of time. Let us assume the CP came to power. It is unlikely, but let us assume it happens. How would the divided economy of a South Africa consisting of 13 partitioned states, be controlled? By means of random association, as the CP proposes it should be done? The statement of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in this regard is damning. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I cannot neglect to refer to what the hon the Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply said about the situation involving the hon member for Lichtenburg. I must say I really did not expect this hon Minister, a person with so much experience of matters of this nature, to stir up a matter like this in public. [Interjections.] I really find this in poor taste. [Interjections.]

When I look at this budget before us, I must also say that it similarly does not strike one as being a quality product. [Interjections.]

Order!

As one digs deeper into this budget one realises that the allocation for agriculture is really very poor. In fact it is becoming poorer and poorer. The allocation to the farmers, with the exception of that of 1987, gets smaller year after year; to such an extent that the total of the two budgets together is a mere 1,5% of the overall appropriation—the lowest in the history of South Africa.

Especially shocking is the negative 27,6% for operating subsidies and for assistance. The higher excise duty on tobacco and brandy, as well as higher rail tariffs, are all stings in the tail of the overall appropriation which have already hurt the farmer even at the outset. It is a pity that the strategic agricultural industry receives so little attention in this budget. It receives so little attention that the 107 entries for the 1989-90 financial year are exactly the same as those for the 1988-89 financial year. Surely this shows that the farmer is no longer of any importance to the NP. [Interjections.] In the 107 entries in this budget exactly the same amount is being appropriated for the South African farmer as last year, while the farmer, in contrast with most businessmen who can simply pass on tariff and other increases to the consumer, regularly has to bear most of the increases himself because his products are sold to the highest bidder or by means of other free-market sales.

No questions are asked about the amount by which his production costs have increased as a result of more expensive fuel, more expensive transport, higher tax, higher interest rates and a higher inflation rate. Nothing has been done in this budget to decrease or diminish the farmer’s problems.

I am saying that this is not a budget of quality and that in my opinion it is an example of the decline in the quality of life of the Afrikaners and the Whites as a result of what the NP Government has done in this country. Although, in a debate of this nature on the state of the economy, one would want to focus the spotlight more specifically on the standard of living of the Whites, I nevertheless want to broaden the spectrum somewhat and focus the House’s attention on the quality of life.

It is well-known that this Government is purposefully bent on lowering the standard of living of the Whites, but now it is the quality of life which is being detrimentally affected as a result.

This attitude is reflected in the constant statements and references to a redistribution of income. This point of departure comprises not only a political programme, but specifically also an economic programme.

The programmes are aimed at shifting the benefits of the White community onto the Black and other so-called depressed communities. The futility of such forced programmes which do not take into account the realities of the absolutely coercive powers of an own ethnic and community life, was again illustrated recently in the President’s Council Report on Productivity. Peoples and their compelling desire to be themselves while retaining complete political power in the economic, religious and cultural spheres will, in the long run, not allow themselves to be frustrated by artificial programmes. This is why one can already predict that the President’s Council report, which is aimed at creating a new nation by means of economic activities, will come to nought. The report, which indicates how the gross domestic product has been distressingly maintained at a growth rate of approximately half a percent since the 1980s, when there was a catastrophic move away from separate development, while the productivity rate is increasingly declining, was referred to by an hon President’s Council member of the CP as a chronicle of disaster.

I can only repeat what the CP stated in that House. The CP cannot endorse the concept of one nation in South Africa. If that were to be done, the White man would economically be enslaved by the Black masses. It is in circumstances of economic and political manipulation such as these that the Government has found itself caught up in the most serious deluge of corruption that has ever hit South Africa. As a result the Government has had to resort to a high level of taxation and has had a high inflation rate and high interest rates. That is when the buying power of the country’s monetary unit crosses Rubicons and that country finds itself without an international banker. It is when one tries to blackmail foreign peoples into becoming one nation that those peoples become suspicious of one, that those peoples begin to exploit one’s suspect activities and political ethics, and are disdainful and scornful of labour negotiations. That is when a life of quality is swept out the back door. [Interjections.] It is under circumstances of manipulation such as this that politicians trip over their own feet, while accusations of irregular expenditure fly around. It is under circumstances such as this that 10 officials have been suspended, that people have been dismissed and that a Minister has had to resign. It is under such circumstances that industrialists and the captains of industry, who have been so receptive to what the NP has had to say, have to dismiss people and that secondary industries have been obliged to mechanise and have not been able to contribute their fair share as far as employment is concerned.

This period is specifically characterised by current State expenditure which has increased sharply, while capital expenditure has only shown a small increase in nominal terms and, after adjustments for inflation, has even shown a sharp decline. The quality of State expenditure is therefore also deteriorating. And it is therefore obvious that the rapid increase in State expenditure has resulted in the sharp increase in taxation over the past few years.

This taxation detrimentally affects the three items which help to define the quality of life, namely savings, entrepreneurship and productivity. The average per capita prosperity of the population has, for this very reason, dropped by many percentage points as a result of increasing unemployment levels.

The quality of life is what motivates fixed investment, which in turn is the life-blood of buoyant economic activity. Since both the standard of living and the quality of life are very important to us on this side, we are certainly prepared to help the Black man escape the decline into squatter camps and Third World conditions, but then we must not be expected to be instrumental in the decline of the Afrikaners and Whites into those same Third World conditions.

The CP is not prepared to negotiate the quality of life, cultural heritage, language and own living space of the Afrikaners or the Whites. Once the process of becoming a Third World country has been completed in South Africa, vain attempts will be made to find solutions in the form of a bill of human rights. Such a manifesto will merely be another piece of confetti drifting, with so many other documents and constitutions, across a blood-stained African continent.

That is why I am bitterly disappointed with this budget, particularly as far as agriculture is concerned. It is obvious that if less and less is invested in relation to the value of the turnover, a stage will be reached at which the production capacity of the farmer and his farm will deteriorate. We must not allow the quality of life to suffer as a result of ill-considered, poor-quality budgets. Assistance should rather be rendered in paying off the colossal R14 billion in debt which the farmers are struggling with, thus helping our people to live and to maintain a life of quality with an acceptable standard of living.

Mr Chairman, I listened attentively to what the hon member for Delmas said here. As he went on, I listened to the charge-sheet he was building up against this Government and the NP. I heard him point out everything that was wrong, the facts he enumerated—if one analyses them, they are not substantiated facts—and he then came to the conclusion that everything was wrong and nothing that this Government did was right. To him everything looks chaotic, and he bases this on facts by saying that this appropriation is ill-considered and the subsidy which the State is paying to agriculture has decreased instead of increasing. His words were that we had reduced the operating subsidy.

I am now opening the book we are discussing here today and looking at it. The interest subsidisation in respect of carry-over debts has increased from R95 million to R155 million. The interest subsidisation on production credit has increased from R10 million to R29 million. In respect of consolidated agricultural debts it has increased from R45 million to R49 million. If one only looks at something superficially, one can easily fall into a trap.

He did not even read it.

The total amount has decreased, but do hon members know why? We did not have another flood this year, and provision was made for flood damage under the subsidisation. The drought has decreased in respect of certain votes. This reduced the demand from the Government. The hon member did not look properly before he started leveling accusations. That is the mistake the CP has always made. When it attacks the NP, it does so on the basis of half-truths. This is typical of the kubus politics the CP is conducting. They promise one thing, and then it does not become a reality. They promise the people money, and all they end up with is rotten milk. That is what is happening. It is kubus politics, and we are going to expose it.

At the outset I want to thank the hon the Minister of the Budget and Works for assisting us to get enough money in these difficult times to provide the normal service to the farmers.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 141115.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr Chairman, while I was listening in this debate to some of the remarks which the hon member of the opposition made regarding events in the NP, I noticed a big element of jealousy in the opposition parties. Today we have the PFP here with basically three leaders, and the Official Opposition with one leader. If the CP had to choose a leader, I wonder what would happen to them, because hon members see that the rule in this country in respect of leaders and opposition parties is that the smaller the party is the more leaders there must be, and the bigger the party is, the more we back our leaders to the hilt.

You have two leaders.

No, we have one leader, as clear as can be, and the hon members over there cannot bear it. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Deputy Minister may proceed.

This again proves that the opposition parties cannot bear it that the NP can choose leaders in such a way and not break up. This is important, because it is a tribute to the hon the State President who succeeded in bringing together so many leaders of quality whom we could choose between. Once we had chosen we did not break up, as hon members are use to breaking up, but we are standing together in the interests of South Africa and the NP. I remember 1982 when people did not have their way. Where are they today? Over there. We are people who stand together. That is important.

The NP stands united behind its leaders and one thing the NP has taught me and the hon members sitting here is that loyalty to one leader does not mean disloyalty to other leaders. It is important for hon members to remember that, because they are going to need it in future too. This is something opposition parties do not understand, because in a certain sense there is already dissension in the Official Opposition, the CP’s. If the Official Opposition had to choose a leader now, who would they choose?

Eugéne!

A while ago when they did not yet have a policy …[Interjections.]

Order!

… and before the CP took over the policy of the HNP, they worked Jaap Marais out, because they were afraid of a leadership crisis. If they have to choose, who is the real leader of the CP? Is it the hon leader for Waterberg or is it Eujani? Oops, I mean Eugéne from Ventersdorp. [Interjections.] Somewhere along the line the CP will have to make a choice.

The hon member for Randfontein spoke about aspects of the past in respect of this dispensation. This concerns co-operation between people. The CP, which is accusing us of power-sharing today, is confusing the whole matter of power-sharing as regards what the PFP and the NP think of it. There is a big difference. [Interjections.] I do not think any party or organisation that wants to govern this country meaningfully, will be able to avoid elements of power-sharing with the other population groups in the country, for the simple reason that they are there and that one cannot avoid consulting other population groups and getting their co-operation for the plans one makes. [Interjections.]

The CP is accusing us of not being able to get along with other leaders in this country. But what happened in the negotiations between the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and the leader of the HNP, when they had to co-operate? Are they not closer to one another than the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and Chief Buthelezi? Even in that regard they could not reach an agreement. [Interjections.]

I shudder to think what would happen to South Africa if people who cannot even co-operate and stand together amongst themselves have to carve out our future in this country. Then the kubus politics they conduct and the promises they make, will be assessed on the basis of the real politik we are conducting. [Interjections.] Look at Boksburg, look at Carletonville.

Look at PW.

… look at all those problems. [Interjections.] I am surprised that members of the Official Opposition have suddenly became champions of the hon the State President.

No, not at all.

Oh, I am surprised at their remarks. One moment the Official Opposition hates the hon the State President; the next moment they love him. [Interjections.]

Order! [Interjections.] Order! The hon the Deputy Minister may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I should like to come back for a moment to the appropriation we are debating here today. I again want to thank the hon the Minister for giving us enough money to help the farmers in these difficult times. As in the past we will continue to do this.

We would have liked to have had more, but the farmers of South Africa are also prepared to make their contribution towards supporting South Africa in these difficult times. I also want to issue a warning that we must not create expectations in respect of the writing off of debts, as members of the Official Opposition are doing. It is not possible to write off debts—debts must be paid. The NP will enable farmers to do so in the long run.

I now come to the important point the hon member for Lichtenburg touched on when we talked about the financing of agriculture. He said that the sympathy the Government felt for the farmers was a joke. In certain people’s eyes this may be so, but let us look back at the history of this. From 1980-81 to 1986 we spent more than R3 000 million through assistance programmes. Is that a joke? During the past two years we have spent R1,3 billion on direct aid to farmers. Is that a joke?

Suspicion is being cast on the policy of the NP and the Government but where is the consortium of those hon members? After all hon members of the Official Opposition presented it as a solution last year. I am still waiting for it, because they were going to take over the debt. The private sector was going to take over its own debt. That is what it amounted to. Who suggested this? It appeared in the Patriot. Last year the hon member said that this plan had been submitted by the leader of the Transvaal Agricultural Union, Mr Dries Bruwer, but what became of it? The hon member said he did not know, but it sounded wonderful.

Ask the agricultural union.

The agricultural union is still waiting. I have the minutes here of a meeting at which we asked the SA Agricultural Union where the consortium was and they said it was merely a fabrication of the Transvaal Agricultural Union and the CP members. Where is it? Introduce it so that we can see it. These are the promises the CP is making, promises which it cannot keep, just like it is doing with its kubus politics—people are promised money but all they get is rotten milk! [Interjections.]

Let us consider what the hon member for Lichtenburg said. He said that the NP was not helping the farmers. During the past year we have helped 3 700 farmers in the grain-producing areas to plant another crop. According to that hon member this is a joke. The hon member is giving a distorted picture of what is going on. This is kubus politics and the hon member will pay the price for this image he is creating.

What did the hon member say last year? I am not simply accusing that hon member of kubus politics out of the blue. Last year when he spoke on the Vote, he said in his opening speech that this Government designed schemes in such a way that they had to fail. Can the hon member remember that? They purposely had to fail. He attacked the hon the Minister on this and accused him of being incompetent. Those are the words he used.

How many failed?

They are all working because the farmers are still on the farms. We gave the money for this. I told the hon member that in one way or another everyone in that region got part of that R400 million. We are still in the process of keeping farmers on the land. Those hon members are giving a distorted picture and that is wrong.

The CP is constantly criticising our agriculture plans. In the long run surely the test is: What works and what is the feed-back? Has the hon member heard the South African Agricultural Union, a mouthpiece of the South African farmer, express anything but thanks for the steps taken by the Government in these difficult times to help them to survive? All we hear is thanks except when we come here, because an illusion is being created here to mislead voters.

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

No. The CP often says, as they said here again today, that the NP does not think about its policy. I want to ask whether the CP has thought about its policy. Has it considered what its policy is going to do to it, or is it just as surprised as the CP’s outside when the policy is implemented in practice? In the long run we are going to have to pay a heavy price if this idea is given free rein without those hon members being called to account.

I want to conclude in lighter vein. Even their own supporters are becoming despondent about the alternatives they are submitting. They have suggested a homeland in my part of the world, and now they are also causing me problems, because I have aspirations to become the president of that homeland. [Interjections.] You see, I already have opposition, because the hon member for Gordonia says that if he does not become the president, he is going to exclude the Kalahari Gemsbok Park. [Interjections.] The hon member for De Aar, who also comes from that part of the world, says that if he does not become the president, he is going to secede. These are the little games the CP is playing. If I do not become the president, I am going to let the locusts devour their homeland. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure to speak after the Deputy Minister of Agriculture. He gave us a preview of the election struggle that lies ahead in the arid west. I shall not say whom I will bet my money on, but it will be on one of them.

I think the Official Opposition—they regard themselves, as Swapo says, as the “sole and authentic representatives” of the White peoples of this part of the world—should hang their heads in shame for having made as much of a fuss as the hon member for Lichtenburg did. They should rather pay attention to the figures presented by the hon the Deputy Minister in connection with the assistance granted to farmers. I think those hon members should hang their heads in shame. [Interjections.]

Those hon members are not going to get very far with emotion and they will not get anywhere with negativism and suspicion-mongering.

What do the Rustenburg people say?

The hon member for Pietersburg must not even mention Rustenburg. I want to ask him—I actually wanted to ask the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition—whether he thinks it was a display of strength on the part of the CP when they decided to nullify the decision to grant honorary citizenship to the hon the State President. Does he think it was a display of strength? I think it is a blot on the name of one of the most progressive towns in the Republic of South Africa. They will pay for that, however.

The hon member for Yeoville made a good start in his speech here today, but then he created the same problem as before. He complained about wages and salaries, and we have sympathy with that. He is like the hon member for Pietersburg, however, who complains about salaries and poor equipment at academic hospitals, about low pensions and halls that cannot be thrown open, whereas there are two Ministers here, one of Finance and one of the Budget, who are waiting for members to come forward with proposals on where the money should come from. They could have made an impression this afternoon … [Interjections.] We are waiting for those proposals. The fact remains that hon members will have to tell the Government whether we shall have to levy higher taxes and how we should rearrange the priorities.

Since the Constitution was passed in 1983, and the concepts of own and general affairs were formulated within one structure, there has been resistance from many quarters and for different reasons. That is history, and I do not want to go into any detail. What is meaningful, however, is that interested parties with sometimes completely divergent political standpoints decided at the time that they would take part in this new constitutional dispensation. That is why hon members are sitting here, and why some of the other people are sitting in the other Houses.

We have had an opportunity to see how the system works in practice. We have also had an opportunity to identify problem areas, so that we shall be able to take the circumstances into account and use good judgement in taking the next steps on the course of further evolutionary development.

Although there is a great deal of criticism against this system, it is interesting that to an increasing extent people from various quarters are saying openly that it makes sense to take part in it. Let us see what someone other than an hon member of this side of the House says. Let us see what my hon colleague the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare in the House of Representatives says. He made it clear once again the other day that his party rejected the tricameral system and the own affairs concept. That is history and a fact of which we take cognizance; we do not argue about it.

What else did he say? It was reported that he had said that they were using the own affairs structure to eliminate backlogs in all spheres. What was the hon the Minister saying, therefore? He was intimating that in these circumstances he was better able to judge the needs of his people and how those needs could be satisfied in a meaningful way, and that he was the appropriate person to do so within his own community structure. I do not want to put words into his mouth, but by implication there was also a suggestion of acknowledgement that the new dispensation was better than the old dispensation. Those people who make such a fuss about fragmentation and the waste of money, should take note of the practical implications of the so-called objectionable and fragmented health and welfare services, and take a look at what is experienced by people in practice.

I see the own affairs concept as an instrument to eliminate any injustice that may exist, and in fact does exist, as well as the inequality of opportunities and services available in the respective communities. That is what we have in mind when we talk about a process of equalisation and the upliftment of communities. It does not mean a drop in standards or the removal of opportunities. That simply does not come into it, but it is a time-consuming process. The hon member for Yeoville should have understanding for that too. That is what we want to do, but it cannot take place overnight. It happens in the course of time.

How does one measure the success of this kind of system? It has to be cost-effective, priority-orientated, it must take place systematically within an orderly milieu, and it must be to the advantage of the community that is supposed to be served. I think these are a few, but very important, prerogatives that one can keep in mind in gauging the success of such a system. If we do so, we will have made considerable progress in writing this success story.

What I cannot understand, is that not a single word of thanks or appreciation is expressed by the CP for everything that is done in the Ministers’ Council of the House of Assembly for Whites in this country. Not a single word has been said! These people present themselves as the only ones who are fighting for the rights and privileges of the Whites. Do they not want to acknowledge what is, in fact, being done? Or is it the kind of heart they have that compels them to say the things they do?

I want to employ my medical knowledge in diagnosing a few heart conditions. [Interjections.] There are Afrikaners in this country who have progressive hearts. They usually sit over there on the opposite side. We know them. They say we should throw everything open, but in the meantime they sit and enjoy the conditions in which we find ourselves. The companies in which the hon the leader of the PFP served are flourishing under NP rule. [Interjections.]

There are other Afrikaners, however, with single-chamber hearts. They shout that everything should be closed, but in the meantime they all know that that cannot work. Sometimes I get the idea that certain members of this group are aggrieved even at the fact that that single-chamber heart may be pumping blood to a little grey matter or pigment in the skin.

There are also Afrikaners who have such big hearts that a monument can fit into them, fence and all, and still leave room for other people. [Interjections.] There are Afrikaners whose hearts are drawn to arid regions. There are Afrikaners with strong hearts. I shall tell hon members who in this House is the Afrikaner with the strongest heart. It is the hon member for Barberton. He has the strongest heart. I know him. He is well-bred, as the older generation would say. He and I grew up together. We were in the same class. I know him well. I shall tell hon members why his heart is so strong. [Interjections.] Have hon members ever seen the pain he suffers when the hon member for Carletonville rises to speak? [Interjections.] The same thing happens when the hon member for Overvaal or the hon member for Potgietersrus rises. I shall not even mention the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis … [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply holds a position of trust in this place in South Africa’s governmental structure. He has confidential and sensitive information about thousands of people in this country under his control and at his disposal. This morning he blurted out such information here in a calculated and premeditated way, coincidentally today about the hon member for Lichtenburg, tomorrow perhaps about somebody else. He even mentioned statistics. [Interjections.] This is inexpressibly unethical and utterly disgraceful. [Interjections.] No adjective exists to describe the unprofessional nature of this.

We know that people in the Government abuse their position to acquire information about their political opponents from files and through enquiries. It is a testimonial to hon members of the CP that they could not find anything to use against us. The hon member for Lichtenburg asked me—I am saying this now on his behalf and also on my own—to tell the hon the Minister that he need not make use of his prerogatives as a Minister of State to obtain information about my colleague, the hon member for Lichtenburg. The hon the Minister must just tell him before the Easter recess what further information he would like on which he could not lay hands himself, such as his bank statement and his income tax returns. The hon member says that the hon the Minister need only tell him what else he wants to lay hands on and he will bring it along for the hon the Minister after the Easter recess. He will place it on the table for him here for all to see.

I want to tell the hon the Minister and his colleagues that this applies to me too. They may tell me what they want to know about me. They need not go scavenging in refuse bins like mongrels in locations to obtain information about me. They can have mine too. Nevertheless I want to tell the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council that this then has to apply to everyone here. It must apply to the hon member for Boksburg as well as those hon Ministers whose names are mentioned in investigations into irregularities. Then we must all do it. We must all place our papers on the table so that everyone may look at them. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply must tell us now whether agricultural assistance and subsidies, drought relief and other financial aid are reserved for Nats only. [Interjections.] Are the numerous stories true that we hear about members of the Agricultural Credit Committee who go to applicants whose papers have already been in front of them on the table and assure them that, if they vote Nat, they may be certain of their applications? [Interjections.]

Does the hon the Deputy Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply want to tell us how he manages to kill his locusts? Does he follow them with a flat plank and batter them to death himself? [Interjections.] Does the hon the Deputy Minister want to tell us how he sets about doing this. I shall leave it at that. [Interjections.]

Mr Gavin Relly recently wrote that city councils which instituted petty apartheid would receive no support from Anglo American in future because they were interfering in the policy of his company. Who is this person? We know this person as a hater of Afrikaners and one of Houghton’s White jingoes who buys his grand apartheid with the gold which White Afrikaners dig out for him from deep underground. [Interjections.] We say to Gavin Relly: “Mind your own business.” Keep your gold-powdered nose out of South African politics and do not make your political statements from behind the steel, concrete and glass and security guards of 44 Main Street. [Interjections.] If he wants to interfere in South African politics, he must do it from a public platform. Then he must stand up in front of his White mineworkers at Carletonville or wherever and say this from a public platform. This person—I am referring now in particular to the hon leader of the NP in the Transvaal—is trying to blackmail lawfully elected structures of authority in this country because they are interfering with—just imagine!—the policy of his company. That is what he said. I have his statement here.

What do we actually have here? We are dealing with the most blatant interference of so-called Big Business in Government structures in South Africa. What does this person’s audacity illustrate to us? It shows us that Big Business thinks so little of the structures of authority in South Africa that it is starting to dictate to them openly. It is very clear that this gentleman is politically naïve and impudent. Such statements create tension and should not have been made. One of these days he might have to negotiate with a CP government and a CP Minister of Finance. What then? [Interjections.]

But what is the South African Government doing? What is the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council doing who, with a blissful expression on his face says “I am the leader-in-chief of the NP”? [Interjections.] What is this gentleman doing about the threat of the leader-in-chief of Big Business in South Africa? [Interjections.] What is he doing regarding this threat to his Government’s delegates on whom he has permitted authority to devolve for the sake of broadening democracy? He is dumbfounded and by his silence he recognises the authority of Anglo American over the legislative structures of South Africa and over the NP Government itself. [Interjections.] The Government itself does not have much courage. It leaves it to the Anglo American boss. Just as it does not have the courage on the one hand to enforce its own laws or to revoke them on the other. If Mr Relly has the audacity to threaten CP town councils so openly, one asks oneself how far his interference must reach behind the scenes. One then becomes concerned about South Africa because one realises that one has a Government which is clay in the hands of such people. [Interjections.]

What a to-do are we actually seeing here? We have a Government which in its so-called reform processes says that it is permitting power to devolve to the third tier. It says that is how it is broadening democracy. In plain language it is telling local authorities and the voters of those authorities: “You may elect your own local governments or town councils to govern you in day-to-day matters which affect you most, to make laws or regulations for you, to levy taxes and to spend your money as it is budgeted.” This is no strange phenomenon. In this devolution the unexpressed promise or guarantee is implicit that, as you yourselves do not have law-enforcement mechanisms at your disposal and because Law and Order is a governmental portfolio, I shall support you with my legal machinery, that is the courts, the attorneys-general and the police.

That is how it works in Western democracies. What does this Government do, however? It announces elections. It permits them to take place and, what is more, it becomes a participant in them. Nevertheless when it loses and it does not turn out altogether as desired, it breaks its promise. Nothing of that guarantee remains.

When one finds flagrant interference and innocent Black people being intimidated on pavements to take part in consumer boycotts in that intimidators smash their hard-earned purchases on the pavements, then this Government does nothing else but look on with a quiet, consenting grimace. Then one knows …

You are really making a very, very feeble effort now!

We remember that hon mumbling Minister from the days when he established a fund in my house to assist Dr Connie Mulder. [Interjections.]

You are making an extremely feeble effort today! [Interjections.]

Then one knows that this Government’s authority is being challenged to its face. This is a challenge to Government authority which is taking place here in the person of intimidators—street thugs—on the one hand and organisations like Anglo American on the other. Then one realises that this Government is not prepared to take steps against those who challenge its authority. Then one realises that the Government can no longer make itself felt—not because it does not have the necessary machinery but because it lacks the spiritual power. It cannot make itself felt—not because it cannot identify the challenge to power but because it has already surrendered in its own mind!

†Then one realises that what one had previously known to be the foul odour of the dead rats of corruption, has now mingled with the nauseating smell of decomposition which sets in when authority collapses.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Soutpansberg launched a very vitriolic attack on my hon colleague, the Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply. The hon member for Soutpansberg drew a picture here which made it appear as if my hon colleague had drawn on personal information, that he sat there with a file in front of him while he was launching the attack. Surely that is not true! He asked the hon member whether he had participated in the scheme. The hon member replied in the affirmative. [Interjections.] It seems to me as if the hon member is not familiar with the scheme. The maximum amount for the scheme is R40 000.

How did that hon Minister know that I obtained the maximum?

That is a rhetorical question! [Interjections.] I am saying that it is a spurious accusation made about my hon colleague by the hon member, and I …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council entitled to say that the hon member for Lichtenburg made a spurious accusation?

Order! No, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Mr Chairman, and say that it was an unfounded accusation. Hon members do not have a single fact to substantiate that statement. That hon colleague of mine is one of the most honourable of people in this House, and I cannot allow him to be maligned in that fashion! [Interjections.]

The hon member said that we should submit our papers. Every member of the Cabinet annually presents his balance sheet and his revenue and expenditure account to the hon the State President. [Interjections.] It is duly checked.

Did Pietie also do so?

We are awaiting a report. [Interjections.] We on this side are therefore in no way guilty of not having effective control of people in the Executive Authority.

The hon member delivered a dramatic argument about Mr Gavin Relly. Mr Gavin Relly can speak for himself; I have not been chosen to defend him. The hon member and his party, however, must not adopt such a standpoint about blackmail. We on this side can quote them numerous examples of CP supporters blackmailing National businessmen in the rural areas … [Interjections] … saying that if they did not do this or that, they would no longer be supported. We know of examples of their having said that they would organise boycotts. [Interjections.] That is how the CP operates! By blackmail!

The hon member made a great issue of authoritative structures and devolution of authority. That sounds good, but today I want to tell the hon member that if CP town councils make a mess of things, they must not come and complain to me. It is their fault if they make a mess of the control of a town. [Interjections.]

If there is public resistance—that is what is happening—to what the CP is doing in towns such as Boksburg and Carletonville, it is not the Government’s fault because it applied a policy involving the devolution of authority. It is because they are misusing that authority and because they are acting in a way which is repugnant to the majority of members of the public of each population group. [Interjections.] That is what is happening. The hon member pretends that we are closing our eyes to boycotts and threats to the stability of those municipalities. The hon the Minister of Law and Order has informed me about what he has done to protect Carletonville against this sort of thing. He has, in fact, informed me. [Interjections.] The hon member there at the back ought to know that a procession was broken up and that the whole threat fell flat because protection was granted. Again a distorted image is being presented.

These hon members are only making speeches for the Patriot. [Interjections.]

Why do you make speeches?

The hon member complained that the Black people in Boksburg were being misused. In Nigel the CP nevertheless brought Black people to an NP meeting in their working clothes. [Interjections.] Was it the AWB? Is there any difference? [Interjections.] We hear there is a difference. Is there a difference? [Interjections.] We hear that there is a difference between the CP and the AWB! [Interjections.]

Jani is the difference!

The people of the East Rand know the man they brought along by name.

But are they not welcome?

It is not true that he is a Nationalist, as one English-language newspaper reported. It was a supporter of that ultra-right alliance who did so. I saw with my own eyes how, in a by-election in Sasolburg, ultra-right supporters took Black people from the streets and pushed them into polling booths. [Interjections.] In this life one reaps what one sows. [Interjections.]

Before I react to the debate, I should like to say a few words to the House about the Director-General. This is the last Appropriation of the Administration: House of Assembly to be presented within the period of service of the present Director-General. Therefore I feel a need to convey my thanks and appreciation, and that of the Ministers’ Council, to an outstanding official.

Mr Wessels Meyer is retiring from service at the end of August, and during his period of parliamentary service as department head of the former departments of the Prime Minister, of Social Welfare and Pensions, as secretary of the Commission for Administration, and now as Director-General of the Administration: House of Assembly, a career which has stretched over many years, he has really made his mark. He commenced his career in the Department of Justice and in 1956, as assistant private secretary to the then Minister of Justice, attended his first parliamentary session. For many years he was the late Adv B J Vorster’s right hand. Many of us had dealings with him on occasions such as that, and we were always met with kindness. In him he carries a great deal of the chequered political history of our country. Throughout he has been friendly, and a man of the utmost integrity and sound judgment. This is his 30th year of parliamentary service. His dedication, loyalty and integrity are a monument to him, and also an example for every official to emulate. We wish him and his wife a pleasant and well-earned period of retirement.

I should also like to extend a word of thanks to my colleagues in the Ministers’ Council, and also to their department heads and the whole Administration: House of Assembly, for a year of dedicated work and service. Wonderful progress has been made in the establishment of this Administration, and we are making wonderful progress on the course we have set and the road we are travelling. I think that things are going well, and we thank them sincerely.

Before I come to the main theme that I actually want to deal with, there are a few words I want to say to the hon member for Lichtenburg about my letter which is now being randomly circulated on the East Rand.

It was approximately 200 permits, for which applications had been made, which we said, in that letter, had been opposed. To have granted those permits would, skirting the Group Areas Act, effectively have changed the character of that residential area into that of an Indian residential area. We opposed them; they were not granted, and we adhere to that recommendation.

Scandalous!

What have now been granted are approximately 10 permits for people living there under new circumstances. [Interjections.] There are two sets of new circumstances.

They were also there at the time!

The first set of circumstances involves the threat of unilaterally suspending the services already furnished to those people by the town council. Secondly, legislation has been passed in connection with free settlement areas.

That Act was there even then!

No, it was not yet on the Statute Book. We said that the situation would not be reconsidered in terms of the Group Areas Act, and today it is not being reconsidered in terms of that Act. [Interjections.] Again this is typical of the petty propaganda they make, because it does not have any real substance. [Interjections.]

†I should also like to address myself to the hon member for Yeoville.

Order! The Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is a very senior member of this House. I gave the chief spokesman of the Official Opposition an opportunity to deliver his speech, and I also expect hon members to give the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council an opportunity to deliver his speech. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Chairman.

The hon member for Yeoville posed, as is his wont, a long list of dynamic questions. Each one, if properly replied to, will require a speech of its own because he raised some very important matters. Unfortunately, I cannot oblige today, because I should like to concentrate on one of the recurring themes of the debate in the time allocated to me. I can assure the hon member, however, that if it is action that he wants, he will get it. The NP will not shy away from the burning issues of today. We will deal with them in an orderly manner in the best interests of our country. We will also do our utmost to promote an atmosphere conducive to meaningful negotiation.

The way you have done it in the past?

I do not know whether the hon member posed the questions in the hope of getting a reply which will enable him to make a choice as to whether he will join on 7 April or not. If the hon member has any problems in that regard, he is welcome to come and see me. [Interjections.]

*A fundamental theme of the debate was the so-called leadership crisis within the NP. All kinds of wild allegations were made, particularly by the hon member for Lichtenburg, and some newspapers have also been guilty of this. I therefore think it necessary to make a few remarks about this in order to ensure a proper perspective.

Firstly, as far as I personally am concerned, and as far as the NP is concerned, we have only the utmost regard and appreciation for the hon the State President. For more than 50 years he has faithfully and loyally served the NP, inter alia in this House. As leader-in-chief of the NP he has led our party to great heights and to glorious victories. As Prime Minister, and subsequently as Executive State President, it was with daring that he led us into an era of renewal, realism and reform. In the field of security he stood at the helm with a firm hand, warding off the revolutionary onslaught, thereby ensuring, under his leadership, continued stability in this country.

Internationally, and particularly in the Southern African context, he repeatedly came to light with initiatives, the fruits of which we have long since picked, and in the future that harvest will increase. Thus I could continue to present to hon members his achievements as party leader and head of Government. The NP is proud of the fact that Mr P W Botha has been our leader for so long.

The insinuation and accusations about the NP wanting to humiliate Mr P W Botha, to drive him out or prejudice his position, are devoid of all truth; on the contrary, the NP takes exception to the disparagement of the hon the State President, something which is now also taking place in certain circles. We say it must stop. The hon the State President deserves the entire country’s esteem and appreciation.

Secondly there is no leadership crisis in the NP. At the hon the State President’s request, when he relinquished the position it was in a positive spirit that a new leader was elected. As I stand here, I enjoy the full-fledged support of the NP. [Interjections.] If there is a leadership crisis, it is in the ranks of the opposition parties. This is the first political debate we have had in some considerable time.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition was not their chief spokesman. Throughout this session the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition made no really significant speech. [Interjections.] His conduct throughout this session has made no impact whatsoever on the political scene. [Interjections.] We are also scrutinising hon members opposite. The lack of enthusiasm in that party for its leadership must be a bitter pill for him to swallow.

†It also applies to the hon the leader of the PFP. He was taken out of a very important position in the private sector. [Interjections.] He was elected before the congress elected him. He was actually appointed, I think, from somewhere. What was he supposed to do? He was supposed to come and rescue the PFP. In his first speeches shortly after his election, he made fairly dynamic sounds about how he was going to jack up this party and how it was going to be revived. After he went through its political balance sheets, he decided it was beyond repair and that it had to be liquidated. [Interjections.]

Instead of becoming the leader of a revived PFP he has become the liquidator of the second biggest opposition party in this House. [Interjections.] If there is a leadership crisis, it is in that party and in the party to be born on 7 April. Therefore I do not begrudge the opposition parties the fact that they hide their own embarrassment behind what we had to listen to today.

*I said that there was no leadership crisis, and I said this party had a feeling of the utmost respect and warmth for the hon the State President. Thirdly I want to say that there is no contradiction between these two facts—between the NP’s love and esteem for the hon the State President and its support of a new leader-in-chief. It is my and my party’s heartfelt wish that our relationship with our erstwhile leader-in-chief should continue to be and continue to be warm, profound and basically sound.

Fourthly I want to say that it is, of course, true that an in-depth debate arose about what is now generally being referred to as the separation of the offices of State President and leader-in-chief. The scope of this debate has been extended; it does not only involve the caucus; it is not only being conducted here today. The scope of this debate has extended far beyond the boundaries of merely those actively involved in party politics.

Standpoints have been adopted and uncertainty has begun to take hold, something which has begun to have a negative effect, not only on the NP, but also on the country. It was therefore unavoidable for the NP to justify, on the basis of its policy, the question which was tabled. And that is what the NP did—in a responsible manner. It is well-known what conclusion was reached. It is contained in a resolution of the Federal Council which was unanimously adopted by the caucus. Let me again quote that resolution to hon members:

For this resolution the NP accepts full responsibility. It is a resolution adopted in a responsible manner. We do not, however, accept responsibility for malicious interpretation by some opposition newspapers and parties. [Interjections.] I am attacking opposition newspapers. This matter has also been dealt with responsibly by sections of the Press that support the Government. [Interjections.]

Incorporated in this resolution is the fact that there will now be consultation with the hon the State President and the Cabinet. This means that discussions will be held in a sensible and responsible manner, in the best interests of the party, of course, but also in the best interests of the country and all concerned, and that these discussions will be held at the right place and in the right manner, according to the best NP traditions. This does not mean consultation with the CP. It does not mean consultation with the PFP. It definitely does not mean consultation through the medium of the Press either. Of course the opposition will try to exploit the issue. It is to be expected that they will try to initiate a personal confrontation between me and the hon the State President. That they will ascribe ulterior personal motives to me and to others is typical of their petty politics.

I did not think, however, that the CP would stoop as low as it has now done. That that party, with its murky record of besmirching the hon the State President, of absolutely unjust, unfair and uncouth attempts at besmirching the hon the State President, now suddenly wants to present itself, even through its hon leader, as the champion of the hon the State President, is the lowest manifestation of hypocrisy I could ever imagine. [Interjections.] I want to tell those hon members that all their …

You surely did not think they would take up the cudgels for you!

The hon member must please never do that. [Interjections.] The best news this party ever had was the news it received on that day in 1982 when the hon member for Lichtenburg left the NP. [Interjections.]

All the petty politics of hon members of that party today and in recent weeks does not alter the truth. The truth is that the NP’s decision, which I have quoted to hon members, sets forth a principle concerning a fundamental issue at a specific moment in our constitutional process of development. I do not want to become involved in long, technical constitutional arguments today. I merely want to make a few statements in this regard. The resolution to which I referred was adopted within the framework of the existing Constitution and the present mandate the NP has obtained from its voters.

†The NP resolution does not mean that the NP is clinging to a dominating role. There is no doubt in my mind that the office of State President—his role and functions—will have to be reviewed drastically in tandem with other constitutional developments and reforms. [Interjections.] The NP remains committed to its goal of powersharing without domination and regards development in this direction as a matter of urgency. Finally a new constitution, differing substantially from what we have today, must come about.

*The resolution adopted by the Federal Council, as endorsed by the caucus, is not aimed at offending the hon the State President or driving him out. In fact, appreciation for the present hon the State President’s position and the need for consultation are incorporated in the resolution.

I want to say here today that the NP will not be stampeded by the opposition’s opportunistic misuse of the present situation.

The opposition has given you people a fright, eh?

We are not easily frightened.

Everyone involved in the process of consultation is imbued with a spirit of trying to do only the very best for South Africa. Everyone concerned is imbued with the realisation that the NP has a key role to play and should therefore be sustained. All concerned have come a long way on the basis of mutual respect and co-operation. Therefore, to those who are concerned about the present situation, in contrast with the opposition which gets a kick out of this, I want to say today that they should keep calm. We shall resolve matters sensibly.

Meanwhile the Government of the country is proceeding normally. Likewise the NP is on an even keel and there is great enthusiasm and momentum. In striking contrast to this, there is chaos in opposition ranks. No wonder they grasp, like drowning sailors, at straws such as the alleged leadership crisis in the NP. The CP is losing ground in every quarter. In numerous spheres that they have politicised they are having their noses bloodied week after week—whether in regard to a school committee, a farmers’ association or a local management committee; they are losing out everywhere.

We could check all the results of the past three months and we would find that they are experiencing a tragic set-back in areas represented by them in the House of Assembly.

Let us go to Lydenburg!

What about Hoedspruit? What happened at Hoedspruit? We are not afraid of Lydenburg. [Interjections.]

Order! I am hearing the hon member for Brakpan’s voice very clearly and too often. The same applies, to a lesser extent, to the hon member for Soutpansberg. The hon the Minister may proceed.

It is specifically because, for the most part, they have had their noses bloodied in their areas.

At local government level they can do what they like, but numerous CP-controlled town councils are backing away from their policy.

They are not implementing it uniformly because some CP supporters are a little more sensible than others. [interjections.] Their partners in the ultra-right dreamworld are turning against them or putting them to shame. [Interjections.] Am I not right in saying that that is true, Sir? Prof Carel Boshoff’s intellectually honest analysis of CP policy is surely an indictment of their credibility. [Interjections.] He was a part of their think-tank. In their arguments they called upon his assistance, and what did he say? He said that elsewhere, away from those areas in which the White masses are now living, an own State must be established, because where the Whites are now living, what the CP calls the White country, will always be—the NP also says so—an area occupied simultaneously by members of all peoples and population groups. [Interjections.]

†The PFP is marching towards its own demolition. One can almost hear the sad tones of a slow march. [Interjections.] Except for the hon member for Yeoville who I think is working on his own agenda there is no buoyancy in the PFP. [Interjections.] Its leader rarely smiles. [Interjections.] His party has no fight left in it. They are embarking upon this new union with almost no hope of salvaging the leadership, although they will provide most of the funds and the biggest percentage of the votes. They fix their hopes in their battle to remain relevant on the so-called almost faceless fourth force, in the hope that it does exist. [Interjections. ] The PFP is so dead on its feet that it cannot be an inspiration to the new party into which it will dissolve. [Interjections.]

*No, Mr Chairman, it is the NP that has the initiative and will keep it. We have courage, we have an appetite for politics and we are ready to break new ground. In saying this, I am not merely making a hollow promise. We are hard at work creating a better climate by building up better mutual understanding, and we are making progress along those lines.

We are concentrating on planning and are working on the development of a continuous programme of action. Whilst opposition parties are working so furiously at their own survival, the NP is working for South Africa’s breakthrough into a new era.

Mr Chairman, I have not been a member of this House for all that long a time and I should like to make the admission that in the past I took pleasure in it whenever the CP and the PFP received a hiding. However they have received such a large hiding in this debate that I have a feeling of sympathy for those hon members. [Interjections.] In all the time I have been here, I have never seen such a pathetic little group caught in a corner. There has been an absolute one-way barrage in this debate and aside from the fact that the first CP spokesman, the hon member for Lichtenburg, began with great fanfare, it was very much like an old woman’s dance—very fast in the beginning and nothing thereafter. One would have expected the CP to give us more detailed information regarding their acceptance or non-acceptance of Prof Boshoff s plan. But there was not so much as a peep—not a single sound.

The hon member Dr Geldenhuys indicated very effectively this afternoon that the Official Opposition no longer had any credibility. The lack of credibility has always been there, but it is only emerging now because this has to take shape in reality. If a policy cannot work in theory, it can never work in practice. That is the problem with those hon members. I have already devoted three or four speeches, I think, to this in the past, and attempted to conduct a debate in that limited time with the hon member for Ermelo and the hon member for Bethel. I asked them how it was possible that in the book which they had written, they had called the policy which the CP was now implementing a ploy and that they had disparaged it theoretically—their own policy which they are now implementing—and shot it down in flames in the book. How did he make the leap from the time when he wrote the book, to becoming a member of Parliament on that side of the House? How does he reconcile his two standpoints?

Other hon members present here are my witnesses. I said that if they did not begin to answer, then surely there must be mala fides somewhere. I said that the bona fides of those people would be questioned. I have not yet received a reply from the two senior advocates. That is a very poor show. It is pathetic. It is those deficiencies that are now emerging and becoming monuments in Boksburg, Carletonville and Welkom.

We are actually engaged in a debate on the economy, and I want to congratulate the hon the Minister most heartily on his appropriation. I shall come back to it a little later.

It is characteristic of economic debates that there is a total lack of knowledge of the economy on that side of the House.

May I just say that I have a very close affinity with the hon member for Barberton. I think he is a fair debater and he is also the chief spokesman on finance on that side. I should just like to quote what the CP’s approach to the economy is. That hon member wrote an article in the Patriot entitled “Net partisie kan ekonomie red”. In this article of his he analyses the economic position and speaks about the impoverishment which may be discerned in our economy. He goes on to say that the circle of poverty must be broken, and one would expect him to come forward with his plan. That hon member, who is the chief spokesman on economic affairs, will surely now tell us how the CP is going to address this and how they are going to solve the problem. Then follow these winged words, and here is the plan. I quote:

That is to say, the solution to the problem—

He is therefore still awaiting a plan. He is still waiting for advice to be submitted to him from outside, and then that plan will be used to overcome this problem. This makes one think of the time when the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said there must be a tree. [Interjections.]

I should like to refer to a certain facet which is causing a problem in my own constituency, namely the toll road which runs right through the middle of the Klip River constituency. On Monday, 23 motorists drove through the toll gate without paying in accordance with a predetermined plan, with the aim of being arrested and in that way affording greater publicity to the emotional issue regarding that toll road.

This problem is a nettlesome one and I should like the Government to devote some immediate attention to it. The problem is quite simply that a portion of the N3 between Vrede and Cedara has been used as an existing road for over of 15 years. There is now a toll-gate on that existing road at Mooi Plaza. Motorists pay R8 there whenever they use the toll road, and the feeling is that it is unnecessary to pay for an existing road.

There are a whole number of arguments that may be advanced with regard to this situation, but the fact is that it has now become an emotional issue in which logic and facts do not play a role.

I am pleased to be able to say that I have been successful in arranging for a meeting to take place on Thursday, 30 March in Estcourt, at which our members of the Estcourt Toll Protest Committee and other responsible businessmen will meet. I shall be accompanied by the hon members for Pietermaritzburg North and Pietermaritzburg South, as well as the hon members Mr Hattingh and Mr Redinger. We hope that we shall be able to exchange some ideas and facts during this meeting. I hope that we shall be able to obtain a better definition of the scope of the problem so that we can negotiate with the Government in a responsible manner in order to solve this problem, because I know that the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs has a sympathetic ear. We shall go and see him, but in the meanwhile I request the people in that area, and in my constituency, to remain calm and cool-headed and not to disregard the law. This matter will therefore enjoy priority at a high level and I hope that I shall one day be able to return to the people of Estcourt and its environs with good news with regard to some or other benefit which it has been possible to negotiate for them because they live there and are affected far more severely by the toll-gates than are other people in South Africa.

Mr Chairman, I would like to correct one of the points made by the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. He has indicated that he will not be able to be present but I am sure that if he would like to he could reply later to the point I am going to make.

On his election the hon leader of this party stated that his main objective was to bring together all those to the left of the NP who belong together. On 8 April, at the founding congress of the Democratic Party, this will in fact be achieved. To say, therefore, that this was a decision taken later is not correct.

On the other hand the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has said much about what he plans to do but actions speak louder than words. How is he planning to solve the problem that exists between himself and the hon the State President? This problem which is of concern to all South Africans was not addressed here today. [Interjections.]

Referring to what the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare proudly proclaimed earlier as the 41 years of success of the NP in gaining electoral support, I want to say that what he failed to recognise is that this support entitling them to govern approximates 8% of all South Africans, people who are motivated by self-interest and the protection of White group rights.

What we are saying is that it is imperative to look forward beyond these people’s interests to the interests of all South Africans. When the hon leader of this party referred to a true democracy, that is precisely what he meant. He questioned the legitimacy and not the legality of this Government. Until we achieve this, political and economic instability will continue. [Interjections.]

Similarly, the hon member for Kuruman, I believe, is living in another world.

A White homeland!

Yes, I believe it is. [Interjections.] The economic position is not all rosy. We need only ask the hon the Minister of Finance responsible for preparing the Budget. There may well be short-term improvements or rays of light but we are still beset by inflation, disinvestment, the falling rand, insufficient capitalisation and a fundamental inability to maintain a growth rate sufficient to even start reducing unemployment. [Interjections.]

In his main address yesterday, the hon the Minister made reference to “prophets of doom”. In spite of gloomy forecasts, he said, this was a successful administration which could go forward into the future with confidence.

In our opposition to own affairs administration we have never said that this Government would be unable to divide activities on a racial basis. The hon the Minister says with pride how this administration has grown—expenditure has grown by more than 36% per year over its five years of existence. I do not believe that this is a matter for pride!

Firstly, expenditure increases hide a multitude of sins; and secondly, we on this side of the House are totally opposed to transferring responsibilities from general to own affairs. Growth in this administration simply means less common ground among all South Africans. [Interjections.] It ensures discrimination on the grounds of race and it means further apartheid.

Two serious consequences flow from this. The one has been dealt with by the hon member for Yeoville and that is the difficulty of deciding who gets what; how to apportion the cake among the races; who gets the biggest slice. The formula method has apparently failed and an alternative is now being sought.

The second economic consequence results from differing priorities among the groups. Let us assume that improved education is a top priority for the House of Representatives. They therefore allocate a larger portion of their budget to education, whereas this administration for Whites decides to increase the subsidy for first-time home owners. Young White couples now have a competitive advantage over their Coloured counterparts, particularly in the free settlement areas soon to be proclaimed. Such dilemmas have occurred and will continue to occur. They create unnecessary tensions and competition. I have no doubt that these two issues, namely the allocation of funds to own administrations and the way in which those funds are spent, will create friction, unnecessary dissatisfaction and discontent.

Priorities do differ!

Yes, but we believe that they have to be looked at in totality.

The hon the Minister believes that the growth of this administration represents a measure of success but I disagree. The more functions that are handled on an own affairs basis, the greater the likelihood of dissatisfaction, leading to a continuing deterioration in race relations. In saying this, I am not a prophet of doom. It is my firm belief that this system will inherently fail and that it is based on a premise which is a self-fulfilling disaster. I believe that ultimately functions which are now being separated will be joined again. The whole thing will have been an enormously costly pipe-dream to cater for the Government’s racial group fantasies.

One aspect of the hon the Minister’s speech I did find pleasing was the stress that he laid on the need for financial discipline and control. He expressed concern regarding the availability of suitably trained personnel largely due to inability to compete with the private sector.

I believe this to be a serious concern. It has also been raised by the Auditor-General in his Report on General Affairs for 1987-88. In this report he stressed the problem of the loss of qualified staff.

I understood the hon the Minister’s remarks yesterday to refer to the same problem. This problem will be further aggravated by the introduction of performance auditing—a technique even more complex than normal financial auditing but nevertheless very necessary.

This is a problem that I believe has to be solved. We cannot afford to have unqualified or underqualified staff doing this important work. I would therefore ask the hon the Minister whether qualified chartered accountants are employed in these positions, and if so, are they given full recognition for their professional status? Professional salaries are rising; not least of all because of the diminishing number of qualified accountants. Last year more chartered accountants left this country than qualified. Accounting firms are struggling to staff their own practices. This administration will have to compete in order to attract suitable staff as this is one area where I do not believe we can afford complacency. I am pleased to note that the hon the Minister shares this view.

The third issue I would like to deal with is that of public resorts. The hon the Minister sketched an interesting historical background to some of these. He further described how spending a weekend or longer at a resort has become a family tradition. One of the reasons for this popularity is one of cost—excellent accommodation at attractive localities is available. I concur with the hon the Minister, having spent many enjoyable days at public resorts myself. Here in the Cape we have a number of these such as Goudini Spa and Storms River Mouth, to name but two.

The sadness is that many, if not all, of these resorts falling under this Administration, are for Whites only. Yes, I am well aware that there are resorts for other race groups, but nowhere near the number available for Whites. Prior to own affairs administration, preference was given to resorts for Whites only. Since the introduction of own affairs, I do not believe that the other administrations have had the resources to give resorts a high priority.

So once again we have racial discrimination reflected in unequal facilities which is both hurtful and divisive. Is it really necessary to have different resorts for different race groups? Who benefits when families who are not White are turned away? Often this happens when people have made telephone bookings completely oblivious of the restriction, only to be embarrassed when they are seen to be the wrong race and are refused entry.

Some years ago, as a member of a young man’s organization, I wrestled with the problem of venues for week-end conferences. Hotels were too expensive, whereas a resort such as Goudini Spa was ideal. But because some of our members were not White, we were not welcome. On a few occasions a blind eye was turned provided that we booked all the available accommodation as in this way other patrons could not be offended.

The organization in question involved a non-racial membership. One of its objectives was to provide services to the less privileged. Another was to create fellowship among young people. Why in South Africa does such a group have to go out of its way not to offend people, not because of what they do, but because they have broken down racial barriers and grown to know and accept one another?

Finding alternative facilities proves extremely difficult and expensive.

In his speech the hon the Minister stated:

Does “the traditional pattern of usage” mean perpetuating racial exclusivity?

Further interesting questions flow from the investigation currently being undertaken to privatise these resorts or aspects of their activities. Again the hon the Minister states:

Will the private owners be compelled to retain racial exclusivity? What if the investment were found to offer a better return if the resorts were opened to all? Will the owner be precluded from doing this?

I fear that such a precondition might make the proposition unattractive. The resort will stay in Government hands. Racial exclusivity will continue to be subsidised by this administration at yet another cost of apartheid.

You are seeing ghosts.

These are personal experiences, not ghosts.

In raising these issues I am not aspiring to be a prophet of doom. I recognise the many important services provided by this administration and that in many instances these are efficiently provided through the dedication and hard work of the many officials and employees.

Who can oppose the right of White South Africans to the best in education, medical care, welfare, housing and the many other facilities provided by this administration? My concern is that differentiation on the basis of race creates points of conflict through differing standards and is expensive because of unavoidable duplication. The more this administration grows the worse this will become.

The alternative is to incur State expenditure in the best interests of all South Africans.

Mr Chairman, if I have any time left after I have dealt with a certain matter, I shall quite possibly come back to some of the statements made by the hon member for Pinelands. Having virtually reached the end of this debate, one may look back and make one’s own summary of it. It is significant that the hon member for Lichtenburg, who was the very first to speak, should have launched a tirade, as was to be expected, in which he attempted, in his own way, to drive a wedge between the leader-in-chief of the NP and the hon the State President, as he did here. Thereafter he proceeded to launch a scathing attack on my colleague the hon the Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply.

What is interesting, is that when the hon the Minister of Agriculture reacted to certain statements which the hon member for Lichtenburg had made, the hon the Minister was accused of having acted in an insensitive and unethical manner, and this accusation was accompanied by a whole string of adverbs and adjectives—to such a degree that the hon member for Soutpansberg associated himself with it and accused the hon the Minister of always making allegations and of committing character assassination. I am putting it in my own words now. What I find very strange, particularly about the Official Opposition, is that they regard themselves as the only people who may launch attacks—as many as they wish—on this side of the House, whether it be on hon Ministers or on colleagues on this side of the House, despite the fact that a large number of those allegations have been proved in practice to be untrue. I merely point out the allegation that has been made against the hon the Minister of Defence with regard to the swimming bath issue.

When this hon Minister announces the truth, there is an outcry that this cannot be allowed. I think the time has arrived for hon members in the Official Opposition also to accept that at some time or another one probably also has to react to these things which they are engaging in.

The hon member for Soutpansberg regarded it as being justified to launch a scathing attack here on a gentleman who is not in the House to represent himself. I am referring to Gavin Relly. I am naturally not here to defend his case. I do want to say, however, that having seen how they attacked the hon the Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply, after which the hon member for Soutpansberg stood up and attacked someone outside the House, I must ask myself whether this is ethical.

I want to leave it at that. The hon Leader of the PFP saw fit to climb onto the bandwagon himself and to attempt to cause a rift between the hon the leader-in-chief of the NP and the hon the State President. However, I think the hon the leader-in-chief of the NP replied very well to that. After he had spoken and I saw the enthusiasm with which his speech was received—I am judging this for myself by the effectiveness with which he dealt with the matter—I said to myself: “Thank goodness that I am a Nationalist, and that I have a leader-in-chief like that”. [Interjections.] I wish to associate myself with what the hon the leader-in-chief of the NP said, namely that some CP town councils had just been a little more clever than others, and that this was why things had gone a little better in certain places. This made me think of what is happening in my own home town, Welkom. The CP-controlled town council there has seen fit to say that they will not go quite so far as to engage in so-called petty apartheid; they will not remove the signboards. This is in contrast to the guidelines which they have received from their leader-in-chief.

I think what the hon the Minister said was very true. At the present moment those CP management board members in Welkom are clever enough to decide that they would rather resign.

Oh no, that is not true!

We would rather resign than live in conflict with the leadership which is emanating from the CP. If that is not true, however, I should like us to be given the real facts on a later occasion as to why those four management board members of the local authority of Welkom did, in fact, tender their resignations. Hon members should simply reveal that here, or alternatively those management board members in Welkom should eventually reveal it to us in the Press.

I want to leave it at that. I wish to thank the hon member for Brits for the courtesy which he has extended to me by being present in the House after his hon Whip informed him that I should like to discuss a certain matter with him.

The hon member for Brits saw fit to introduce a personal motion—which did not come under discussion—with regard to education. This motion which the hon member introduced, had three main points of attack. The first was that the Government could ostensibly not be trusted—that the House should adopt a motion of censure or no confidence in us—because we had failed to check the exodus of teachers, especially in key subjects. Let me say at once that we are naturally concerned about the exodus of teachers. What I am worried about, however, is that this hon member, as the chief spokesman of the Official Opposition, should really be careful with regard to certain statements which he makes, particularly if the hon member and his party wish to profess that they are interested in the protection and progress not only of education as such, but also of the teachers.

I want to tell the hon member, and I shall prove it to him, that by means of those statements which he made and that motion which he introduced, the hon member did nothing other than introduce a motion of no confidence in the good work which teachers are doing throughout this country. The hon member not only introduced a motion of no confidence in the White teachers in this country, but also in the achievements and fine efforts of all the scholars! I shall prove that to the hon member as well.

The hon member neglected to tell the House that there had been a notable decrease with regard to the exodus of teachers as a result of the salary increase of 9% in December last year, followed by a further 15% in January this year. What are the figures? In December 1988 no fewer than 1 683 teachers left the field of education, but let me say at once that it is incorrect to maintain in this House that those teachers left the service purely on account of service conditions. A very large percentage of them left due to the fact that they had reached retirement age, that they were getting married, that they were being transferred, and various other factors. In contrast to this the total number of resignations in January this year amounts to only 168. In other words, it is only 10% the number of resignations during the previous month. What is also enlightening is the fact that 85% of the 168 resignations among teachers in January this year, occurred in the Transvaal. [Interjections.]

There is nothing strange about this, however. This does not only occur in our country; it occurs in every country in the world. I could refer the hon member to Houston in the USA, where the Johnson Space Centre is situated. They are grappling with a problem to obtain teachers there, particularly in science and mathematics. I could also refer to England, where they are drawing up emergency measures at the present moment to obtain teachers in subjects such as mathematics and science. Does the hon member want to tell me that this is due to the fact that those governments are governing poorly? Surely that is absurd. Surely that is entirely nonsensical. [Interjections.] The fact of the matter is that there is always an inflow and outflow of teachers wherever there is an industrial drawing power. One will never be able to get away from that.

I have indicated that these resignations are regional. They are not occurring throughout this country; there are many places in this country in which there has for years been no change with regard to teachers, and they have remained there. We cannot therefore make a general statement and proceed to lay it at the door of the Government.

The hon member went further, however, and accused the Government of failing to stop increasing integration, inter alia in the field of sport. Let me ask the hon member first of all what he means by integration. Does he mean that it is integration when one has to stand in a queue with people of colour at the supermarket? Does he mean that it is integration if a Black domestic servant renders service in his household or any other household? Does he mean that it is integration if a Black domestic servant looks after the children? Is that integration?

The hon member simply comes along and attaches a derogatory connotation to integration, and then he attacks the Government for it without first looking back for a while at his own party members and ascertaining how many of them are making contact with people of colour in practice day after day and availing themselves of the assistance and manpower of people of colour.

Let us tell the hon member that we in the RSA have to do with various ethnic groups, which are God-given, and that they are there. We can do nothing about that. The fact of the matter is that these population groups have to live and work together in peace and happiness as far as possible. We shall build the future on that.

But not play together!

I shall come back to that. Now the hon member says, “but not play together”. That immediately makes me think about something I read in the newspaper about a certain Mr Ferreira of Boksburg—I understand he is the CP’s chief spokesman in the town council—who said in reply to a question during a meeting that they could play against people of colour and Blacks but they could not play with them. He said that was the policy of the CP. I want to ask the hon member of Brits whether that is his policy. [Interjections.] I ask the hon leader of that party whether this is correct. Is it the policy of the CP that one may play against them, but that one may not play with them? [Interjections.] The hon leader says that I should deliver my speech. Fine! I shall deliver my speech. I shall point out to him the absurdity of that party’s so-called sports policy. [Interjections.] I now want to ask them what difference it makes if one may play in a football team against people of colour, if one may play in the scrum, or play centre or whatever position, but one’s partner at centre simply may not be a person of colour. Then it is integration. [Interjections.] What kind of sports policy is that, Mr Chairman? Then that hon member wants to come and attack us with regard to integration, particularly in the field of sport. [Interjections.]

Let me make this very clear. The education programme in the Republic of South Africa must, particularly due to the fact that there are various population groups here, make a contribution, side by side with the nurturing of individual aspects, towards the maintenance and promotion of good ethnic relations. If the hon members of the CP do not like that, then I must state unequivocally that in my view White education also has a duty and a responsibility also to make a contribution towards good ethnic relations.

Because school sport and school cultural activities are an integral part of the education programme in schools, schools and parents may, if they prefer to do so, make use of sport and culture to prepare the child for the demands of the multicultural society. [Interjections.]

Do you therefore prefer a policy of integration?

No, Sir. I now want to ask the hon member for Lichtenburg something. Does the hon member for Lichtenburg have any problem with the principle of the devolution of power? Is the hon member opposed to that?

Just make your speech!

Every time those hon members are unable to answer my questions, I am told to make my speech. [Interjections.] The fact of the matter is that on the one hand, those hon members make a great fuss about the fact that attention should be paid to the wishes of the people. On the other hand, if this does not take place as they wish it to, it is totally and utterly wrong. Then it may not take place. [Interjections.] No, Sir.

What are the facts? What is the motion of the hon member for Brits? The fact is that in terms of the cultural policy and the sports policy of this side of the House, it is up to the management board to decide whether children may take part in sport—yes or no. I am talking about integrated sport, if one would like to call it that. The same applies in so far as cultural activities are concerned. They cannot therefore blow hot and cold with regard to these things. They cannot do that. Wherever a spontaneous need arises to make contact—arises in a particular community—that need must be respected. I want to say that no individual is being placed under any coercion with regard to his participation in sporting and cultural activities across the colour line. If the school as such has a school function or a school cultural activity, then it is up to the management board, and the school principal and his staff must decide on this.

That is not what Danie Craven says.

Danie Craven is not, after all, the Government. [Interjections.] After all, we have a cultural policy and a sports policy and if the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition does not have one, he need only ask the hon member for Brits. He will give the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition one.

The second matter is that if an individual wishes to take part in integrated sport on an individual level, it is up to the parent and the pupil himself, and no compulsion is applied.

The hon member for Brits alleges that the Government has failed to maintain standards with regard to White education. What a scandalous remark! The hon member is introducing a motion of no confidence in the teachers. Let us look at teacher training as the first facet of this. Ten years ago, four-year training for teachers at the teachers’ training college was a rarity. Today most of them have four-year training; not three-year training. I want to state further in this regard that many of the teachers in primary schools today also have a degree because they have taken the B Prim Ed degree at university. I also want to tell the hon member that the requirements for admission to study have increased tremendously, with an accompanying increase in the standard and quality of education.

With regard to the certification of academic standards, which is done in consultation with the universities, there is a tremendous increase in standards. Let us look at those prospective teachers who wish to study at universities. The admission requirements are higher, the requirements in respect of bursary qualifications are also higher. Does this look like a decrease in standards?

Let us look at the curricula. Curricula are receiving attention day after day. The standards today are far higher than they ever were in previous years. This also holds true for curriculum content and for relevant education.

Let us look at the achievements by the children. As an example I shall take those children who go through from standard 6 to matric. In 1978 68,2% of those standard sixes who began, reached and passed matric. Ten years later, in 1988, the figure was 72,6%. Is this a lowering of standards? Let us look at the achievements of matriculants. The pass rate among matriculants in 1978 was 93,6%, and in 1988 it was 96,1%. But the hon member for Brits will stand up in this House and disparage the matrics—they have a poor record. He deems it fit to attack the Government and to introduce a motion of censure because the standards are ostensibly too low.

The same may be said of the financing of education. The Government is in the process, in cooperation with the teachers, of implementing cost-effective education. Standards and quality cannot simply be gauged in terms of finance. Standards and quality are gauged in terms of the teacher who stands in front of the class. That is what is most important. [Interjections.] I want to say today that the White teachers in this country deserve the praise and gratitude of all of us for the exceptional manner in which they are making themselves more proficient by means of continuous study with regard to new methods, in order to become better teachers for the children. I give all the praise to the pupils of today, with their busy education programme, for the way in which they, too, are engaged in study of a high quality and standard.

Mr Chairman, I take pleasure in following the hon the Minister. Like previous speakers on our side he dealt very effectively with the CP.

We have already talked a lot of politics today and have also had an enjoyable party-political debate. For that reason I am going to exchange a few views this afternoon on another topic which is concerned with politics. I want to think out loud on our future constitutional development in this country, specifically as regards the Whites.

We have already told one another that the system which we will have to develop will be a unique system with federal characteristics, because we have unique circumstances in this country. It would have been very simple if we had had homogeneous communities which could have settled in federal states and these federal states could have co-operated, as regards the general component. Now the fact of the matter is that except for the six self-governing territories and the TBVC states which are fairly homogeneous, we have a heterogeneous population. It is also impossible to attempt to unravel this situation by means of forced removals or negative discrimination.

Order! The conversations in the Chamber are too loud. Hon members will have to lower their voices. The hon member may proceed.

We cannot consider a racial federation or a group federation to be the absolute or final solution either. It is true that characteristics of consociational democracy can be utilised positively to promote our endeavour to achieve power-sharing without domination. However, that is not the entire solution. I do not want to go into the composition and the functioning of a future central Parliament today either. I do want to look open-mindedly at the possibility of a geographic federation and express my ideas on this.

In my opinion we must give serious consideration to a system of co-operating federated states (deelstate) if we are endeavouring to achieve a unique geographic federation. As regards our Black ethnic groups, foundations have already been laid for 10 possible federal states, situated in reasonably homogeneous areas. If we choose the federal option, the rest of the Republic of South Africa will also have to be divided into geographic areas. It will probably be divided into considerably more federated states than just the four provinces or the present development areas.

If we partially implement an adapted kind of canton system, there will quite possibly be considerably more federated states than we foresee at this stage. [Interjections.] The smaller the federated states are, the easier it will be to protect group interests, even if the population composition is not homogeneous. On the other hand, the larger a federated state is, the stronger the power base will be.

It is a reality that most Whites in this country insist vehemently that plans for any new constitution must offer them security against domination. These Whites will accept a new constitution more readily and confidently if the protection of their group interests also has a geographic power base over and above structural protection and the protection which a possible bill of rights can offer them. [Interjections.]

Although I disagree vehemently with the CP on an independent state which must see the light by means of secession or partition, I do not think that this unachievable standpoint must prevent us from urgently investigating the question whether the future federation should not also contain one or more federated states which by agreement—I want to emphasise that this must not take place by means of unilateral actions, but by consensus—are identified as a geographic region in which the government of the relevant federated state or states vests in the Whites in the same way that it vests in specific groups in the self-governing territories at the moment. On the other hand there must be federated states which are not group orientated. [Interjections.]

If consensus could be reached on this, it would be far easier to find common ground regarding power-sharing in the remaining non-group orientated federated states. It is a fact that the Whites residing in the other federated states will gain greater confidence in a new constitution in which their group interests also have a geographic power base in the federal set-up.

I want to emphasise that these states will be federated states and not independent states, that the new constitution must prohibit negative discrimination, that no inhabitant of the federated state must be moved forcibly and that all inhabitants will enjoy citizenship in the federation irrespective of race or colour.

I want to repeat briefly that what I am advocating is that we must not be so influenced by the CP and the racist and unrealistic policy of the far-right wing that we do not recognise and promote the positive aspects which are embodied in a combination of a group and a geographic federation. [Interjections.] We have already said that we will have to develop a unique constitution, therefore a combination of the two. Both are important components.

The standpoint I have put here, links up with an article published by Prof Lawrence Schlemmer on 26 February of this year in Rapport, as well as an article in the Sunday Times of the same date written by Mr Harold Parkendorf. Both these persons are to the left of the NP. The standpoint I have stated was also mentioned in passing by Mr Justice Hiemstra before the Constitutional Committee of the President’s Council. [Interjections.]

I am quoting briefly what Prof Schlemmer said about a White region:

It is therefore interesting and significant that commentators who do not belong to the NP are positively disposed towards a White federated state—I want to emphasise “federated state”—or federated states. This also emphasises that we must address this option fruitfully. It is desirable for us to have clarity on the nature of the future federated states. I think it can be feasible, affordable and acceptable—in contrast with the CP’s option—for certain federated states to be group orientated. However, this must take place by agreement during the constitutional negotiations.

Mr Chairman, if the hon member for Roodeplaat continues at that rate and shows greater foresight, he could perhaps qualify to join the Democratic Party by 8 April, because his policy is no longer NP policy. [Interjections.]

What badge is that, Jan?

For the education and information of the hon members who want to know what this is on my lapel, I must indicate that it is a ribbon in sympathy with the detainees who were forced by the Government to undertake a hunger-strike. This is the only way we still have to show what is really going on there. [Interjections.]

I have a different theme today. I do not even want to talk about the Police. In the forties, a book was written by a certain Mr Calpin and the name of the book is There are no South Africans. That was more than 40 years ago, but I believe that today we still do not have South Africans or a South African nationalism in South Africa. We are still dealing with Afrikaans-speaking people or Afrikaners, English-speaking people or the English, with Black, Coloured, Indian and all the other groupings. [Interjections.] Yes, all the other people as well; all of them.

In this country the Government has done everything in its power during those 40 years to obstruct the creation of a true South African nationalism. It is the apartheid policy of the past 40 years which has really divided the population of South Africa and made it impossible for a national pride to develop here. It has made it impossible for a feeling to develop among all the people of South Africa that they are first and foremost South Africans, and that secondly, they maintain their ethnic ties outside of that context.

I want to tell hon members why I say that. Today we are discussing the Appropriation Bill for own affairs and the Vote of the hon the leader-in-chief of the NP. I do not know whether I should congratulate him on his Vote or whether I should feel sorry for him. We received the report—a very good report, like all the other reports—but how can they put “Administration for White Own Affairs” on the front page?

What else is it? [Interjections.]

What year is this? 1989! I remember that last year the title was simply “Administration: House of Assembly”, but now all of a sudden it is “White Own Affairs”. I think it is scandalous that such a front page can still be published.

With regard to the new hon the leader-in-chief, I want to say a few things today. An exceptional number of expectations are being nurtured with regard to that hon Minister. I have even been told that personnel in our overseas embassies are telling foreigners: “PW has gone and now you will see how South Africa is going to change under FW”. Expectations are being raised that that hon Minister is apparently now going to take this country and the NP off its course of apartheid entirely. I doubt whether that is true.

However, I do want to admit this afternoon that I think the hon the Minister is a more approachable person than his predecessor—if predecessor is the correct word. I think he is less of a bully and more prepared to negotiate. I think that is true. What I want to emphasise is that today in this House, he is representing White own affairs. He is the father of this Constitution’s own affairs concept. As a Minister of this House, he has in fact made own affairs an asset.

What does the hon the Minister say today in reply to the CP? The CP referred to the fact that applications for permits for group areas had been submitted.

He is going to protect you people.

The hon the Minister said that those applications for permits by people who were not White, were rejected because there were too many applications. The hon the Minister does not want to listen, but he said earlier today that there were too many applications from people who were not White, to live in White areas. For that reason those applications were rejected. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I am afraid the hon member did not say a tremendous amount to which I can respond. I should, however, like to reply to one statement he made, namely that this Government had made it impossible for a national pride to develop in South Africa. I just want to tell him, “Please, Sir, speak for yourself”. On whose behalf is that hon member speaking when he says there is no national pride in South Africa? I have met precious few South Africans in my life—regardless of their population or language group or colour—who did not have a sense of national pride. Whether they are inside or outside this country, they have a sense of national pride. That hon member should speak for himself. If he says he does not have a sense of national pride, he must live with that. I want to assure him, however, that we on this side of the House have a very strong sense of national pride. [Interjections.]

The hon member made another very interesting remark with reference to the hon member for Roodeplaat, and said that he might well qualify for membership of the Democratic Party which is to be founded on 8 April. It would be very interesting to know whether he would qualify. Does that hon member intend to join the Democratic Party? Is he going to try to feel an affinity with that party?

They do not want him. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I do not wish to waste too much time on what is happening to the left. I do, however, wish to make one remark and to look back a little into history. What is happening in the PFP at the moment reminds me very strongly of a previous episode in our political history when the “deceased” United Party announced with great fanfare how it was going to save South Africa. A “Save South Africa” plan was announced—and then they merged with Dr Theo Gerdener. What became of that effort? For a long time now, the United Party has no longer been with us. Today children sitting on their grandfathers’ laps hear about the good old days when the South African Party and the United Party were still around, while South Africa has continued to go from strength to strength.

I should like to address another very serious matter as well. I am pleased that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is present, because there is a certain matter which really troubles me. I am very serious in saying this. I want to broach the subject of a remark made by the hon member for Soutpansberg, who remarked in his attack on Mr Gavin Relly this afternoon that Mr Relly was being made rich by the gold that Afrikaners were taking out of the ground for him. It is true that Afrikaners also help to take gold out of the ground, but surely it is not only Afrikaners who are involved in this. There are English-speaking people and many more Blacks who are also involved in this.

During a previous debate in this session, when I reacted to certain remarks made by the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis, I warned that when ever Black buying power was referred to as a myth, that party, through its actions, was jeopardising the interests and job opportunities of the Whites. During the past few days the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has once again beaten his breast and said with great bravado in connection with Carletonville and Boksburg that they will yet become monuments to the determination of the CP.

What has happened during this same week? This is where my concern lies. This week a large department store in Carletonville began dismissing White people because it could no longer afford to employ them. Another department store has told White children who do part-time work there over the weekends. Sorry, we can no longer accommodate you; do not come back. A commercial bank in Carletonville has called its staff together and warned them that it will probably have to start getting rid of some of the staff at that bank soon because it will have to reduce its staff complement. That is what they are doing in Carletonville, and that is what is also going to happen at other places.

I am very serious when I tell the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition to intervene and to come to his senses. One is being placed in a very difficult dilemma. I personally have to contend with a CP town council and the temptation is very great to take delight in, and to make a lot of propaganda out of the fact that the CP town council of Springs has broken away from the official policy of the CP by refusing to implement the instructions which they were given on 12 November last year at the municipal conference. They are employing all sorts of clever manoeuvres to circumvent decisions with regard to the CP’s sports policy. The temptation to drive them into a corner on account of this, is great. However, if one were to drive them into a corner and in fact force them to implement CP policy, one would be doing one’s own town and one’s own people an injustice. I ask him please to intervene and to come to his senses.

What is the other result of their actions and of the climate they are creating? In Kempton Park, during last month’s council meeting, an NP councillor, Mr Han Eybers, made reference to the AWB connection of a CP member of that council. What was the result? I have here in my hand, a copy of a resultant communication, namely a threatening letter through the post. He was told the following—ironically enough, because he had referred to the connection with the AWB, he received a threatening letter in English:

We shall see what comes of this. This letter has been handed over to the Police for investigation. [Interjections.] I just want to ask why those hon members do not, like the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis, repeat their allegations about the bloodstain outside this House so that they, too, can apologise to me in the Patriot? Then I could sue them as well. [Interjections.]

I am making a serious request to that party to consider the consequences of what they are doing. They are destroying White job opportunities in towns like that. They should therefore not complain if the Government eventually accepts the responsibility for looking after the interests of the Whites and for intervening where they are in the process of jeopardising the interests and job opportunities of the Whites.

Tell us how you are going to intervene!

We cannot visibly permit them to continue in this manner.

Incidentally, when one speaks about the AWB and the AWB alliances, there is in my view another little matter which we shall have to rectify at some or other stage. At the moment there are two sorts of AWBs—the pure ones and the impure ones. There are five acknowledged members of the AWB in the House. Would they not like to tell us at some time or other whether they are among the pure or the impure ones? Are they with Mr Terre’Blanche or with Mr Groenewald? It is important to know this if one wants to understand what is happening in a place like Boksburg. Then one must take cognisance of the fact that the CP chairman of the management committee of Boksburg is an AWB member and that according to reports he attended the head committee meeting of the AWB at which a motion of full confidence in Mr Eugène Terre’Blanche was accepted. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, during the previous debate in this House I referred to an election manifesto compiled and distributed by the Federal Council of the NP prior to the general municipal elections. It struck me at the time that that manifesto had been drawn up by a certain Mr P W Coetzer, whom I assume is the hon member for Springs. I then asked the NP whether what was stated in that pamphlet was their policy, because they said there that local authorities had every right to decide for themselves whether their amenities would be open or closed. Is that still NP policy? All I got from that hon member was an interjection in which he stated that all that was required was that it be done properly.

Today I expected the hon member, since he had an opportunity to make a speech here, to give us a full elucidation of the matter. What is the policy of the NP? This afternoon the hon the Minister of Education and Culture asked us whether we believed in devolution of power and said by implication that that was the standpoint of the NP. This hon member, however, towards the end of his speech said that if a CP-controlled town or city council used the power that had been devolved to it … [Interjections.] The hon member need not shout. I did not shout at him when he was speaking.

The hon member said that if a CP-controlled town or city council used its power to protect White communities, the Government was going to intervene from above. [Interjections.]

I found it interesting to read in the Citizen this morning that the hon member for Germiston District, who is also involved in Windmill Park issued a statement to the effect that his divisional committee was not satisfied with the situation, that it did not want Indians in Windmill Park.

The Citizen reported that the hon member had said that the CP town council of Boksburg now wanted to make a petty political issue of the undertaking the hon member for Germiston District had given his voters prior to the election, namely that Windmill Park would remain White. I do not blame the hon member for Germiston District for being a worried man. I believe that he tried to give his voters that assurance in all honesty and sincerity, pursuant to the standpoint of the present leader of the NP. However, if he wants to talk about petty politics, he should rather glance over his shoulder at some of his own people who are perhaps making political gain in this connection. [Interjections.]

Earlier in this debate a specific question was put to the hon leader of the NP concerning the issue of a resolution by the town council of his own constituency at an informal discussion that representations be made to the hon member for Vereeniging for him to assist them, since the Attorney General refused to prosecute those who contravened the Group Areas Act, in Vereeniging as well. I expected the leader of the NP, great man that he is, to have told us this afternoon whether his town council members had approached him and, if so, what his reply to them had been.

We also read in today’s newspaper that the Pretoria city council, which is not controlled by the CP—it is, as far as I know, controlled by the NP—had decided that the Rietvlei dam was to be reserved for Whites only, and that only Whites could use it for recreational and fishing purposes. [Interjections.] We are now waiting for the unholy row Beeld is going to kick up about that. [Interjections.] How can an NP city council take such racist steps, exactly like a CP city council. [Interjections.] Surely they dare not do it. I think it is the task of Beeld and of Rapport to leap into the breach now and take action against these racists.

Pretoria is going to boycotted!

In his speech the hon member for Gezina referred to how own affairs were being expanded. It is almost laughable. If one looks at this Budget one finds that a large part of the Department of Agriculture now falls under White own affairs.

What falls under White own affairs? Does this include the development and breeding of highly productive and environmentally adapted animals? I am mentioning only one. The breeding of productive, well-adapted animals now falls under White own affairs. [Interjections.] So one can continue with veterinarian research and research into animal diseases, which are now White own affairs! The Coloureds, the Indians and the Blacks have nothing to do with that, because it is a White own affair.

If ever there was an artificial subdivision between so-called White own affairs and general affairs then it is in respect of agriculture. We can only guess why this has been done. [Interjections.] The pretence must at least be maintained to the White voters that White own affairs still leaves a substantial degree of power in the hands of the Whites.

I now want to come back to the hon the Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply in particular, because he did not really react to the speech of the hon member for Lichtenburg who referred to specific oddities in the Budget. If one looks at the programmes one will see that from programme 2 to programme 5 of the Budget of the hon the Minister there is no deviation for the promotion of animal production, and precisely the same amount was voted—down to the last rand—as was voted for the previous year. So one can go through the entire Budget. I am now asking in all fairness whether this hon Minister and his department made a new submission to the hon the Minister of the Budget and Works. Surely it is just not possible in practice that the appropriation which he requested this year is rand for rand precisely the same as it was for the previous year. [Interjections.]

Is that possible? [Interjections.] The conclusion I come to is that it was too much trouble to make a new submission. [Interjections.] The only real deviation, except the additional R2 million voted for agriculture colleges, is the increase in administration costs. [Interjections.]

Another thing that is wrong is that if one looks up the Budget of the hon the Minister of Finance one will find that the appropriation this year is compared time and again with the Revised Estimates of last year. In this case, for White affairs, there is no reference to the Revised Estimates of last year, but to the original appropriation. [Interjections.] That alters the figures somewhat.

The hon the Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply owes us an explanation. One possibility is that he is the most wonderful arithmetician in the world, and the most wonderful and most practical achiever of the objectives set by him with the money he needed for that purpose the world has ever seen. Two years in succession he did not need a cent more or less to do the same work. [Interjections.] It is precisely the same, in spite of the prevailing inflation. [Interjections.]

I now want to refer briefly to the speech made by the hon Minister of the Budget and Works himself. He made certain announcements here about the holiday resort, primarily a weekend resort, near Badplaas, in my constituency. If there is something which would upset me personally it would be if that holiday resort, which was left to the White people by President Paul Kruger, is either privatised or thrown open.

Did you read my speech?

I did read the hon the Minister’s speech, but the mere fact that he is considering it is disturbing. We have had enough experience of the NP. First they consider something, and before they have finished considering it, they decide about it. I want to repeat that this is a holiday resort which was left to future White generations by President Kruger. It has great sentimental value for my people. If they are going to tamper with it they are looking for trouble.

I also want to refer to the long expected financing formula which by now has been five years in the making. Only last year the then Minister of the Budget said the following (Hansard, 21 March 1988, col 4275):

This was last year on the 21 March. By now it is already at a late stage of March 1989, and now the hon the Minister tells us that they have certain unidentified problems and they are now coming forward with a completely new proposal—also, it is to be hoped, in the next year. When is that formula going to appear?

It is with the Cabinet.

It seems it was with the Cabinet last year too. At the time the hon Minister told us that the legislation was coming during that session. My time has almost expired.

I listened to the leader of the NP, the hon Chairman of the Minister’s Council, and he referred to my own leader and intimated that he did not really participate in debates. I do not know whether he is aware that the hon member for Waterberg made three speeches here this year, as well as eleven public speeches.

He said nothing.

The hon member said he said nothing! But then he is probably commenting on what his own leader said this afternoon. What did the hon Chairman of the Minister’s Council say to us this afternoon that he has not said umpteen times before? When will the leaders of the NP have the courage to lay their plan for the future on the table so that we can discuss it? Or is it perhaps that they do not have a plan for the future? Listening to the hon member for Roodeplaat—I take it that he is a member of the NP caucus—and the plans he put forward this afternoon, are these perhaps the plans that are being considered in the NP? Have they made any progress along the road of a race cum geographic federation? We are merely asking; we want clarity.

The NP says that they are negotiating with other people. Earlier this afternoon derogatory reference was made to our not having been able to negotiate with Mr Jaap Marais and reach agreement. They also said that they were not prepared to negotiate with the CP, but they are negotiating with Gatsha Buthelezi. Is Gatsha Buthelezi closer to them than the CP is? Is he closer? [Interjections.] Is the ANC closer to the NP than the CP? Is Rev Allan Hendrickse closer to the NP than the CP? [Interjections.] If they think so, they must tell us, so that we can know where we stand with them. The NP has embarked on a course of the so-called one nation state. They stagger from one pothole to the next. In Africa there is no method whereby power may be shared with the majority of Blacks, as a result of which one is not ultimately, in a one nation state, going to loose political power over oneself completely.

I want to conclude with an observation for the PFP. Forty years of apartheid—it was not forty years, because apartheid is apparently a sin … [Interjections.]—is now being advanced as a reason for South Africa having economic problems. At the risk of once again being accused of being a racist, I want to ask … [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Barberton blasted away with a shotgun, and hon members must now simply smell or feel what that gun was loaded with. [Interjections.] Unfortunately I cannot react to all the hon member’s accusations, except to say that one agricultural year differs from the next. Unfortunately, in agriculture, as in every other department, one does not simply ask for or get what one wants. One therefore has to restructure one’s needs and priorities within a given budget.

That is why that hon member cannot simply say that there is a specific final amount that looks the same for the one year as it does for the next. It is a question of the availability of funds and the restructuring of priorities in the country. We must also tell the hon member that the NP’s constitutional reform is evolutionary. The hon member is continually claiming that we say: “Yes, but it is merely our policy you are implementing.” Our policy is evolutionary, with the least possible disruption of communities. The difference between us and the CP is that we are in the process of removing the signs, whilst they are in the process of putting them up again. They have consequently put evolution into reverse gear.

The CP reminds me so forcibly of those Kelpie dogs one gets. If one does not keep those dogs busy, they kill the chickens. [Interjections.] Surely those hon members do not have the sense of responsibility to govern this country. They have a great deal of time, do they not, and now those hon members are not only killing the chickens, but also the business undertakings in Boksburg and Carletonville. [Interjections.] In those areas those hon members are driving healthy communities and sound undertakings to rack and ruin.

I merely want to exchange a few ideas about State aid, particularly with regard to the floods of the past year. In 1988 the NP Government again proved that with the limited funds at its disposal it could act promptly and efficiently in emergency situations, inter alia with a view to granting assistance to everyone, regardless of their political convictions. CP members are not all as clever as they think they are. Some of them are also farmers, as I am. They are not all as clever as they think. In spite of that, the NP and the department are serving the cause and trying to establish independent economic agricultural communities there.

What do we get, however, as a quid pro quo? As a quid pro quo we are told that the assistance is too little and too unwieldy. What is forgotten, however, is the extraordinary pressure exerted on the Exchequer during the past 10 years as a result of the one drought and flood after the other which has hit us and for which we have had to make provision. The process is only unwieldy because we are working with public money and have to account for the fair and legitimate use of this money.

I am telling the CP today that the farmers of South Africa will not allow this Government to fall. The farmers of South Africa will not attack this Government because there is a large group of farmers in our midst who are still balanced and equitable in their thinking. The few, the remainder of the 68 000, form a minority in a population of several million people in our country, and they really cannot swing our politics one way or the other.

Am I not right in saying that the CP shines a light where light is already shining. They remind me of the chap who lost a ring and went looking for it under a lamppost. His friend asked him where he had lost his ring, and he pointed into the darkness about 50 yards away. His friend then said: “Why look for it here?” To which he replied: “Because here there is light.”

Am I not right in saying that the CP is trying to shine a light where light is already shining. The NP is specifically seeking the problems in the darkness of South Africa in an effort to look after people who are groping in the darkness owing to a lack of the necessities of life. We also want to look after people who are still living in the political darkness in South Africa. I think we have kept our word by even placing our political position on the line, and then those hon members, who did not want to meet the challenge of the future, left us. [Interjections.] We are now reaching out our hands to the Blacks in our country. The NP is prepared to accept its position of guardianship and, from a privileged position, is also prepared to give the other population groups privileges in regard to their own affairs, as we have established the privileges of the Whites in own affairs departments. We also want to give other population groups an opportunity to own land independently in this country so that they do not only have joint responsibility, but are also joint owners of this country. [Interjections.] Then they can also accept responsibility for the economy and the defence of this country.

The NP will continue to grant assistance to the farmers in South Africa. I merely want to furnish a few figures about the recent flood aid. In Natal 3 250 claims were submitted by 16 025 farmers. Up to 16 March an amount of R37 904 926 was paid out on 1 854 claims.

Ask Ferdi what he has to say about that.

Am I not right in saying that they do not want to hear the facts? As far as the Free State and the Northern Cape are concerned, in regard to ex gratia compensation, subsidies, loans, waterworks, stock losses and soil conservation works an amount of R46 739 550 was paid out to a total of 2 282 claimants. Therefore, regardless of what those hon members say, this Government will continue to ensure that our agriculture is kept alive and that we continue to have a sound farming community in this country so that we can also look after the thousands of labourers employed in agriculture today.

Mr Speaker, I hope the hon member for Soutpansberg is not leaving because I want to refer to the disgraceful attack he made on Mr Gavin Relly this afternoon.

Mr Gavin Relly is one of South Africa’s most outstanding businessmen and industrialists. He is a man of immense generosity, a philanthropist of vision and a proud South African who has made a great contribution to the future of this country. The hon member for Soutpansberg said Mr Gavin Relly should keep his golddust-covered nose out of our business. At that the hon member for Brakpan said: “Hoor, hoor!” I wonder if the hon members would like Mr Relly to close down his mines in Carletonville and in Brakpan? [Interjections.] It is a pity that the CP cannot be left alone in its misery and racism and let the rest of us who want to work together get on with our business.

Mr Relly, it is interesting to note, does not make his remarks and statements from behind the privilege of this House and he certainly does not need me to defend him. He is more able to do that himself. Suffice to say that I have the greatest respect for Mr Gavin Relly and I urge him to continue his work in the service of South Africa. [Interjections.]

My hon leader touched today on the position of the leader-in-chief of the NP, the hon the Minister of National Education. I want to pursue if I may—in the few minutes at my disposal—the position of the hon the Minister with regard to his leadership both in the House and throughout the country.

The hon the State President obviously made a fatal mistake, if one takes into account his own personal position, to suggest that the position of the leader of the NP and the State President be separated. This was the opportunity for his enemies to strike and to elect a successor.

I have no problems with his successor. I was one of those who congratulated him on the day he was elected. I wish him well. The future of our country depends on him in the short term and I hope the decisions he makes in the months and the years ahead will be wise ones.

The hon the State President, however, effectively rewrote the Constitution by his action and he now says the NP caucus shares joint responsibility with him in that decision. That is a problem the NP will have to solve. One hopes that, because of the indecision and the uncertainty surrounding this problem, it will be resolved sooner rather than later. The NP owes it to all South Africans to bring this matter to a head as soon as possible and to resolve the issue.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council did not help matters much today when he told us that he and the hon the State President have reached an understanding. However, other than to say that he has great love for the hon the State President, he told us nothing about this understanding. He gave us no details as to what understanding has been reached between him and the hon the State President.

I told you the Progs are not role players in this situation.

South Africa wants to know what the arrangement is. It is not only the Progs who want to know. I am talking about the indecision and the uncertainty in the country. There are a lot of people outside who are deeply interested in what is going on at the present time with regard to the leadership of the NP. They want to know what the arrangement is and who is in charge; who appoints members of the Cabinet; who sets the date for the election; and when the hon the leader-in-chief will take over as State President.

The first outing by the new hon leader-in-chief of the NP created great interest both here and overseas. Editorial columns in the newspapers in South Africa, both in Government-supporting papers and in the opposition press, Took great interest in what he had to say. In addition, leading journals in Europe and the United States analysed the new leader and found him, in their words, to be pragmatic, approachable, reasonable, intelligent and interesting. [Interjections.] That is an interesting observation. One British journalist even compared him to Mr Gorbachev and his policy of perestroika or openness.

He just does not have the birthmark.

The second outing of the hon the leader-in-chief of the NP in Nigel was watched with equal eagerness and interest.

Again there were enticing words and an attitude of sympathy for the new leader. Here was a man who gave the appearance of wanting to make a new beginning, a move away from the cul de sac that the NP has driven us into, a move away from the confrontation of the past and a move away from the negative racist route that the NP has followed for 40 years. We have had a similar speech here today—fine sounding words about a new constitution that is very different from the present one. This is an interesting phrase indeed.

That is a good beginning and something to be pursued, but words are not enough. We need action and the hon the leader-in-chief has promised us action today. I want to suggest to him that there are two routes for him to follow. The first is to follow the traditional path of the NP and that is the path of co-option and connivance at remaining in power. That is the path of disaster. That is the path the NP has been dragging us down for 40 years and I hope he will not follow that route because, if he does, I want to predict that South Africa will soon become disillusioned with him.

There was a member in this House some years ago who was known as Madam Rose. I want to look into his crystal ball and predict that if the new leader of the NP follows the first route and continues with fine sounding words only and no action, he will get the support of some newspapers. Some leaderwriters will say: “Give him a chance.” Some businessmen eager to grasp at any straw, will even donate funds to the NP but after three of four years when things have not improved and the NP has not delivered the goods again, when race relations are still poor, when our Rubicon rand is still at a low level and when there is no outside confidence in South Africa, the editors, the leaderwriters and the businessmen will say: “What a disappointment!” That is the first route.

The other route is the road of genuine negotiation and power sharing.

The other night the hon the leader-in-chief of the NP said in Nigel, “Let the indaba begin”. Those are grand sounding words indeed, but I hope it will not be another false start. A real indaba has to include all the actors, viz the Whites, Coloureds, Indians and all the Blacks; those in the self-governing states and in the cities, and those individuals who support the ANC and the PAC. All those individuals have to be included if there is to be a constitution which will endure and if there is going to be a constitution with legitimacy—as my hon leader put it this morning.

In order to achieve this, political prisoners have to be released and exiles have to be allowed to return. The most important prisoner is Nelson Mandela of course. He has to be released as soon as possible. I read in The Citizen of today that the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs said on British television on Wednesday that he was looking forward to the day when Mandela could be released unconditionally. I hope that is the view of the hon the leader-in-chief of the National Party too. [Interjections.] He is not paying much attention at the moment, but I hope his view is the same as that of the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs, namely that Mr Mandela should be released unconditionally as soon as possible.

All the various race groups have to be included if there is to be a constitution which will endure. Everybody has to participate if it is going to be a lasting constitution. I hope that the hon the leader-in-chief of the NP will do something about this.

At the great indaba, the national convention—as my party has called it for some time—roundtable talks or whatever the NP chooses to call it, certain basic principles will have to be hammered out. These will include principles such as no domination and no discrimination and principles like the Bill of Rights, an independent judiciary, the form of government to be followed and whether it should be a federation or a unitary state—my own preference would be for a federated state. Then there is the question of the franchise. There is no doubt that we have to have nothing less than universal adult franchise in South Africa in the nineties.

These are all concepts, principles and policies that the progressives have promoted for thirty years and we are pleased that the current report of the Law Commission has reached to similar conclusions. One hopes that the NP will also come to similar conclusions in the not too distant future. We hope too that the new leader of the NP will grasp the nettle, because if he does, he will have our support.

Mr Chairman, for once I agree with some of the comments of the hon member for Johannesburg North, in particular his admonishing of the hon member for Soutpansberg and his approval of the new leader of the NP. However, I do not think that most of what followed is worthy of comment. One thing I can assure him of though is that the NP knows where it is going and does not need his or his party’s advice.

Hon members of the Official Opposition have questioned the concept of own affairs for several reasons. I believe they need to be reminded that this concept was endorsed by the vast majority of voters in the constitutional referendum of 1983 and again in the general election of 1987. From a practical point of view there are very good reasons for the departmentalisation of identified disciplines to be controlled by the Administration: House of Assembly.

Every successful business identifies meaningful cost centres for the purposes of control and accountability. The Administration: House of Assembly has identified such cost centres to facilitate planning, decision-making and conduct of policy, and further has the task—I believe it is being most successfully fulfilled—of bringing about closer liaison between the public and the Ministers’ Council at regional level.

Gross duplication of facilities is a myth created by the PFP for propaganda purposes. In the Government’s declared policy of devolving power it is my opinion that it is imperative that the identified disciplines be co-ordinated and administered by the established five departments, but as far as possible powers must be devolved to the lowest level. As an example I believe that in education greater power should be devolved to the provincial directors of education and to the provincial education council. This move is already under way.

Hospitals utilising, in particular, specialised and expensive equipment must have the power to decide that such facilities be made available to all in need. The hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare has already given his assurances in this regard.

There is one aspect where I may be at odds with the hon the Minister of the Budget and Works. Museums, I believe, are generally established to record the history of the many cultures of our country. I am of the opinion that the vast majority are best administered at regional or provincial level to facilitate the interaction of cultural groups.

In discussing the Budget before us, it is clearly one of fiscal discipline. Criticism has been levelled at the hon the Minister for the relatively small increase in the estimate of expenditure for the 1989-90 financial year of R360 million on the revised estimates for 1988-89, totalling R6,225 million. It is an increase of only 5,7%. However, as has been pointed out, the net increase on the original estimate is 11,4%.

The hon member for Lichtenburg who is no longer here and who along with other members of the CP, today squealed like stuck pigs … [Interjections.] … compared the small increase in the Budget with the 15% increase in the proposed main Budget, and indicated that the amount appropriated should be more in keeping with the inflation rate.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May that hon member refer to the CP as “screaming like stuck pigs”?

Order! I think the term “stuck pig” is like “maer vark” in Afrikaans. In the circumstances I think it would be better if the hon member did not use the expression again.

It would appear that the CP now accepts that high inflation and high spending are part of their financial policy. We are fortunate indeed that they are not the Government.

I believe that the hon the Minister of the Budget and Works and his department should be congratulated on their fiscal discipline in preparing this most frugal budget. There are changed circumstances, particularly in agriculture, about which we did have quite a considerable debate, which allowed budget cuts, but it is clearly the resolve to introduce better controls and discipline. That has enabled the hon the Minister to tighten his belt so successfully. After the cut and thrust of a stimulating political debate today, the main theme of my speech may now sound a trifle dry at this time of the day. However, it does have a very serious message, and that is that this Government is deadly serious about financial as well as constitutional reform.

In reading the Auditor-General’s report in respect of general affairs for the 1987-88 financial year we find reference to the introduction of performance auditing which has been successfully introduced in the Department of Education and Training. Arising from this audit the department instituted certain measures which could give rise to improved value for money in that department. It clearly highlighted problem areas requiring attention.

The hon the Minister of the Budget and Works must also be congratulated on requesting, and being the first department to do so, that performance auditing procedures be introduced in his department in an effort to improve efficiency, the utilisation of equipment, facilities and manpower in order to get that value for money.

I believe the results of this initiative are reflected in this Budget, and the taxpayers who so often criticise the Government for overspending should be more than happy with what has been achieved. Yet the hon members of the opposition parties today have criticised underspending in the Budget. It would appear that they will never be happy or that they just do not have the grace to give praise when it is due.

Exactly what does performance auditing mean and what does it hope to achieve?

*The concept of performance auditing owes its origin mainly to the rapidly changing economy and the social conditions. Greater accountability requires officials who can take the lead, the influence of new far-reaching legislation and, above all, the necessity of adapting to the new era of limited State resources and rapidly escalating needs. Today, more than ever before, management in the public sector is confronted by a variety of critical new problems and challenges which have their origin in our society’s greater complexity. Demands of increasing productivity, more comprehensive services, the better utilisation of available resources and better reporting are only a few of the problems and challenges they have to contend with on a daily basis.

†Traditionally the task of Government auditors world-wide is to conduct regularity audits, embracing all aspects of compliance with laws and regulations and of financial accountability.

The transition from the traditional regularity audits to performance auditing designed to achieve value for money is just another example of this Government’s determination to strive for excellence in managing the financial affairs of our country.

It should be mentioned that interface with private auditing firms—this is something that was mentioned by the hon member for Pinelands; perhaps he should listen to it—and especially those who develop expertise in this area, contributed much towards bringing about the much needed change to a more structured approach in performance auditing. If public entities should in any way become nervous about what performance auditing might hold in store for them, they should not be alarmed unnecessarily as they should bear in mind that this anxiety is only a manifestation of accountability.

This Government’s actions in the past year in the appointment of commissions, in ruthlessly pursuing a policy of achieving economy, efficiency and effectiveness in fiscal management is clear proof of our desire to ensure clean and lean government. The antics and actions of most of the opposition speakers in this debate in talking about everything and anything but finance, is clear proof that we are succeeding.

Finally, the fact that the hon the Minister and his department have taken the initiative to implement real fiscal discipline and achieve tangible results, cannot be commended highly enough.

I have pleasure in supporting the Appropriation Bill before us.

Debate interupted.

Mr Chairman, permit me to convey a sincere word of welcome to the hon the Minister of the Budget and to wish him everything of the best. We wish him God’s richest blessing.

Since this is the first opportunity I have had to take part in the debate, I also want to congratulate the hon the Deputy Minister of the Budget and the new hon the Deputy Minister of Education and Culture.

A very simplistic comment was made in this debate yesterday to the effect that the Ministers’ Council had made a great deal of progress during the past four years. That kind of statement is highly disputable and debatable. Let me try to make a small contribution to this extremely emotional and explosive debate.

I should like to say in the first place that in less than two years the Opposition in this House has been involved in more direct negotiation with the State President and the provincial leaders of the NP than the LP has in more than four years. We did not wait for the Government to draw up the agenda on which we wanted to negotiate. We ourselves sent them the agenda, comprising inter alia the abolition of the Group Areas Act, the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act and the Population Registration Act, or those provisions in particular that have reference to race classification. [Interjections.]

The hon member Mr Lockey is making interjections. He will remember, when we were to go to the hon the State President as a group and debated here in private first, that he said: “People have so much to say now. I hope they do so in front of the State President too, otherwise it will be a very feeble exercise” (soos ’n poep op ’n lap). When we returned from the hon the State President, he said: “That was really very feeble.”

You are talking nonsense. You were afraid of the State President.

Order! The hon member for Reigerpark must withdraw those words.

Mr Chairman, I shall withdraw them, but that is what the hon member Mr Lockey said in that connection. [Interjections.] Our agenda contained the participation of Blacks in the decision-making process, the unbanning of the ANC and the PAC, the release of Nelson Mandela …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I do not know whether or not the hon member for Reigerpark has lost his memory, but I never said that. He must be careful in what he attributes to me …

Order! The hon member withdrew those words ages ago. The hon member may proceed.

Shame!

… because I shall tackle him.

Mr Chairman, I also want to make the bold statement that as a result of this negotiation, specifically with regard to the celebrated Nelson Mandela, we made a contribution to his no longer being physically in prison today. Mandela and his release were on our agenda every time. Where is the LP’s agenda for negotiation? It is always said that the Government must spell out to us what is on its agenda, but when will the LP begin to do so? What does their agenda for negotiation look like? They must spell it out to us. Or is it so confused that they are shying away from it in embarrassment and are degenerating—also in this House—into misleading semantics?

What became of your party?

What is more, the Freedom Charter is part of our constitution. The LP, through the hon member Mr Lockey, tried assiduously to make a mockery of this. Now I want to say this.

†What do they say now, because the South African Law Commission, in its working paper on group and human rights, has the following to say about the Freedom Charter. In the preamble is envisaged a democratic state in which all enjoy equal rights and in which there is no discrimination. Some of the principles are enshrined in the document.

*The leader of the LP, the hon Rev Hendrickse, said in the Sunday Times of 12 March 1989 that he would negotiate with the NP only once the State President, Mr P W Botha, had retired. This means that progress in this connection will be postponed for another year. As a result, we—and the rest of the country—are going to suffer for a further year and there will be no progress, while the CP celebrates the humiliation our people are experiencing as a result of the reintroduction of petty apartheid on the local level.

Whose Act is it?

If that is how the hon leader of the LP feels about this matter, the appropriate thing for him to do is to request the hon the chief leader of the NP, Mr F W de Klerk, to call a meeting of the electoral college for the election of the State President, so that he can be dismissed in the electoral college, instead of waiting until he retires. The leader of the LP also said, “I prefer Pik, but I accept the NP caucus’ decision.” If that is the case, he must call a meeting of the electoral college so that a decision can be taken with regard to the State President and so that there can be an early election.

In contrast with this, however, the hon nominated member Mr J Douw said yesterday:

Yet that hon member’s leader says he accepts the decision of the NP. Once again this shows that when it comes to negotiation, the LP has reached rock bottom. No one need be amazed by this. That is what their scoreboard looks like. I want to give a few examples in this connection. The Les du Preez Report that was adopted on a non-racial unitary state is collecting dust, and not a jot or tittle of it has been negotiated with either the previous or the present Government. One need not even wipe the dust from the non-racial geographic federation document, because it will not become a document for negotiation either now or in future, since they do not know how to present it.

I want to tell the hon member Mr Douw that this is the first time in this House that I have been disappointed in a speech he has made. I want to tell him that he must be careful when he says the LP is closer to the ANC than the hon members of the Official Opposition are to the NP. It took break-away action to get the LP away from its proximity to and absorption by the NP. I wonder whether the hon the Minister of the Budget is not disappointed that hon members of his own party have stooped so low during this debate. In my opinion the …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is it parliamentary to say that other hon members in the House have stooped so low?

Order! The hon member must withdraw that statement, because he was not referring to a party. He was referring to individuals.

Sir, I withdraw it, but what I meant was that the level of the debate had declined to such an extent that it must have been embarrassing to the hon the Minister. In my opinion the tender board’s activities fall under the hon the Minister of the Budget as he indicated in replies here in the past.

The hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture gave an unsatisfactory answer to the interpellation on erf 4061 in Eldorado Park the other day. Rapport reported that erven 4061 and 4063 do not belong to the people who applied for the rezoning. In addition the hon the Minister said that erf 4061 had been sold to Mr Pretorius. Rapport also reports that the advocate—for professional reasons his name may not be mentioned—had handfuls of documents to prove that the registered owners of the erven which had received special zoning were definitely not Messrs Mateman and Pretorius, but rather the Community Development Board. In other words, the properties still belong to the Community Development Board. I should like the hon the Minister to tell me whom the erven really belong to. Can the hon the Minister also tell me whether or not a tribunal is going to sit with regard to the zoning of the erven in question in May 1989?

I want to say something about the Budget as submitted to us. A great deal has been said about the Budget’s being 17% higher than that of last year. What about the present rate of inflation and what about normal growth in respect of the expenditure in our respective departments? If we take that into account, we shall see that only a small percentage of increases have taken place. When one considers our needs, this is not even a drop in the ocean. To me it seems as if we are being misled with percentual increases just as we were in the old Coloured Representative Council.

At that time increases were announced in this vein, viz pensions for Whites, 10%, and for Coloureds, 12%. The question was on what amounts the Whites were receiving an increase of 10% and the Coloureds an increase of 12%. The increase in salaries for the Whites was 7,5% and for the Coloureds 10%. A great fuss was made at the time about what had been achieved. An increase of 10% was negotiated for the teachers. The last narrowing in the gap, especially where it was most essential, viz in the case of pensions, took place in 1985. Where is the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare now? Full of bravado, he said at the time he would leave the House, and he must keep his word and do so.

There is no point in bluffing the House by saying that the old age pensions were R103 in 1984 and are R200 in 1989. That was simply the normal increase in pensions that took place. There was no extra increase in pensions so that equalisation could be effected. This also applies to the veterans’ pensions. To say that they were R110,50 in 1984 and are R266 now means that one is not taking the reality in respect of the increase in costs into account. To say that that was an achievement, as the hon member Mr Douw did yesterday, is naive and far removed from reality.

Where is parity? It is so far in the future that those who have been wronged will be dead and buried by the time we reach parity. We must not be obsessed by parity with Whites per se. We must negotiate an increased pension for the senior citizens, and there should be equalisation for everyone on that amount. In the same way we must not go into ecstasies about how much we have achieved. The fact is that after an increase of 30,5% in 1985-86, we dropped to an increase of 15,6% in 1986-87 and 15,2% in 1987-88.

Do hon members know why the Budget has been scaled down in this way? Ask the hon member for Border. He spelt it out to us last year.

Mr Chairman, allow me first of all to join the hon members who have taken part in this debate in welcoming the hon the Minister of the Budget back in this Chamber. We are pleased to have him back with us. We also want to say in the same breath that we are pleased with the work he has done this year and particularly over the past four years.

If one looks at the Budget this year, one sees that the hon the Minister of the Budget, and in particular the Ministers’ Council, have done an absolutely fine job. I think they have proven that participation is the correct strategy. The fruits of the past four years will stand us in good stead for a long time. It will certainly take us to the voters and bring us back successfully next time round.

Sixteen hon members took part in the debate yesterday, but I am particularly concerned about the contribution of the hon members of the Official Opposition. It is the duty of an opposition to make meaningful input when a budget is debated. The whole principle of budgeting is what we expect to come from the members of the Official Opposition. The standard displayed here leaves one with a tremendous amount of concern.

The trend was set by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition with a contribution of sour grapes. We all know, it is history, that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition was asked to resign as Minister of Education and as a member of the Ministers’ Council. As the hon member Mr Lockey indicated yesterday, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition was looking for promotion immediately after he was forced to resign. He immediately placed him at the disposal of the hon the State President for any other post that the hon the State President might deem fit for him. However, what the hon the State President has done was to demote him to an absolute reject. [Interjections.]

While the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition was crying out because he thought he had the support of the hon the State President for a 1992 election, the hon the State President now denies that he even considered 1992 as a date for an election. Therefore it appears that when they talk about negotiations they did not negotiate properly when it came to the 1992 elections. Let us now immediately dispel this nonsense of an election in 1992. Yesterday the hon member Mr Lockey clearly indicated that a document was sent to every hon member of this Chamber that all those 1992 members must please join us. [Interjections.] It is sad to say that there was absolutely no response. The response was such that even their numbers have diminished. [Interjections.]

Let us take a look at what the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said. The only good point he made was to wish the hon the Minister of the Budget well. [Interjections.] Immediately thereafter he withdrew to his own affairs laager. He was part of the decision we took at Eshowe. He knew that we had not accepted the tricameral system. The tricameral system was rejected at Eshowe and have been continually rejected here in this Chamber. [Interjections.] We are certainly not going to be enslaved by tricameral thinking. We will use the tricameral system in order to reach our ultimate objective. [Interjections.] If the tricameral system is rejected here continually it must not be misinterpreted. [Interjections.] I make no apology for being a Deputy Minister within the tricameral system, just like I do not expect the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition to make an apology for his resignation from the LP.

We will pull out of this tricameral system but we will not do this to satisfy hon members of the Official Opposition. We will do so when the time is right and if there is no need to pull out of the system we will not do so. We shall use the system in the interests of those people who are not represented here. We must always bear in mind that the greater majority of South Africans are not represented in Parliament. As long as they are not here there is never going to be a budget, a system or legislation that is going to satisfy the needs of the greater majority of people in South Africa.

When the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition talks about long-term objectives and shortterm needs he must also agree that this budget is a tremendous step in the right direction because this budget is proof of the power of negotiation. We are not talking about the 17% and the inflation rate of 13%; we are saying that in four years the allocation for this administration has doubled.

If that is not progress and if it does not indicate clearly the power of negotiation, then I do not know how we are ever going to satisfy the hon members of the Opposition.

I agree that what has been allocated to us is not enough. [Interjections.] That is so. What we must admit, however, is that we are moving in the direction of receiving enough. [Interjections.] I am the first one to admit that this cannot be a charity State. Everybody agrees with that. But the State has a responsibility towards all its citizens. Therefore, when the cake is cut it will have to be cut in equal parts. [Interjections.]

So much has been said about negotiation. Not a day passes without hon members of this party meeting not only local people, but also people from the international community, continuously, on the basis of negotiating a new South Africa. The Ministers’ Council and the leadership of my party are continuously involved in the process of negotiating a new deal for South Africa. It is unfortunate that the Opposition has become so insignificant that nobody bothers to talk to them. [Interjections.] The noises I hear from the back row come from a totally disintegrated group. They started of as the Official Opposition party but they have now degenerated into absolute nothingness.

That hon Deputy Minister’s leader has stated that he was not going to negotiate!

It is good to hear that that hon member has woken up! [Interjections.]

The question of not speaking to the hon the State President was mentioned. How can the hon members expect us to speak to the hon the State President, Mr P W Botha, under the present circumstances? The impasse prevalent in the NP at the moment means that they do not know who their leader is at present, so whom does One speak to? Until that question is resolved, we will not speak to the hon the State President. The uncertainty surrounding the office of the hon the State President must be sorted out by the ruling party in the House of Assembly themselves. That is not my job. [Interjections.]

It appears, however, that when the hon member talks about a non-racial federation, the policy of this party, the LP, he has not even begun to understand what non-racialism means.

I wish to thank the hon member Mr Douw particularly for his valuable contribution in this Chamber yesterday. At least, when one looked at the depth of his contribution one would find that he examined the whole principle of budgeting and the manner in which a budget is put together, as well as the manner in which the needs of people are examined for the purpose of drawing up a budget and how the funds will be distributed. [Interjections.]

I agree with the hon member when he talks about the situation where all of us in this country, all South Africans, are considered to be the polecats of the world. Hon members know—this is what I expected to come to the fore in the debate yesterday—that apartheid has become totally unacceptable. It is impossible to improve on apartheid and the apartheid structures. It is totally impossible. Not until every detail of apartheid measures is removed totally will we become acceptable members of the world community.

I am not ashamed to say that this party will negotiate with the ANC. I am not ashamed to say that the ANC is relevant to the whole South African situation.

There is no doubt in my mind that the ANC has a constituency here in South Africa and that it is a member of the South African community. There is no doubt in my mind. I do not have the time to examine why the ANC has opted for a violent strategy, but this is precisely why we want to talk to the ANC. This is why it is absolutely necessary that there should be on-going negotiations with the ANC. [Interjections.] The whole question of the misinterpretation of these negotiations … [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members must grant the hon the Deputy Minister an opportunity to talk. If an hon member wishes to put a question, he should do so, but the hon Deputy Minister is being shouted down at the moment. [Interjections.] Order! The hon member for Matroosfontein should request an opportunity to speak if he wishes to answer. The hon the Deputy Minister may continue. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I would like to know if the hon the Deputy Minister needs your protection. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member need not to put that question to me. I do not owe the hon member an answer. My duty is to follow the Rules of this House.

Mr Chairman, I shall continue because my time is limited. It is necessary to negotiate with all sides. Negotiations do not mean that at all times one has to be on one’s knees before White people only. It means that we have to talk to everybody who is relevant within the South African system. This is what negotiation is all about. It is a question of negotiating on an equal basis and an equal level and not to be seen to be belly-crawling at all times. It does not mean that one has to, be rejected because one is on one’s belly. This is why this party will negotiate as equals with everyone who is relevant to the South African society. [Interjections.] However, enough has been said about this topic.

I would like to refer to the hon member for Bishop Lavis who is unfortunately not here. He started off by referring to the retrenchment of teachers. This should not come as a surprise to the hon member who was formerly our Minister of Education. There has been and still is a monetary problem. We have this problem and we have to learn to live with it. However, this party has promised that nobody will be retrenched unnecessarily. Nobody within that particular fraternity will be victimised. I believe that enough has been said about it. The hon member continued to speak about rentals, subsidies and services. I would have expected the hon member to mention these things when the hon the Minister of Local Government and Housing’s Vote is debated in this Chamber, because this is where one would find the answers. He should be addressing the principle of the Budget. He could not possibly expect that hon Minister to reply to him here. The whole question of examining tenders is an administrative one. One knocks on the hon the Minister’s door and finds it wide open. Anyone is welcome to look at these things. I am absolutely shocked at this kind of approach.

The hon member for Rust Ter Vaal once again conveyed his congratulations to the hon Minister for his speedy recovery and also to me, for which I wish to express my gratitude. However, he mentioned something of great significance.

*He said our community was caught up in poverty. We should be seen to be dealing with this problem together.

†We should see to the socio-economic upliftment of our people from where they are to where they should be, so as to take their equal position within the South African community. This immediately brings to mind what is said outside about revolution before education.

*The education of our people is the most important aspect of this House’s function.

†We have to see to it that people are educated to take up their rightful place in the South African society. We can only do that as absolute equals when we are equally qualified. We are oppressed simply because we are not in a position to compete as equals. Although we have equal ability our talents have not been exploited to their fullest.

*The hon member spoke once again about the effect apartheid has had on people. It is a pity the hon member for Reigerpark is not present. The whole question of the effects of apartheid is illustrated clearly near the hon member’s constituency in Boksburg. Our hon friends in the House of Assembly are now ashamed about the policy of the past which still binds them, because the CP is taking advantage of apartheid against them.

†The important point made by the hon member for Rust Ter Vaal was the whole question of violence as opposed to negotiation. There has never been a doubt in the minds of those who belong to the LP party that negotiations work as opposed to violence. In a violent situation there are no winners. One can, however, only negotiate on the level that the hon Mr Lockey spelled out here. The whole basis of his contribution, apart from cutting down the nonsense spoken here by the opposition, was the question of placing us in a position where we can negotiate as absolute equals. I want to thank him for an absolutely brilliant contribution.

The Official Opposition spokesman on finance, the hon member for Matroosfontein, apart from wishing the hon the Minister well for his recovery, talked about equal pensions and tried to get at my colleague the hon the Minister for Pensions and Welfare. Nobody has tried more and harder than that hon Minister to work towards equal pensions. I assure him that this Chamber will not rest until we have equal pensions. [Time expired.]

Order! I should like to congratulate the previous speaker and the hon Deputy Minister. We are actually speaking about the Budget and only the principle of it should now be discussed. The Supplements on Education, Local Government and Health are put separately and the finer detail on schools here and clinics there may be discussed. I allowed hon members yesterday to deviate from the principle, because this happened suddenly. The hon the Minister need only reply in broad terms on the Budget. He cannot answer questions about health, a clinic at Paternoster or a school at Jannewarie. It is not within his powers to do so. Hon members should please pay attention to this and deliver their speeches accordingly. The Budget as such will now be discussed.

Mr Chairman, allow me, right at the outset, to associate myself with the hon members who have already congratulated the hon the Minister on his return. I want to assure the hon the Minister that we are very thankful that he is back in our midst. We were shocked to hear about his sudden sickness. I want to assure him that many prayers were offered for his recovery. We thank the Lord that he answered our prayers and that the hon the Minister is back at his post.

We wish him strength for the road ahead. Now that he has someone to support him, the workload will not be such a burden and he will still be able to do his work as well as in the past.

Allow me, at the same time, to congratulate the hon the Deputy Minister of the Budget, who has just spoken, on his appointment. I also want to congratulate the new hon Deputy Minister of Education and Culture on his appointment.

I must also congratulate the hon the Deputy Minister of the Budget on his contribution to the debate this morning. Once again he lifted the debate from where it had fallen flat and placed it in its correct perspective. I thank him for the assurance we received from his speech. We know that he will manage the portfolio with dignity. This demonstrates once again what the members of the LP are made of.

In the short time I have at my disposal, I wish to emphasise three aspects of the Budget. These are the three aspects which the LP identified as key aspects for achieving its ideal. The first is the improvement of the lot of our aged and all other social welfare cases. The second is education as the means of saving our communities from the syndrome of ignorance, backwardness and oppression. The third is to alleviate the housing emergency which is causing our communities great misery.

Yesterday the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition launched an attack on our leader as well as the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare in regard to the way he was handling his portfolio. In his tirade, to soothe his own selfish conscience, he conveniently forgot that great improvements have already taken place in the field of pensions and welfare since the inception of the tricameral system. He probably has not noticed it yet. Yesterday it was spelt out to him. There is a saying which goes: There are none so blind as they that will not see and none so deaf as they that will not hear.

Let us consider the improvements which have taken place in our communities on this level, the level of social services and pensions. Let us consider the war veterans’ pensions. The hon member for Reigerpark said that the things which happened, had to happen. I say that it is not so. In the field of war veterans’ pensions complete parity was reached. Who negotiated for that? Who must we thank for that? Boland Bank? No, the LP. These are the men who worked to get them on a par. There has been a definite improvement of more than 90% in the payment of social and old-age pensions. The payment of those pensions took place in a way which the LP ensured. Funds which were earmarked for certain departments were transferred to those departments to improve the plight of our people. Who thought about it and negotiated for it? Who must we thank once again? Not Boland Bank, but the LP. I expected a lot more from those hon members who launched such an attack on the LP. Please give us credit where credit is due.

Even though there seems to be no provision in this budget for any further improvement of social and old-age pensions, I want to assure our old people that the hon leader of the LP, through his competent negotiators, will see to it that improvement does take place in this field and that our people will always be looked after. The LP is striving to accomplish complete parity in the payment of pensions—not only between the Whites and so-called Coloureds, but for all the people of South Africa. The LP has never yet deviated from that purpose.

We are also striving for complete parity for children’s homes and all other welfare institutions. The LP is achieving its aim. We cannot forget the sweat and bodily toil with which our elderly people made South Africa the prosperous and thriving country it is today at this southern most point of Africa. The LP has a high regard for the contribution those people made. The Opposition can forget about trying to imply that the LP is sitting around the flesh-pots of Egypt and has forgotten about its people. We are still part of our community.

I believe that certain factors played a significant part in the negotiations for more funds. These factors included the low gold price, the high inflation rate, the low rand exchange rate, the high unemployment figure, and the most important of all, the threat of continued economic sanctions from abroad. It is said: No man is an island. South Africa cannot stand alone; we are part of a whole. In preparing a country’s budget it must always be remembered that our ties with the public must be strengthened. [Interjections.]

I am so glad that hon member has woken up because it is always an embarrassment for me to see him sleeping like that. [Interjections.]

Therefore I believe that the hon member for Reigerpark is wrong when he says that the LP failed in its negotiations to obtain more funds. The improvement of more than 17% proves that. It is conclusive proof of the negotiating ability of the LP. The LP negotiates around the negotiating table, and whereas one person was always used to taking the biggest bite from the cake, it is now divided equally among the people of South Africa. It is a difficult process.

I now come to a second aspect of education. The less one talks about education during the years 1984 to 1987, the better it will be for everyone. If there was a time of embarrassment for this party it was that time. Nothing can spell out the story better than this pamphlet which was issued by the Arcadia Branch of Actu in the Eastern Cape in the year 1985. I want to quote to the House what is written in this pamphlet. It reads:

Who was in charge of education?

Casspir!

Order! Someone said that Casspir was in charge. Who is Casspir?

Ebrahim!

Order! No, that is not his name. It is the hon member Mr Carter Ebrahim.

Sir, it is the hon member Mr Ebrahim.

Thank goodness the LP had a man of the calibre of Rev Hendrickse who could raise education from the depths to which it had plunged—a man who could correct what had gone wrong and who restored order and discipline on the school campuses. Where previously there had been chaos and unrest, order and calmness now prevail. Liaison with teaching staff took place which had previously declined. Who must we thank for it? Not the hon member for Matroosfontein, because he sleeps too much. We must thank the LP and its skilled leaders.

The LP believes that, at this stage in the history of South Africa, political and economical reform and growth in the economy must be discussed. Even though very little reform and growth is discernible, the LP believes that it is imperative that we play a more active and meaningful role in order to lead the country to political and economical reform which will not only be acceptable to all the people of South Africa, but will also bring about political and economical stability which will be to the advantage of all the people of South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I intend raising something which is not in the Budget yet but which is something of paramount importance to the people whom I represent. If the hon the Minister had known about it, he would certainly have included it in the Budget.

It is high time for the East London area to solve its own problems. I want to appeal to the mayor of East London, the hon Donald Card, to call all interested parties together for an East London indaba. For the past four or five years we have been struggling in Parliament to make a breakthrough. This does not seem possible because the first arm of the Government does not liaise with the third one. What is of paramount importance is that all East Londoners should now get together. As the representative of that part of the country I demand all the land adjacent to the East London Ben Schoeman Airport—this includes the residential area of Glen Devon, the farms Rocklands and Ferndale, the entire Santa area as well as the pineapple farms—as part of our land for the future. At the same time it is essential that a bridge be built across the Buffalo River to join that area to the present Buffalo Flats.

One can talk about homelands and whatever. Our people require 1 500 houses now and we need land for the next century. If it is a homeland, I accept it as such. We are giving the inhabitants of Duncan Village or Gompo Town, as it is now known, the right to claim all land between Duncan Village and Mdantsane so that that area may also be developed and the community expand and develop further.

The following provision has been made for our Braelynn friends. All the land to the left of the new political road from the Black area to East London City has been set aside, where there is enough land for expansion until the year 2000.

There is also land in East London which is to be declared a free area in accordance with the current policy. We are striving to overthrow that policy so that all people may live where they like. As an interim measure it is necessary, however, and I request the mayor of East London to take the lead by convening this meeting as soon as possible. I also appeal to East London businessmen to support this indaba.

The current friction there is the direct result of the shortage of land on which to build houses, not only on our side but also on that of Blacks and of Indians. The time has come to solve this problem so that we may continue development in that town.

There are people who objected to claims to acquire other land on the western bank but, after negotiation, they no longer object to our obtaining land where we originally wanted it. As a compromise the land of Glen Devon to the right of the airport all along the river has been allocated to this component as well as certain parcels of land at Cove Ridge beach. Nobel Estates have bought the land to the left of this beach. Once the go-ahead is received, it can be developed immediately. There are private people who are prepared to develop the land to the left of the Cove Ridge road on the beach and I hope that that area will be open to all groups in South Africa.

I now want to revert to something which was mentioned yesterday by the hon member Mr Douw. I want to differ with him on it somewhat. To talk to the hon the State President is to talk to yesterday today because he belongs to the past.

Labour against Labour!

If the hon member is awake, he will understand what we are talking about. If he is still asleep, he had better continue like that. [Interjections.]

The new leader of the NP represents the future and, even if he is so “verkramp” that one can use him as a welding tool, we shall still have to negotiate with him. All South Africans realise that change has to come to this country and that new structures have to be created so that we may decide the future together. In this regard I immediately want to appeal for the system of one man one vote in South Africa. This can happen if everyone over the age of 18 has the choice of being listed either on an A roll or a B roll. If he wants to cast his vote on an A roll, he accepts the current tricameral system with representation as it appears at present. If he appears voluntarily on the B roll, however, he accepts that he will form part of a non-racial South Africa. The component on the B roll can also surrender 200 or 300 seats; the number is unimportant. Everybody in South Africa will then have the right to choose on which roll he wishes to be.

In this new structure which I foresee, the component which receives most votes—whether it is the A roll or the B roll—will have the right to designate the State President, who will have the right of veto.

Going hand in hand with this concept is the matter occupying the hon the Minister of Justice at present, that is the Bill of Rights.

†The Bill of Rights will have to be included. The majority of South Africans may not want to accept it at this stage, but it will have to be included to protect the minorities. In that way we will see to the aspirations of both groups—those who want to maintain skin colour as a result of prejudice or whatever one may want to call it, and those who see a new South Africa. In this way each one will be represented in Parliament.

The Cabinet can then be drawn from both sectors, the A and B roll, and if the State President comes from the B roll component because of its numbers a Prime Minister will have to be elected from the other component. [Interjections.]

*I am free to spell out anything. Those hon members discarded the people of Xhosaland here in Cape Town but I am not discarding anybody; I am making room for everyone in South Africa. [Interjections.]

†To tie up with the geographical federation which has been expounded in this Chamber for several years, lines can be drawn throughout South Africa in order to establish local representation throughout these federal components. If possible, from the local representation the old Senate can be reintroduced, which can serve the same purpose as the President’s Council serves at present.

*I want to tell the hon member Mr Douw that we have to negotiate with the new chief leader of the NP. The hon member has already said that we shall all have to talk to him as he recognises him as the new leader of the NP. I differ with the hon member in what he said yesterday to the effect that the hon the State President is still the man strumming the guitar. The hon the State President is on drums now; the new guitarist is the new chief leader of the NP.

A further point of difference is that I do not accept the separation of the posts as this is now being spelt out. I accept that the hon the State President altogether …

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

Certainly, Sir.

Mr Chairman, I should like the hon member to tell me whether the Constitution of South Africa makes provision for the leader of the NP to be the State President of this country.

No, it does not provide for that and that is why …

So what are you talking about?

That is why it is important that Act 110 of 1983 also be amended or repealed because through this the system of apartheid has been incorporated in the Constitution. That Act must also be deleted as well as the other Acts which hon members have frequently requested should be removed from the Statute Book. As a result of the separation of the two posts, the State President is elevated above national politics. The leader of the NP will then hold the same rank as the hon the Chairman of the House of Representatives as well as the hon the Chairman of the House of Delegates. I am opposed to the fact that the chief leader of the NP should automatically become the State President. The most important reform in this country took place when the hon the State President said that those two posts should be separated. That was the most important reformation in the history of South Africa. The hon chief leader of the NP, however, like a miniature Shaka Zulu now lays claim to the right to become the State President. I do not agree with this. [Interjections.]

What are they doing in the caucus?

Oh, Mr Sass, you will never understand even if you should live until you become a hundred. It is so far beyond his understanding that he can only sit and make a noise.

Order! Would the hon member for Border address the Chair and also leave the hon member Mr Douw alone.

I shall address the Chair, Sir, but the hon member for Matroosfontein …

Order! The hon member for Border picked a quarrel with the hon member for Matroosfontein first. The hon member may proceed.

For the first time there is a separation between the post of State President and that of the chief leader of the NP. I am in agreement with this. The State President ought to be elevated above politics. The ranks of the Leaders of the various Houses should be the same. I agree on that point. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it gives me great pleasure this morning to participate in this debate. This is my maiden speech since joining the LP of South Africa and I am proud to say that I feel at home.

However, I must stress that I would like to make a plea for our community, especially our youth. All our communities face the problem that our youth do not have a destination. What I mean by this is that the scarcity of recreational facilities is where the fault lies. My plea to the hon the Minister is for the subsidising of all the recreational clubs of all the areas of Johannesburg. As I will explain, we have numerous clubs and associations which are inclined to achieve heights in sport and recreation, but due to their not being organised and because of the lack of facilities, the end result is that the youth either turns to crime or drugs.

Looking at the future of our youth I am very concerned because these very people are the fathers and mothers of tomorrow. Therefore the upliftment of our youth is very important. Sir, let us encourage our youth with our main aim being upliftment. The hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare says, “Gee die kind ’n kans”, but I would like to say: “Give the youth a chance.”

We appreciate the fact that we have a very competent Minister in charge of the Budget. We know that he is dedicated to his post and the people. In this regard I would like to congratulate the new hon the Deputy Minister of the Budget on his appointment, as well as the new hon the Minister of Education and Culture.

We are happy to say that now at least we have an hon Minister from the Transvaal as well. [Interjections.]

Last year in this debate I spoke about the schools in the area of Riverlea. These schools are desperately in need of upgrading. It will be appreciated if more funds could be made available for these schools.

The housing need in the area is of importance as well. In this case the problem is obtaining land for the extension of all existing areas in Johannesburg. Our waiting list stands at 8 000 at the moment. That is in the greater Johannesburg. [Interjections.]

We also appreciate the fact that our pensioners are to receive an increase. That is heartily welcomed. We realise that we have not achieved parity in this area as yet, but I know we have an hon Minister who is striving to attain that for our people and thus far he has improved the situation in every sphere. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I wish to continue from where I left off earlier, but let me respond immediately to the good wishes extended to me by the hon member for Bosmont. I wish to thank him very much. I am in illustrious company now. Maybe some of their ability will rub off on me.

*What I must mention here, is the attempt made by the Opposition to sow dissent among the hon members on this side of the House.

†Let me tell them that they are attempting to do the absolutely impossible. To try to cause division in the ranks of the LP is useless—they will not succeed. I refer to the example of the hon member Mr Douw and the hon member for Rust Ter Vaal who are not only colleagues but also close friends. Their co-operation over the past four and a half years has been impeccable. Those hon members will not succeed in their effort to bring about a division there. [Interjections.] In the same vein I wish to assure them that they will not succeed in causing a rift among the hon members on this side of the House. [Interjections.] They can try to use that kind of bribe but it just will not work. [Interjections.]

Let me tell that hon member that his expulsion from the LP has done him good. At least he is awake now. [Interjections.]

*What I appreciate in what the hon member said, is that he approves of the Budget.

I now want to turn my attention to the speech made by the hon member for Swartland. He made an exceptionally good contribution. He spelt out to us how important the interests of the have-nots are to us.

†It is our responsibility to look after the needy; not simply because of their colour, but we have to provide for their needs as such. That is what this party is dedicated to. We are not only concerned with the socio-economic upliftment of our own group, but also that of the whole South African community.

*The objectives of this party have been spelt out clearly. We said we would give attention on the highest level to the matters that enjoy the highest priority, viz education, social welfare and the housing needs of our people. It is clear that in this process one has to take care of the future of South Africa. We must have a South Africa of which all of us, here and outside the House, can be proud.

I should like to continue, and to associate myself with the contribution made by my friend, the hon member for Addo. He spelt out the long-term principle and objectives of this party very clearly.

†South Africa will never be the same again. [Interjections.] Since our coming to Parliament we have effected changes. I want to state clearly that those changes have not been cosmetic. There have been meaningful changes since the participation by us in Parliament. However, that is not enough. We must bring South Africa to where it is an absolutely normal society. This is where I want to associate myself with what that hon member said. He emphasised the need for education and possibly used himself as an example when he was asked by the hon member for Matroosfontein whether or not he had bought himself a certificate. I think that is the lowest blow that anybody could deal in this Chamber. Whether or not I have a standard six certificate or a dozen degrees, is not important. What is important is every hon member’s contribution. However, to deny a person for having achieved by virtue of false accusations is totally unacceptable. I would expect that hon member, in all humility, to apologise for the grave error he made in this Chamber. [Interjections.]

To the hon member for Riversdal I would like to say that we on this side of the House associate ourselves with his sentiments about the death of the chairman of the Sanlam group, Dr Du Plessis. I also associate myself with his praise for the Ministers’ Council and in particular the LP for their efforts in creating that difference between 1984, when we arrived here, and 1989.

*Although it is not important to certain people that this phenomenal increase in veterans’ pensions has been effected, I should like to say that we are proud of the part we played in bringing about this enormous change. The hon member for Genadendal is one of the hon members who proudly told us here about the progress that had been made in his constituency. I should like to congratulate him, because this proves to me how well he can negotiate with the Ministers’ Council. It gives me the assurance that it is possible for any other hon member in this House to negotiate with the Ministers’ Council on constituency matters.

The hon member for Robertson is someone to whom the weal and woe of his people is very important. He represents a constituency which consists mainly of fruit farmers, and we understand the problems in his constituency. On the other hand, we take cognisance of people in this House and at large who are calling for sanctions. This can only be to the detriment of those poor farm labourers, because they are the ones who suffer.

†The rich farmers and industrialists are not the ones affected by sanctions, but rather the voters of hon members like the hon member for Robertson. We know that sanctions can only do this country harm and we know in particular which people of this country are suffering as a result of sanctions. I am in sympathy with the hon member concerning the school which was built and which has as yet no furniture. However, once again I believe that it is out of concern that he has raised this matter here. With respect I would like to suggest that it was raised at the wrong time and should rather be raised when the hon the Minister for Education and Culture deals with his Vote. That would be the appropriate time to look at this oversight. I am sure the hon member will get the necessary answers from him. The whole question of funds for these two projects that are so close to the hon member’s heart should also be debated when that Vote is debated in this Chamber.

*I must agree with him that we must start moving with regard to this reform. Every voter should be able to see that we are on our way to a new South Africa.

I should like to thank the hon member for Heidedal. Just like that hon member, we have the needs of South Africa at heart.

†His greatest concern is why we are fighting each other in this Chamber while the enemy outside is laughing all the way to the bank.

*That must be one of the finest and strongest things ever said in this House.

The question of housing and schools in the Orange Free State can only be discussed when the respective Votes are discussed.

I agree with him that Whites do not want to relinquish apartheid.

†It will, however, be determined in this Chamber, and it is a question of how strong we are going to stand up against these things and how well we are going to be able to convince them that their future does not lie in apartheid but in a free South Africa.

*Consideration will be given to salaries. That is my party’s principle, and after all, we are on our way to equal remuneration.

The hon member for Rawsonville congratulated the hon members of the Ministers’ Council on their achievement over the years and especially on the Budget. I thank him for his kind words.

With reference to the question of bursaries to students in his constituency, he must discuss the matter with the hon the Minister. We shall consider each case on merit. The hon member is very welcome to do that.

The rising star, the hon member for Klipspruit West … [Time expired.]

Debate interrupted.

Mr Chairman, before I go into detail about the budget amounting to R1 004 597 000 presented by the hon the Minister of the Budget, I should like to congratulate the hon the Minister on the way he presented the budget in detail, and especially the policy statement made in the last pages of the presentation. This is laudable under the present conditions that our country is experiencing and the challenges we are facing. If that kind of policy is adopted I think we will all be the happier as far as our country is concerned.

I believe the budget itself falls far short of the needs of the community that we are here to serve, especially when one takes into account that a 1% increase in GST brings in R1,25 billion. This falls far short of even the 1% in the GST increase. Having said that I would believe that the hon the Minister of the Budget, together with his colleagues, will call upon the Treasury whenever the need arises to spend more funds on the needs of the community.

Coming to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, he said that the movement in housing was not noticeable. It is ironic coming from him when he knows very well that the housing portfolio was held by his former leader—maybe still his leader; we do not know because there are always changing circumstances. He held that portfolio and he did nothing about it except to appear on TV now and then and give the impression that he was doing a lot.

When he went to the Transvaal, he called it “Operation Platteland”. However, when one of his members won the election, it became the “flatland”. In Natal constituencies he also always made statements but none were followed by actions. I think most hon members know that.

There is a good reason for it because one man cannot be all things to all men. He held up this housing project and it will come out in the wash when one looks at the balances which are not expended.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition also said that teachers were not employed. We on this side, like the Opposition at that time, talked for four years about the plight of the teachers. However, I am sure that the hon the Minister will reply in his own way that it has improved a lot. At the present time there are only about 100 teachers who are not employed.

I want to touch on the housing needs in the rural areas. When we talk about housing, it is always as if Durban, Pietermaritzburg and Lenasia are the only places where Indians live. The rural areas are also very important. Some of these areas are in my own constituency and I am sure other hon members will talk about areas in their constituencies. We are looking at places like Ixopo where not a single housing unit has been put up, whether by the Community Development Board of the past or the Housing Board or the House of Delegates of the present.

We come to places like Richmond. For the past four years the Richmond Town Council has been dragging its feet. They are not co-operating in identifying land and that is where our housing Ministry must be actively involved.

A place like Marburg, which is not at the top of the list of housing for the Indian population, has a waiting list of over 4 000 and that is alarming because if that little town has got a waiting list of over 4 000, then one must know what the position is in other areas.

I have not got very much time, but I will try to fit everything in. I want to talk about the hon member for Reservoir Hills. To me those two hon members behave like hit-and-run snipers. The hon member sat here for a while yesterday. He then made his attack and the next thing he had left. However, I am sure he will read Hansard and I want him to do that.

Yesterday he mentioned an hon member from Solidarity who had the audacity to go and tell the Chairman of the House that he should resign. The Chairman knows and I know the manner and the decorum in which I approach this matter. I am the chairman of the caucus of my party and when I am instructed by the party to carry out a certain duty, I do it very honourably without any personal differences between the person to whom I delivered the message, and myself. I did it out of duty because I am in honour bound to my position whenever I take one. However, for him to say that the person who delivered the message was audacious, without even knowing the details, was wrong. He does not belong to my caucus. Therefore he must not talk about things that he does not know about. If there is anything consistent about that hon member it is his inconsistency. He is consistently inconsistent. For that he needs a medal.

The PFP will give him one.

I do not know whether he follows the instructions and rules of his own caucus. If he does, then that too needs to be checked, because I do not believe that the PFP caucus makes rules such as those according to which these people behave. It was kosher for him, when he was a member of Solidarity, to travel to Ladysmith to ask people to join the party. It was kosher for him to go up to Umzinto to approach people to join the party. It was right for him, not long ago, to tell us: “I am working on a few members. They will come and join your party.” Suddenly, when he finds that it has become a reality that he has lost the balance-of-power role, so that he can swing from one side to the other the way he wants things to happen …

Tell the House what happened in Umkomaas.

Please, we are talking about something else.

For him, everything is permissible, but when somebody else does it, it is totally wrong. Therefore I say that he is consistently inconsistent.

Coming back to the decrease in the allocation for housing, this is largely due to the fact that we are not spending the funds we have. There are other problems associated with it. We need land, and until it is acquired and serviced, we cannot spend the funds, so there is a need to move in that direction. I hope things will be sorted out soon so that housing will begin to move again.

Coming to education, I want to mention the last paragraph of the section on education in the supplement to the budget. It says, and I quote:

That is a very positive statement. In those few lines much is said. I think we welcome that kind of approach and I want to congratulate the hon the Minister on that. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister of the Budget brought out this budget under much constraint. It is not what he wants, but because of the formula that is laid down by the State as to what portion of the appropriation the House of Delegates deserves, he had to cut the budget for various departments. I therefore feel that the manner in which the formula for the various Houses is worked out is not consistent. The need of the community and the desirability of funds should be taken into account, rather than the formula being used to apportion money. In this respect I must, in no uncertain terms, ask the hon the Minister if there is any other possible way to ask the Treasury to improve the apportionment of the budget for the House of Delegates. The formula is definitely not right.

I am concerned about the small farmers in the Republic of South Africa, particularly of the Indian community. I talk with much restraint in this respect, but the House of Delegates serves the Indian community. So I am forced to do this, and therefore, if I say “Indian community”, it should be understood in that context. Some Indian farmers do not have big farms, but smallholdings.

What does the Land and Agricultural Bank do? It follows the norm that when a farmer is in possession of so many hectares of land, he is then entitled to a loan. What happens to the small farmer who has a hectare or two—or if I use old English, one acre? This farmer survives by means of his agricultural output or produce, which in turn means the survival of the country. I understand in the Transvaal and the Free State there are big farmers, but we must appreciate that our Indian farmers hail from India. They did not go to any university or any agricultural farm to learn to be a farmer. However, with their own experience, on their little pockets of land, they have planted vegetables in order to survive and to supply the community. Therefore, justice must be meted out to the small farmer. Those with smallholdings must be given the opportunity of being assisted in the way of farming equipment and the bank loan in the same way as help is afforded to the big farmer. Where these farmers have asserted their efforts and put their resources together to help one another, they should be helped as well. I ask the hon the Minister to give this a second thought, and also in particular the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture. I think this falls under his portfolio. I ask the hon the Minister to make a recommendation to this effect.

Yesterday you were …

Did I say something nasty about the hon the Minister yesterday? It was not nasty. One must appreciate that the ruling party is on this side and the Opposition is on that side. There is a Minister on that side and a Minister on this side. He must decide. These are unfortunate circumstances, and I feel sorry for him. He is a good friend of mine, but in these circumstances it is something that does not blend very well.

The other important factor is the question of day-care centres for the community. In the present economic set-up, in 99% of the cases in the Indian community, the wife and husband go to work in order to meet the obligations of the day and in order to live comfortably. Facilities are not provided for the little ones under five years old, so that they can be taken care of when the parents are at work. In this respect the White community is far advanced. As far as the Indian community is concerned, we are not and it is not of our own making. Since the Indian community is advancing to the extent where both wife and husband work, I think the State ought to look at the aspect of day-care centres for the little ones more seriously. It would fall under the Department of Education and Culture and is the responsibility of the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare as well.

The little ones under five years of age are also accommodated in pre-schools. These pre-schools are not wholly subsidised by the State. Here again, I think it is a serious deficiency that community organisations have to form the preschool centres in order that these children under five years are accommodated before they reach the age when they go to primary school. The community has to dig deep into their pockets to meet the obligations to run those pre-schools. I think in this respect our Department of Education and Culture must in no uncertain terms appropriate enough funds so that this becomes a State responsibility. After all, it is the pre-school that prepares a child so that he is ready at the age of six or thereabouts to go to primary school. Why should our community have to foot the bill to run these pre-schools which are partly subsidised by the Department of Education and Culture for salaries only? In this respect I think that the Department of Education and Culture is lacking.

I do not blame the hon the Minister for that. As I have said earlier on, the fault lies with the kind of budget that is allocated to the House of Delegates. The hon the Minister has to work within the constraints of that allocation. What do we do then? The formula that is used by the State to apportion budgets to the various Houses is inconsistent. It must be commensurate with the requirements of the community.

The serious lack of sufficient and adequate … [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, first of all I want to congratulate my colleague, the hon the Minister of the Budget on a well thought-out and a well-delivered speech yesterday. Just like other hon members, we too are concerned about the Vote on Local Government, Housing and Agriculture, because this Vote shows a decrease of 5,2% when compared to the amount which was allocated for the previous year.

One has to be realistic and say that when there is a decrease in the Housing Vote—knowing full well that there is a backlog as far as housing is concerned—we should all share this concern equally. However, the fact of the matter is that my colleague the hon the Acting Minister of Housing and I inherited this problem from our predecessor, the former Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, who for the past six months was more in default than in office.

Towards the end of this financial year, hon members of this august assembly will have to assess what happens until the end of a term of office. I can assure hon members that at the end of this financial year there will hopefully not be a decrease in this Vote. We are determined that moneys for this Vote will be expended as they should be.

Yesterday the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition made much of the fact that he was the leader of a very vibrant party. My colleague, the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture quite rightly pointed out that it is a party of long standing, that it has endured for 11 years and that they were going strong. However, when one looks across the benches here, they make a very pathetic sight with only four hon members present.

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

If the hon the Minister poses a question during his next speech, I will gladly answer it. Sir, they cut a pathetic figure with only four hon members sitting on the other side.

Invest in better glasses!

It does not augur well for the future.

I want to respond briefly to the hon member for Lenasia Central. Yesterday he read out a statement that I made about housing in Lenasia, but he conveniently left out a significant paragraph.

Order! The hon member for Lenasia Central was not in the House yesterday.

I mean Lenasia West. He conveniently left out a paragraph of my statement. It is very significant that he read everything but the following paragraph. He conveyed to this House the fact that housing will be planned in Lenasia without consultation with the management committees and the MP. However, I said the following in my statement:

To my mind it is a deliberate omission of a statement which I made. He then quoted further from my statement:

It is unfortunate that the hon member quotes from a statement but then sees fit to attack me without quoting the full statement.

I also want to refer to an interjection which the hon member for Springfield made when I spoke in this House on 27 February. I believe he at least owes the Ministers’ Council an explanation. He said the following by way of an interjection, and I quote from his unedited Hansard:

When he speaks later this morning I would like him to indicate what manipulation takes place within this Ministers’ Council. I can assure the hon member that we have work to do. This Ministers’ Council is not in the game of manipulating, but does work for the community. He must now explain to us what he meant. I shall give him a copy of the unedited Hansard so that he can respond fully.

I want to refer briefly to some statements that were recently made in The Herald Tribune. These statements are unfortunate in that reporters are wont to attack us as politicians without referring matters to us. The article appeared in The Herald Tribune under the headline “Politicians destroyed Cato Manor homes”.

Politicians on this side of the House are not in the business of destroying homes. We are in the business of providing homes and we are not uncaring or unmindful of the needs of the people. We do not support the demolition of homes over the heads of people or throwing people out of homes. Sometimes unfortunate incidents occur that are beyond the control of us as politicians, but I can assure hon members that I have asked that an enquiry be instituted into this incident. I want to distance myself from this type of thing.

Housing is not a Coloured, Indian, Black or White problem. I am of the view that housing is a human problem. It is the function of this Ministers’ Council to treat housing as a human problem and this is how we are going to conduct ourselves.

The only appeal that I want to make is that when reporters see fit to attack politicians and to give their articles headlines such as “Politicians destroy homes” the least they can do is to consult with the politicians concerned before making statements of this kind.

Yesterday the hon member for Reservoir Hills challenged us and said that we have not indicated in any way what our views are insofar as free settlement areas are concerned. This Ministers’ Council is not going to shout from the rooftops about all the work that it does. However, I want to express my appreciation to my hon colleagues in the Ministers’ Council.

About three weeks ago I took a matter to them which concerned the sharing of an area in Mooi River by Coloured and Indian people. For the past two years I have attempted to get the various authorities to accept the fact that the Coloured and the Indian people have shared accommodation in the present Indian area and that they want to continue doing so in the new Indian area. About 25% of the population of the Mooi River area are Coloured, compared to the 75% who are Indian. They requested that they be allowed to share the area with the Indians.

I took this matter to the MP concerned in the House of Representatives and after quite some time he agreed. Then the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture in the House of Representatives also agreed. It is therefore not only the people who are asking through the Press for shared areas to be allowed. This Ministers’ Council also gave me support for the request of the White, Coloured and Indian people of Mooi River who all asked that they be allowed to share this area.

In 1984 when a group areas hearing was held in Ladysmith I suggested that the area around the aerodrome of Ladysmith be declared a grey area. At that time free settlement areas were not in the offing—there was no thought of this. Unfortunately the then mayor of Ladysmith, Mr Rees, shot this idea down.

The results of the inquiry in Ladysmith are now going to be made public. When this happens I will have something to say about the fact that the request that I made for a grey area in Ladysmith was not accepted at the time. The area may or may not go to the White group. I am not in a position now to reveal what the result of that inquiry was. It will be made public in due course and when that happens I will have something to say about it.

I am now reminded of a visit that I had from the hon member for Springfield in 1984. I was pleasantly surprised one evening when he knocked on my door. This was just after the election results had been made known.

Are you referring to me?

No, sorry. I am referring to the hon member for Reservoir Hills. He came into my home and said that he had come to talk to me. He is a person who likes to talk about crossing the floor and about carrots and gardening …

Did he tell you who sent him? [Interjections.]

Here then was an hon gentleman who had travelled all the way from Durban to visit me. What was the purpose of his visit? The purpose was that I should join the party to which he belonged. What was the purpose in asking me to join the party to which he belonged? He wanted to be in power! He wanted his party to be the majority party in this House.

Then, of course, I remember very clearly the gesture the hon member made when he took his card from his pocket. He asked me where Prof Pachai was. I told him Prof Pachai was in Canada and he gave me his card and asked me to convey to the professor a request to contact him. I am not a professor, I am just an ordinary working man, so I had to leave the august office of the hon member for Reservoir Hills because he was looking for professors. Many of us here are not professors. When I look around me I do not see one professor, but I want to express my appreciation that this hon member did, in fact, recognise the value of my brother. Quite rightly so, he would have made quite a good contribution in this Parliament. When the hon member for Reservoir Hills visited me, of course, his mission failed. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, this is a budget in which—as was the case with the Main Budget—the economic circumstances in this country have dictated the revenue and expenditure.

I share the conviction, as the hon the Minister of the Budget has said, that unqualified political reform, which eliminates all forms of statutorily-based ethnic discrimination, is the only real foundation for long-term economic recovery and expansion in the Republic.

I make the call again in this House that the issues we must address will be to get rid of the apartheid system, the group areas legislation and other pieces of legislation that discriminate against people of this country on the basis of colour. Then we will have a strong economy with increased exports and greater investment. Time is running out with regard to these issues because interest rates are rising and will rise further and a greater burden will fall on the taxpayer, as has happened in our budget this year.

Have wages risen substantially? I say no. If they did rise, they would be eaten up by the rise in food prices, transport cost and so on. For example, the University of Port Elizabeth’s subsistence level indicator has shown that the primary household level for food, fuel, etc, for an average family of five has risen about 17,5%, in that inflation has overtaken and the increases that have been announced in the budget will actually make great inroads in the living standards of our people in this country, particularly the poorer communities. The rise in inflation has adverse results and causes hardship. Any increase in wages was taken over by the inflation rate of an average of 14%.

I am disappointed that in this budget—it is not the fault of the hon the Minister of the Budget, or of the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare—a real effort has not been made to narrow the gap towards parity in pensions. As the hon the Minister of the Budget said: That is the maximum the Treasury could give. However, the time has come in this country that the issue of parity in pensions, benefits and grants to handicapped people and those on welfare must be addressed because they pay the same for food, transport and other costs. The committee that is investigating this issue for the hon the Minister will be presenting an interim report to him next week which should, we hope, give an indication to this House that the time to address that problem is running out.

I want to come to another issue which concerns some of the comments and happenings in this House. All of us have a duty to ensure that we will subscribe fully to upholding the dignity of Parliament, and more so to be accountable.

It has become a habit in this House to hurl accusations of no substance across the floor, continuously bringing disrepute to this wonderful House and to Parliament in general. Let us debate the issues so that this House, Parliament and this country will be able to benefit from our contribution towards promoting social upliftment and economic development.

In 1987 I paid the price for the accusations that were made here and the problems that arose. I do not wish to go through what the James Commission and House Committees have said. Nevertheless it is incumbent upon me to place certain matters on record, and I wish to do so this morning because my name stands in Hansard as the accused, undefended.

The hon member for Arena Park, who is here no longer, has possibly, by what he himself has said, created some misunderstanding, and there is a statement I wish to make in this regard.

In order to clear up any misunderstanding which may have been created in respect of the settlement out of court by Mr A Rajbansi, the hon member for Arena Park, concerning the case for defamation which I instituted against him, I wish to place the correct position before the House. When I resigned as Minister on 18 May 1987, the hon member for Arena Park, in order to justify himself and divert attention from himself, made wild and unfounded allegations against me in this House. I then moved a substantive motion in this House calling for a commission of inquiry to clear my name. This the hon member for Arena Park vehemently opposed. I was denied the opportunity to defend myself. This matter was even referred to the hon the State President to appoint a commission by the hon the Leader of Solidarity. The hon the State President said it was for this House to decide.

I was fortunate only because the hon member for Arena Park repeated some of the allegations—and in the process defamed me—in public. I then decided to sue the hon member for Arena Park for defamation when he sent a telex to the Daily News which contained wild and unfounded allegations against me. These were published in the local newspaper, the Daily News, on 10 June 1987.

Some of these issues were also brought before the James Commission for investigation, and my name was cleared as far as these allegations were concerned. Let me quote what Mr Justice Neville James, the chairman, said in the report:

I was also prepared to let the matter be heard in the Supreme Court in Durban, and I claimed the sum of R20 000 for damages against the hon member for Arena Park, giving him ample opportunity and an avenue to prove the allegations, for which he would have had evidence. He was also given the democratic right to defend himself. [Interjections.] The hon member for Arena Park not only wasted the opportunity, but failed hopelessly to prove anything against me. Those allegations were completely untrue. I had no choice but to go to the Supreme Court for the truth to be established.

The fact that the hon member for Arena Park agreed to pay R10 000 plus the tax cost, to my mind indicates a moral victory and an acknowledgement by the hon member for Arena Park that his statement was defamatory, and it confirms that it was he and not I who wanted to settle out of court.

This brings me to another point, namely that the present parliamentary system affords a member of Parliament too much protection. He can misuse the privileges of Parliament. Had I not taken steps to defend myself against those allegations, my name would have remained in Hansard as the accused, unchallenged, and therefore the rules and privileges of Parliament must be examined with a view to providing protection against unfounded allegations by members of Parliament and those outside Parliament.

I therefore wish to appeal to this House. While we may agree or disagree on issues, when allegations are made here without substance, as matters stand hon members are left on record as undefended. This does not make for the sound running of Parliament as a whole. I wish to make an appeal, in view of the issues on which I have been defending and the manner in which I have paid the price and the pain I have gone through, that we discuss issues in this House and also bring some credit and take some responsibility so that social upliftment and economic development of the country is promoted for the sake of the people of this country, instead of having to fight this kind of thing.

Mr Chairman, I want to compliment the hon member for Red Hill on a very constructive speech this morning. This contrasted very sharply with the speech made by the hon the Deputy Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture. I must say to him that I was quite shocked by his contribution. I did not expect him of all people to descend to the level that he did.

If you descend to that level, what do you expect people to do!

The hon member for Havenside talks about descending to a level. He knows what the sewer is. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I heard the hon member for North Western Transvaal say that the hon member dwells in a sewer.

Order! Did the hon member say so?

No, Sir. I said he dwells in heaven. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Springfield may continue.

Mr Chairman, I was making the point that great play was made in yesterday’s debate and again this morning with the absence of my benchmate, the hon member for Reservoir Hills, as well as myself. I just want to tell this House that, unlike the hon member for Havenside who keeps on talking without knowing what he is talking about, we had a very important meeting of the PFP and we believe that we have a responsibility to that party as well. That is where we were.

The hon the Deputy Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture asked me to explain an interjection which I made on 27 February 1989. In that interjection I said that manipulation takes place within the Ministers’ Council.

The hon the Deputy Minister has asked me to explain it. I trust, therefore, that he appreciates that whatever confidence I may have enjoyed from that hon member in a private discussion, I now need to reveal to this House because he has asked me to explain the question of manipulation.

In reply I want to ask that hon Deputy Minister whether he can deny that he said to me that things are so manipulated in the Ministers’ Council that decisions are taken by individual Ministers without consulting with all members of the Ministers’ Council.

I deny it categorically.

He denies it categorically and I am very surprised that he has denied it. I will refresh his memory. This conversation took place at a dinner hosted by the hon the Acting Chairman of the Ministers’ Council two nights ago.

That hon Deputy Minister, unlike the hon member for Havenside, does not have the habit of imbibing too much liquor, so he knew what he was telling me. He quite categorically stated to me that he was disappointed that decisions were being taken in the Ministers’ Council in which he was not being consulted. If he now denies it …

Mr Chairman, I would like to ask the hon member a question. Does he know that in the Ministers’ Council decisions are taken on a consensus basis? There is no decision taken in the Ministers’ Council at Ministers’ Council meetings where there is no consensus and there are no decisions taken by individual members of the Ministers’ Council. Does the hon member know that?

I am not a member of the Ministers’ Council so I do not know how the Ministers’ Council operates. What I do know is what I hear from the hon the Deputy Minister and I appeal to him—because he is the one man in this Chamber who always talks about Ghandi, who always talks about truth and the himsa—to at least tell this House that he was mistaken when he reported that to me.

I will accept it. If he does not do that, I will call in the testimony of the hon member for Isipingo, who also indicated to me that this was in fact a problem of the Ministers’ Council.

I beg your pardon, that was a previous problem they had. That was the previous Ministers’ Council. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, if the hon member for Isipingo tells me now that this was a problem of a previous Ministers’ Council, I take his word for it. All I have said here is that manipulations take place in the Ministers’ Council, and that is the only thing to which I address myself.

That was during the Raj’s rule. [Interjections.]

Until we started speaking, this House was very quiet. I just want to remind hon members that yesterday, at the start of this debate, there was an unprecedented, and in my opinion unprovoked, tirade against the two PFP members of this House. It is my humble submission that this is a clear admission by the majority party in this House that we two members have an influence in this House which is completely disproportionate, in fact inversely related, to our numerical strength. This was an admission made by the hon leader of the majority party in this House. To us, it is a clear admission that what the hon member for Arena Park had to tell this House last year and previously is true, namely that we two were the tow-trucks that were taking that hon member’s party around this Chamber. [Interjections.] I want to thank the hon member for Glenview for that comment. Listening to the outburst …

Mr Chairman, will the hon member take a question?

No, Mr Chairman.

No, take a question. I will take off your pants.

Mr Chairman, the hon member says that he wants to take off my pants. I will reveal what he has underneath.

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

Yes, Sir.

Mr Chairman, I want the hon member for Springfield to tell this House whether he has exercised restraint on certain hon members who want to join the majority party. Has he not carried out a campaign to stop people from joining the majority party?

Mr Chairman, I will answer that. The answer is most definitely yes. I have done so to ensure stability in this House. I have done so, because I want to prevent that hon member from dangling carrots.

Listening to the outburst of the hon member for Glenview yesterday, I could not help but reflect on previous debates in this House, when he sat on this side of the House as Leader of the Official Opposition. What did we hear from him then, when he was Leader of the Official Opposition? Precisely nothing.

What little was the truth.

This was in complete contrast to his performance yesterday. It is a great pity that that hon member behaved in such a fashion when he was Leader of the Official Opposition. I want to ask him: When he was Leader of the Official Opposition, where was his voice in this Chamber when the security legislation was being debated? Where was his voice? I would also like to ask him where his voice was when White Ministers came to this House. Where was his voice? He must tell me where his voice was. Another question is being asked outside this Chamber.

Who leads the majority party? Is it the leader or are other people leading that party? Let me remind the hon member that he talks often in this Chamber on behalf of the, or as he states it, in the interests of the community. I want to submit to him that it was in the interests of the same community that he as Leader of the Official Opposition in this House should have raised his voice on many issues, but he failed to do so. However, the tirade of yesterday was not on account of the interests of the community, it was as a result—in my humble opinion—of a personal interest in the matter. I wish to state this to him very humbly: It is as a result of his lust for power. I say this to him because he raised the issue. The lack of stability in this House has been caused by his lust for power, when he goes around offering carrots to people. This is what causes instability in this House.

Will the hon member take a question?

I will arrange with his Chief Whip to afford him an opportunity to reply to me. It is not only I who say this. The hon member for North Coast also espouses similar views, because yesterday or the day before, in the company of many people in this House, he came to me and he wanted me to put down a notice of motion for him to debate in this Chamber. I am not sure whether he has in fact raised it in this Chamber, but I have here in my hand a copy of that notice of motion, which reads as follows:

I am not saying that carrots are being dangled; it is a member of that hon member’s party. He is also confirming that carrots are being dangled.

Ask him to move it in the House! [Interjections.]

I will come to that presently. Mr Chairman, it is not my intention to raise the status of the hon member Mr Thaver by reacting to his silly and stupid contribution yesterday. I am sorry that he is not here this morning to hear me. It is certainly not my intention to descend to the level of his contribution. However, he raised one or two pertinent issues which I think I need to answer. He said that we in the PFP, and in particular in the Joint Committee on Security Services, were led by our noses by the hon member for Houghton of the House of Assembly. I want to tell the hon member that I, unlike him, belong to a party that has discipline. We have a caucus and study groups. We in that party have a great regard for the hon member for Houghton, as indeed most members of the broader South African community do in fact have. To indicate the honour in which she is held, by not only the South African community, but also the international community, she has a string of honorary doctorates which have been conferred on her. She has received honorary doctorates from Cambridge, Oxford, Harvard—you name it!

Unlike other people who get honorary doctorates from little universities, the hon member for Houghton does not wear her degrees on her sleeve. She does not impose them on other people and that is why we respect her. I want to tell the hon member Mr Thaver that as long as we have the hon member for Houghton in the PFP and on the Joint Committee on Security Services, for so long will justice be done in this country.

I see the hon member is not present at the moment, but I would also like to ask him why it was that he was removed from that committee? Was his contribution of such a nature that the majority party had no confidence in him? They removed him, not only as chairman, but also as a member of that committee.

I now wish to come to the budget. I want to say with great respect to the hon the Minister of the Budget that, although he is not entirely to blame, the own affairs budget of the House of Delegates represents to me a clear admission that the administration has failed. It has failed to seek more funds for the upliftment of the Indian community for which it is responsible. It also does not know how to spend the money allocated to the House of Delegates effectively.

In relation to the White own affairs budget, this administration has—despite the protestations of the hon Ministers concerned—for the fourth consecutive year been short-changed. It has been short-changed by approximately half a billion rand which the community urgently requires.

Half a billion?

Half a billion, yes. Why do I say this? I say this simply because if one has to relate this budget to the budgets that have been presented by the House of Assembly and the House of Representatives, one will find that there is a disproportionate division among the own affairs budgets of the three Chambers. The House of Assembly has received an amount of R6,46 billion. The House of Representatives has obtained an amount of R2,742 billion. This administration has obtained slightly more than R1 billion. In relation to the House of Assembly, we have been short-changed by half a billion rand—not by the hon the Minister of the Budget, but by the hon the Minister of Finance.

I do not blame the hon the Minister. He has clearly indicated in his speech that section 84 is the root of the problem, because it provides for the manner in which the funds from the Exchequer are divided among the various departments. However, in his speech he indicated that these formulae were arrived at on the basis of consensus. He said that these formulae would not only accommodate the inflation rate, but would also try to accommodate the question of a continuation of services, the question of approved expansion and the question of ethnic disparities which are inherent in our system.

I have no problem with that, because it is not the hon the Minister’s doing. However, I raised this particular issue in this Chamber previously when the hon the Minister of the Budget was here. I asked him how this formula was arrived at. He replied and said to me that it was not done on the basis of consensus. He said that the Ministers’ Councils in each of the other two Houses had been consulted. I am not quite sure what the hon the Minister meant by consultation. To my understanding one does not have to reach consensus with the Ministers’ Council. However, I give the hon the Minister the benefit of the doubt.

I am also reminded that when these formulae were accepted by the Ministers’ Council, the hon the Minister of the Budget at that time was the hon member for Glenview. I repeat that when the formulae were accepted by the Ministers’ Council of this House the hon member for Glenview was the Minister of the Budget in this House. That was in 1986. If the hon member tells me that he was not the Minister of the Budget in 1986 I shall accept it, but my information is that he was the Minister of the Budget when those formulae were accepted. All that I have is the information that I received from the hon the Minister of Finance. If this is true, he did not do his job properly when he was the Minister of the Budget. He would then be responsible for this shortchanging. I would like him to explain that to me.

Despite building up a modest R12,5 million in its revenue account the administration has not been able to take the bold step and vote those funds to attain parity in the pension payments to our people. In this regard it has failed to effectively concern itself with the plight of our pensioners and our aged and to provide them with some relief against the increase in GST which will affect this section of our community very badly.

I am aware of the fact that some R55 million is needed to attain parity at the present time. However, it is my humble submission that had we not been short-changed for that R0,5 billion, we could well have found the R55 million with which to achieve parity in regard to the pension payments.

The hon the Minister has also conceded that he is unable to persuade his counterpart, the hon the Minister of Finance, to provide adequate funds for the functions entrusted to him. Although the Vote for the Department of Education and Culture has been increased by some 28% the budget has been pruned by a cut-back of some R83 million which will affect the employment and conditions of service of our teachers. It is clear to me that the administration is content to receive whatever the Government hands out to it without ensuring that the proper needs of the community are satisfied.

I would like to relate this to the fact that we have a problem in the Department of Education and Culture at the present time. The problem is the full employment of all those people who have been trained as teachers. We were told that 311 out of 572 people had already been posted this year. This information was released to the Press at the end of February and I trust that the position has changed somewhat.

I would like to ask the hon the Minister of Education and Culture what has happened to the 261 individuals who were not placed by the end of February. I would be very pleased to hear from him that those people were, in fact, accommodated. I would thank him in advance for that. Let us not forget that we have had an intake of 10 000 students into our school system this year. I would like to ask the hon the Minister what effect that has on our pupil-teacher ratio. Does that not adversely affect that ratio? If it does, is it not clear that the standards of our education will suffer?

I want to refer to another issue that was brought up in this House. This concerns the hon member for Stanger. That hon member made great play of castigating the media for publishing statements which, according to him, were not truthful. What are the facts? The facts, as I have them, is that on 3 January 1989 that hon member said the following—he has not corrected this—to the Press:

He was not looking for any plum jobs or for the job of Mr M Y Baig, the hon Leader of the Official Opposition. That is a fact. He said that he would not be interested in any position. Subsequently, however, we all know that he accepted the position of the Chief Whip of the Majority Party in this House.

I was the Chief Whip all the time! There was nothing new about that.

That is fact number one. What is fact number two? The hon member has taken the Press to task because of an article that appeared in a weekend newspaper. The article merely states that the Chief Whip in the House of Delegates has resigned in protest over the hon the State President’s delay in appointing a new Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. That was his protest.

[Inaudible.]

I shall come to that. I am aware that the reason given to the Press is not entirely true and I am not the only one who believes that.

I have here a letter written by the hon member for Isipingo to the chairman of his party’s caucus. I shall read it out:

So he too was surprised at the reasons which were advanced to the public. I continue:

Whatever that may mean—

Did you write that letter?

Mr Chairman, is the hon member prepared to take a question?

Yes, Mr Chairman, provided that you give me extra time.

We will give the hon member plenty of time to hang himself.

That letter was addressed to the chairman of the caucus of a party. How did that hon member get hold of the letter? [Interjections.]

I do not know how this came to me. [Interjections.] It came to me via my post box. The point at issue is not how I got hold of this letter but its content. [Interjections.] I am quite surprised that the hon member did not refer to this letter in his reaction earlier this morning.

It is a caucus letter. What are you doing with it?

I am merely making the point that the hon member for Stanger accused the Press of reporting him incorrectly. Here I have proof that the facts given to the Press are not true. I shall not take the matter any further.

I should know why I resigned!

I am also aware that that hon member had indicated in a letter to his leader that he would not be interested in any position and I laud him for that. That is his own private affair. All that I want to say to that hon member is that he must not accuse the Press unjustly.

I did not accuse the Press. They do not listen to you because you talk rubbish.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member for Stanger said that the hon member for Springfield is talking rubbish. Is that not unparliamentary? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member may proceed.

Whenever the barbs hurt, it is said that we are talking rubbish. However, when hon members of the majority party in this House were speaking yesterday, I gave them the opportunity to have their say. They had ample time to reply to me. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I believe we all attempt to behave in a manner which is in keeping with the tenets that have been set down for the conduct of parliamentarians. Those who from time to time remind others how they should conduct themselves must be a good example of the virtues they espouse. What is abundantly clear—I address myself to the hon members for Reservoir Hills and Springfield—is that their contributions inside and outside this House, along the passages and in the corridors are part of a calculated attempt to ensure that normality and dignity are not restored to this House. They carry on a vendetta, a score which they will never be able to settle, not in this lifetime nor in another. Their consciences will plague them for the rest of their lives. However, instead of drawing the curtain, calling it a day, forgetting and starting anew in fellowship to serve our community, they use that as a fork handle to upset people, because they have nothing more positive to contribute.

Let me give hon members one example: Yesterday the hon member for Springfield made the claim that the hon the Minister of the Budget had failed miserably because he should have been able to get a lot more money. Today the figure of R500 million is being bandied about. To say that the House of Assembly received so much, the House of Representatives received so much and the House of Delegates received so much without examining the purposes for which the money is allotted, is a dismal argument which is not worthy of any intelligent individual. [Interjections.] That is sensationalism.

I put them to the test yesterday and they had the opportunity to make use of the resources of the party to which they belong. They had the opportunity to negotiate with officials—who I think are quite impartial and who do not belong to any political party—to offer an explanation. However, nothing was done and today the amount of R500 million, which sounds like a lot of money, is bandied about.

I want to reiterate what I said yesterday. If any hon member in this House, even the lonely independent hon member, was aware of any means or method which would enable this hon Minister to get a larger share from the fiscus for the good of all of us, then honesty and morality demanded that that knowledge be made available to the hon the Minister in the larger interest of the community so that that hon member would also be able to stand up and say that he lent a hand in what we achieved. However, it is cowardice to be in possession of information and to wait until budget day to use it for point-scoring. It is like the mist before the rising sun, it disappears when it is countered by truth. It is a dream based on fallacy, for the purposes of a debate and merely for scoring points. That we do not want in this House, whether it comes from somebody who has a Std 2 education or a Std 22 education, because the truth stands out.

I want to say here today that I have the greatest respect for the hon member for Houghton and I want the hon member for Springfield to convey this to her. We are in accord with and support the compliments he paid to this hon lady who is a very distinguished parliamentarian.

Hear, hear!

If anything was said to the contrary it was not intended and was obviously an error on the part of the individual who mentioned it. I want that to be known, because I can distinguish between rubbish and that which is good.

In so far as the formula for the budget is concerned, there were ongoing negotiations among departmental officials of the then Department of Indian Affairs and the authorities here with a view to identifying a basis or formula which would be applicable in due course. The then Ministers’ Council of the House of Delegates had no real hand in discussing the question of the formula. However, when I was Minister of the Budget I picked up the fact that there were negotiations, and I immediately brought this to the attention of the Ministers’ Council and indicated that we as a developing society, a society that had been denied the financial resources for housing, education and so on to the extent that was desirable to help us to progress, could not suddenly submit ourselves to some kind of a formula which did not address the historical imbalances which were part of our society. The lack of adequate schooling, the lack of housing and so on were historical imbalances which could not be dismissed overnight by a formula introduced which would take no account of these deficiencies that had to be addressed. In fact, reservations were expressed by us, and hopefully, in the not-too-distant future, this whole question will be re-examined with a view to placing it on a more realistic basis. Therefore the Ministers’ Council cannot be held responsible for the formula system that has been introduced in respect of two ministries—I think they are the Departments of Education and of Health Services and Welfare.

As regards the fact that I did not support security legislation and the question of White Ministers, I shook the hands of White people 40 years ago. I was an equal in my profession, and I had a distinguished career in that field. Therefore I do not have to run around shaking people’s hands, either at night or in the day, over a cup of tea or a plate of chops. [Interjections.] I do not buy that, Mr Chairman. I have recognition in my own right. I am a humble person. Whether it is a White or a Black Minister makes no difference to me. If a man is delivering an address I respect him and give him the opportunity to do so. If I have to differ, I will differ with respect. However, I do not run around and follow them outside this building to give them a message of some kind. I remember very clearly that the former Chairman of the Ministers’ Council always said that, some people have the habit of running outside the building following Ministers. Well, I did not actually follow them to find out what was said or given. Therefore, if I want to say something, I say it where it counts. If I differ, I do so with respect, and if I do not know anything, I just shut up rather than open my big mouth and put my foot into it, as some of these hon members have done in the recent past!

Who is the leader of my party? We are all leaders; I just act as a spokesman for them. At least, I think for myself. I can stand and debate for a day without a piece of paper in my hand. I can speak out of truth and conviction, and I can take on the best that is available in this Parliament in debate, and hon members can put me to a test, on any subject they like and whenever they like. [Interjections.]

We are a small party, and we are not wealthy. We do our best. However, we do it out of honesty and conviction. If we make some mistakes, it is genuine error, but we do not read speeches written by other people which are so patent that hon Ministers say: “I heard this yesterday in the other House.” What a disgrace, what a shame! [Interjections.] If hon members do not know anything, get out of this place, but do not come and read speeches which have been delivered before. For an hon Minister to tell an hon member that he is reading somebody else’s speech that was delivered the other day and then to adopt this attitude which sometimes smacks of absolute arrogance, is not the kind of practice that we want in this House.

I am debating today in the hope that we settle the score now and forget about all this and start tomorrow in a constructive endeavour for the good of our community and the good of the country. We do not want game-playing. I also want to warn, for Heaven’s sake, stop this business of running around picking up and snooping and sniping. Let that come to an end too.

You started it.

Let us be men. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, without hesitation I must this morning congratulate my colleague the hon the Minister of the Budget for presenting a reasonable budget in the economic climate which has not contributed much to fiscal growth, as was expected.

However, I want to say at the outset that I am a bit disappointed with some of the speeches in this House this morning. One which I must point out is that of the hon member for Springfield in the opposite bench and I will explain why.

I always expected a very high standard of debate from him and from his benchmate, but I was disappointed by the first half of his part of the debate. However, it settled down to a more standardised one a little later.

I merely want to point out that he has harped on manipulation in the Ministers’ Council this morning. If my mind goes back to the James Commission, I recall an hon member saying to a certain other hon member that if one repeated the word half-a-dozen times—nay a dozen times—if it was not the truth then, it would start to sound like the truth.

If the hon member says there is manipulation all the time, then I dare say that he must exercise it in his own mind. He must please remember that if he can extricate it from his own mind, he will not be able to manipulate.

I want to say categorically as Acting Chairman of the Ministers’ Council that manipulation is now a thing of the past. It is behind us. This Ministers’ Council discusses matters in an open manner and arrives at decisions on the basis of a general consensus. Therefore please have no fear about the way in which matters are discussed in the Ministers’ Council.

There were various matters discussed this morning. Firstly, I want to tell the hon member for Springfield that the increase of the 10 000 pupils has not had any influence on the pupil-teacher ratio, simply because the 10 000 pupils have been distributed throughout the country into some 450 schools.

Thus it really does not show a very substantial increase. They are absorbed into the various schools. If one takes the overall figure of 230 000 pupils, then 10 000 does not really make a very big difference. I will give the correct figures in respect of teacher employment and the exact number of pupils to this House when I present my budget on education.

However, I want to hasten to say that of the number of qualified teachers we had earlier this year, there are just under 100 who still have to be employed. I also want to say to this House that they must please remember that much play has been made of teachers in permanent posts. We have nearly 12 000 teachers and well over 11 000 teachers are in permanent posts.

Only a few hundred teachers are still to be given permanent posts. This is determined by the substantive posts created by the pupil-teacher ratio and I would like the House to bear that in mind.

Having said that, I would also like to say that mention was made here this morning of the question as to whether we are looking at the free settlement areas. The hon member for Reservoir Hills yesterday wanted to know whether the Ministers’ Council is exercising its mind on that aspect. I can tell him that we are certainly doing so.

If the hon member for Reservoir Hills or his benchmate submit, by consensus from their constituents, that their constituencies should be considered for such a resettlement area, this Ministers’ Council will certainly look at it.

Have you received such a request?

Not as yet, Mr Chairman.

Oh, I see. But they talk to the Press.

I expect that such actions will be taken by certain hon members, but they must please bring them to our notice. We are already looking at some areas which could be substantial free settlement areas.

I now come to some hon members who have made certain requests. I should like to answer them to the best of my ability.

The hon member for Moorcross said that hundreds of teachers are unemployed. I think I have sufficiently answered that and I believe I will be in a position, within a few weeks, to tell hon members that we have no more unemployed teachers. I refer especially to those qualified teachers who are bursary holders.

Mention was also made to the changing of parties and so on, but I do not want to dwell on that. Much play has been made of that. The hon member for Springfield dwelt on that, and to some extent of course he admitted that he himself was a party to stopping people from changing parties.

It is a matter of principle.

Whether it was a matter of principle or a personal matter I am not sure, but I want to refute the idea amongst hon members that the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council does not have much to do and that he merely has to co-ordinate the different portfolios. It goes far beyond that. The Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, whoever he may be in the future, is inundated with requests from all portfolios, from all kinds of people, on all aspects of life, whether it be education, agriculture, health and welfare or whatever. I have to answer for it all. Of course, if the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is a good co-ordinator, he delegates these to his different departments, to his colleagues in the Ministers’ Council. That is how we achieve greater results. Mention has been made by the hon member for Laudium of the College of Education in Laudium. I want to assure him that we have looked at it and we have much to say about that college. Although his fears concern the fact that we have not appointed an acting principal, the department has very good reasons for doing that.

The number of students fluctuates, as the hon member is aware, and if a person is appointed to that post, the post will not be a very permanent one, because the numbers can drop and he will be shifted. The very people who are asking us to appoint him on a permanent basis will ask why we are shifting him. They will ask whether we will keep him on in an acting capacity. The requests will carry on, not only in respect of Laudium training college, but in respect of other institutions as well. Therefore I want to say that although the Transvaal College of Education is grossly underutilised, the Department of Education and Culture will enrol students this year for the four-year teacher training course in order to test the viability of keeping the college open.

A smaller, modern college of education is being planned, not in order to close the Transvaal College, but to replace Springfield College. Springfield College will be used for other purposes, namely to train those teachers who are not adequately trained, to bring them up to a certain standard. Those who have the M3 at the moment, will be brought in to improve their qualifications to M4 and so on. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, following immediately on the hon the Acting Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, I am heartened to learn that he will be employing all those unemployed teachers. I believe this will certainly bring a lot of relief, unlike in previous years when we had difficulty employing these people because we had no funds.

Coming to the budget that has been delivered by the hon the Minister of the Budget, I can probably say that a professional grammar teacher will not find a single mistake in this report. However, I do not know what a financial wizard will find if he looks into the needs and then analyses the difference between what we want to do and can do today. However, that is another viewpoint.

I would have liked to dwell in depth on the many facets of the budget speech delivered by the hon the Minister of the Budget. However, by his own admission, he is like an innocent lamb who has no alternative but to say that this is an own affairs administration and he has to repeat much of what the hon the Minister of Finance has already said. In other words: Thank you very much, Sir. He then goes on to give details defending the Minister of Finance, who has hopelessly failed to make adequate provision to meet not all but some urgent and pressing needs in our community. That is why we rejected the devolution of power last week.

Hidden in the own affairs concept are many “skelms”, which in another language means worms. This entire tricameral system will collapse into one big heap if adequate funds are not made available to provide for a community that has long suffered tremendous setbacks because of this Government’s pipe-dream laws. Adequate funds must be made available to provide for, amongst other things, housing, education, day clinics, welfare, agriculture and health services. What funds are going to be made available for Phoenix Hospital? I would like to know whether this hospital will be built this year or not. What is also very interesting and perhaps disturbing to note, is that in this House we have had the opportunity of having three different members who have held the portfolio of Minister of the Budget. What is also significant is that year after year for the last five years, we have found that every Minister has said to us that they have to adhere to a norm that has not been created by us. However, nothing has been done to address this problem. What have we really done to remove that aspect? It is a big question which we all ask. I think one way is to reject the amounts allocated to us. I know that if we rejected the Finance Bill this House would be dissolved, and many of us here cannot take that chance, unfortunately.

I want to mention, however, that it is very disturbing to hear about what is going on in the Department of Education as well. I want to warn people because they are dealing with an educated and a cohesive lot of people. It appears, and there is talk in corridors and in certain quarters, that the super Afrikaner was far better because he did not do the kind of things that are done today. I want this House to think about it. Do not underestimate the ability of others.

We should not allow ourselves to be manipulated so as to become pawns in the hands of others who still want to divide and rule the community. There appears to be a hitman who has been given the freedom to run his horses in every direction. Let this not become the rot that will infiltrate the minds of our children whose well-being we are striving for, because we may only realise the effects of this when it is too late.

I also want to react to the hon the Deputy Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture when he said that that side of the House does not allow homes to be destroyed and demolished. I want to tell the hon the Deputy Minister that it is high time for action, and not words. I am proud to stand here and say that not a single home in my constituency has ever been demolished without proper and satisfactory alternative accommodation. We on this side believe in those principles too.

Coming back to one or two hon members who have made contributions to this debate, I would like to make certain observations. The hon member for Stanger spoke about loosening bolts and nuts. We have heard about this ever since we arrived here. However, the problem that we have is that many hon members probably came here with the wrong spanners. Instead of using the metric sets, they came here with the old standard type called Whitworth. They are not loosening the nuts and bolts. They are destroying them. Those people who have the proper tools to loosen the nuts, cannot do so anymore because the nuts are now destroyed beyond repair.

Much has been said about stability in this House. Over the Christmas period we heard that there was a growing march to what was called a “satisfactory arrangement” through which stability would be arrived at in this House. As much as I am a politician with certain ambitions, and despite certain reservations and observations which I may have, I was one of those who was very eager to have stability in this House after a long absence of such a requirement.

Much play has been made of the hon member for Arena Park. His name cropped up in all facets of our debates and in all the so-called problems that emanated from this House. However, I want to ask this question: If that was the case, why is it taking so long to have stability in this House now? Who are the people that are responsible for this situation?

I am of the firm opinion—and I have no hesitation in saying this—that it appears that there are still many more wolves in sheep’s clothing in this House who, I believe, pretend in many ways. A wolf in sheep’s clothing cannot change reality. It will always remain a wolf that is dangerous to the flock of sheep.

I do not want to defend the hon member for Arena Park, but in all fairness to him I want to say that throughout the commission’s inquiry and the history that has been going on, there has not been one single hon member who has stood up and said one good thing that this hon member had done. For that and that alone I believe that the ghost of the hon member for Arena Park will haunt this House for a long time yet.

In a heated moment, when the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture was speaking, the hon member for Bayview interjected and said that the hon the Minister was the next to go. I want to soberly advise that hon member that when he was still getting up from the slumber of his honeymoon, the honest hon members who were of the conviction that we must have stability in this House avoided the quick thinking of some smart alecks who merely pulled the carpet from under his feet and those of his leader. I believe he has to wake up to the realities.

In his budget speech the hon the Minister talked about productivity. I find this very disturbing. I do not want to contradict the hon the Minister because I have nothing against him. In fact, I have great respect for him. He knows how I see things and as a man from the factory floor who knows what productivity and delivery mean, he will agree with me.

In our huge manufacturing concern we used to have the following words on the walls: Every late delivery is a lost order. Perhaps it is a phrase that was used by other people, but we should not compare apples with shoes, but apples with apples. If we want to talk about productivity, productivity should start here. In that context—without being very difficult—we want a lot of productivity out of this House. What has been achieved with the money that has been spent on the various departments of this administration? We say a lot about the commission. Was it necessary? Perhaps it might have been and perhaps not. However, I want to know if we shall still need such commissions in future. Could we not have directed those funds to the hungry and starving communities that need them? Could we not have put that money to better use? Yet we call ourselves leaders that represent constituents and look after their interests and arrive at a time when they need us. I feel very disappointed in this regard.

I also want to comment on the very positive steps that the hon the Minister took in regard to job creation. I used to serve on the Standing Committee on Manpower and Mineral and Energy Affairs and I have a tremendous amount of knowledge in this field. I want to ask the hon the Minister not to put the cart before the horse as was done in the Department of Education and Culture where we trained many teachers only to find that there were no jobs for them. Let us first create the jobs and then train the men to do them. That is a very important principle that should be adhered to. It is no good training people only to find that they cannot be employed.

Many hon members that are here were members of the former South African Indian Council. This hon member visited this House today and said a few golden words. He said that many positive, constructive resolutions were adopted in those days, but that those resolutions got constipated in the corridors of this House.

Year in and year out we hear and read the same things over and over again and those records have now become long-playing records. It reminds me that the things we say here that are recorded in Hansard are still following the same old procedures. They get stored away and just lie on perhaps more refined and more expensive shelves.

If that is the situation I want to say openly to hon members that we must not waste our time any longer. If the Government does not want to listen and change direction to help those who want to help the Government, a new day is going to dawn on us. It will, of course, be a very sad day when our communities and our constituencies rise to the occasion. We shall then be unable to answer them because we cannot defend what is not defensible.

Coming to the question of housing, I must say that I am terribly disappointed. I do not want to moralise or philosophise but I think hon members must take note of the fact that most of the undesirable unrest, frustration and bitterness that prevail are caused by this one factor. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister of the Budget was adroit at presenting an effective own affairs budget speech yesterday. I must admit that by and large he has done a good job. I want to take this opportunity to commend him for the positive projections that he has made for the coming financial year. I agree with him that much of the malady in this country is a result of racial discrimination and segregatory laws.

This morning the hon member for Springfield voiced several points of criticism. I must emphasise that some of them were very negative. It is sad that a responsible hon member of this House is unable to make the kind of recommendations that this House can consider in an effort to bring about improvements. It is easy to find fault and it is often said that talk is cheap. Constructive criticism, on the other hand, is hard to come by. I must seize this opportunity to hail the hon the leader of Solidarity. Firstly, I want to do so because of his courage and forthrightness in rebutting the superficial points of criticism uttered yesterday and again this morning. Secondly, I want to do so for the genuine call he made on hon members to adopt a fair, well-meaning and constructive attitude. In the interests of this House and the electorate—the people that we represent—I think his call should be given the attention it deserves by all thinking, responsible persons.

Although he made a vigorous attack on the idiosyncrasies and intrigues in which hon members have indulged themselves for too long, I want to say to his credit that in his exemplary manner he did not stoop so low as to become involved in character assassinations, as is sometimes the case with other hon members. Some people are more clever than others, but sometimes it is good to pause and ask ourselves if we are all equally civilised. That is the test of a mature man.

I find myself in an unusual situation when I am on the side of the majority party. I have the sacred task of protecting the interests of the community at large. I did not spurn the Ministers’ Council or the administration. I did not criticise when I could rather be positive. I will continue to do so in future.

I do not want to tread again on ground that has already been covered by many hon members. It is a pity that our Director-General is not present in the House today. Other important engagements have probably kept him away.

I want to make some other observations for the good of the House of Delegates and its administration. These are my real observations. If all our criticism over the past four years has been true, hon members will agree with me that there has to be drastic reconstruction of departments and corresponding sweeping changes in personnel. These have to be made simultaneously in order to command the success we require. There are many able employees in the department, but they must be properly motivated. There are others who have overstayed their welcome in the department. There is some deadwood too and this must be removed. The same type of person thinking along the same lines and working in departments which have brought calamity in the past will readily repeat this in the future even if sound policies are pursued in the future.

The House of Delegates has the unenviable task of reflecting a new image. Blunders in policy and modus operandi must be corrected in order to render an effective service to a community. This cannot be put right overnight, but an immediate start has to be made. It is high time we stopped referring to the former Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and his style of operation. I am stating the fact that we do not want to cover up our own mistakes by referring to what the former Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has done. Let us bury that chapter and begin a new era.

I really do not know where the fault lies, but I must point out that there is apathy, inefficiency and lack of diligence in the House of Delegates. I want to be bold enough to point this out. I want to substantiate this. If I send letters to the Durban City Council, the provincial administration and the Ministers in the general affairs department I get replies within two weeks, or if not, then soon thereafter. If I send a letter to West Germany I get a reply within two weeks. On the other hand, if I send letters to the House of Delegates on important issues I get no response for up to months. In some cases after four to six weeks I have received no response. There are some departments and some Ministers from whom I get replies almost overnight. I am not going to single out anybody here but I will mention this in the caucus.

I know it takes many years to provide services, but many of those services can be provided by this House of Delegates in a matter of weeks. The hon member for Mariannhill has made an important point. He spoke on productivity. Until all personnel are fully motivated, there will be no relief for a community with so much deprivation, setbacks and challenges in the past and now. If we do not really rise to the occasion to meet these challenges and provide the services and use the money as judiciously as we can to see that it goes as far as possible, it would be a pity.

We indicated previously, and I reiterate this, that the formula for the financing of education has disadvantages, especially when it comes to smaller departments. We must use the money available as judiciously as we can.

The question of the Transvaal College of Education has come up. Even in previous years I know the numbers there have dropped. Last year we passed an Act called the Tertiary Education Act, which permits not only the teacher training department of an institution but even the technikon department to be brought into an institution. Even certain university classes can be brought into the institution. There will be no need for that particular person to go to the University of Durban-Westville. There will be no need for that particular person to go to M L Sultan Technikon. I think that these are innovations. Forward projections indicate that one could use that to the fullest extent. Why close it, or why have a small department, which is, shall I say, counterproductive as far as our aspirations and needs are concerned. I would like the department to consider this.

There is another aspect to which the hon member for Isipingo referred yesterday relating to the Chief Executive Director of Education. I fully agree with him. I would like to be proved wrong. I feel strongly—I am not finding fault with the Chief Executive Director—that as far as his place of operation is concerned, he should be stationed in Durban. I shall advance reasons for this. The majority of our people are in Durban, as are the majority of our teachers and the senior officers. Professional organisations and other community bodies are also there and want to see him. The presence of this important official in Cape Town is certainly a loss for all those people. He should be present at the management committee meetings and should direct policy decisions. He should see to it that resources are fully utilised. He should be there to pass on and share his values with his senior management committee from day to day, in order to ensure that those people operate in an appropriate manner, and in turn influence other senior staff such as superintendents and principals.

Mr Chairman, may I just ask the hon member whether he knows that the Chief Executive Director is travelling between Durban and Cape Town, and he only arrived here last night. The hon member’s anxiety is unnecessary, because he is doing both.

Mr Chairman, we have criticised the past Chairman of the Ministers’ Council who has done that. I criticised him in this House; it is on record in Hansard. We must change this in the interests of this House and of education, which is a most important facet of our work in this House. I submit that the hon the Minister of the Budget has budgeted the largest amount for education. We must see to it that everything is going well in this department.

Mr Chairman, I would like to start by asking the hon member for Glenview not to get hot under the collar when someone criticises him. There are people who will keep criticising everybody here. That is what we are here for. If a person has done something he is criticised, and even those that have not done anything come in for criticism. Therefore he should take it and stay cool. I am going to criticise the hon member now, so he should be cool about it.

I am going to criticise the hon member about the fact that in his speech yesterday he spoke about people working in corridors and causing problems to parties. He is quite correct in that regard, but practically everybody knows who those persons are. Therefore he must have the courage of his convictions and say that it is one or two of his hon Ministers that are doing that, or whoever it is on his side. Let us be open and let us know what is happening here. We want stability; or rather, I want stability just as much as he does.

I want to ask him a question. When the hon Chairman of this House called a meeting of the leaders in the House to get together where we could sit down and discuss how to bring stability into this House, that hon member refused to come. I do not think that that is the way to bring stability to this House. I think that as the leader of a party he should be the first to come forward and say: Let us get down to brass tacks and do something.

Mr Chairman, I would like to ask the hon member a question. Who told the hon member that I refused to come?

Mr Chairman, it was the Chairman of the House, Mr S Abram.

Order! The hon member may continue.

He was the person who sent out the letter to him which he gave to the hon member for Stanger to answer, or to speak to him, which the hon member said would not be necessary.

You have got it all wrong!

I have not got it wrong.

It came out wrong.

If it came out that way, then that is it. I think they should have another House Committee to investigate it, because they are very fond of that.

I am sorry that the hon the Acting Minister of Housing is not here. I wanted to ask the hon the Acting Minister about his departments in the Transvaal, especially his offices in Johannesburg. There he comes now. Now I can really ask him the question.

My question to the hon the Acting Minister of Housing concerns what is he doing regarding the problems Lenasia is facing. We find that there are allegations of corruption in that department and I think the hon the Acting Minister knows about it. I think he went there last Thursday. I received an invitation, but unfortunately I could not attend.

You know we are on the ball, so why worry.

No, it is not that they are on the ball. The ball is far ahead of them, that is the trouble. The ball was maybe kicked a couple of years ago and they are only waking up now. Now they want to come and tell me that they are on the ball. Had they been on the ball, they would have picked up this problem ages ago—four years ago.

I was not here then.

Who was Minister of Housing then? [Interjections.]

Whoever it was, I am now talking about Thursday when the hon the Acting Minister was present.

You want him to make magic in one day.

You know, you have got a big mouth. I think you should keep it shut for a change otherwise I will put my foot in it, not somebody else.

Order! Will the hon member confine himself to the debate and refrain from making unsavoury remarks in this House.

Will those hon members keep their mouths shut then?

Carry on, man!

Mr Chairman, regarding the meeting, I would like the hon the Acting Minister to give us a report-back on what happened in the meeting in Lenasia on that Thursday. I believe someone alleged that a member of a management committee was giving jewellery to people in his department to get houses changed from one person’s name to that of another. I call that corruption.

Let me ask another question. The hon the Leader of the House emphatically stated that they would stamp out corruption in this House. Am I right?

Leader of the House?

I am asking the hon the Leader of the Opposition Party. [Interjections.] Sorry, it is my mistake, Sir. He has been the Leader of the Official Opposition for so long that I again mistook him for that. He is the hon the Leader of the majority party.

Solidarity!

Let us put it straight for the record—the hon member for Glenview. Mr Chairman, it seems to me that they do not want to know the facts. The fact is that they open their big mouths by saying that they want no more corruption. My question is still unanswered and I would like it to be answered here in the House.

I do not want to have to move a motion to find those answers. I am sure the hon the Minister will want to answer us as soon as possible regarding these meetings and the allegations of corruption which took place there.

I also want to ask the hon the Minister why hon members walk into his department in Johannesburg and walk out with contracts for large tracts of farmland, when there are others who have applied years ago and received nothing.

The Farmers’ Union asked the Deputy Minister of Agriculture to go to that area. I went there, but I was a bit late. I met them and then I found out why the hon the Minister was there. People received unused tracts of agricultural land. How does the department allocate land? Mr Chairman, you yourself mentioned writing letters to departments and not getting answers. I can prove to hon members that they do not even bother to answer the letters that are sent to this particular department in Johannesburg.

They have a go-slow strike.

There was no such thing. They are afraid that if one delves deeper into this matter, one will find much corruption. Seeing that we want straight and clean administration, as hon members have said, I want this to be looked into. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Springfield made mention of a motion of which I should have given notice. I would just like to give hon members some background to this motion. On Wednesday 15 March we were invited for supper by the hon Acting Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. After supper most hon members had left. The hon members who remained were the Chairman of the House, the hon members for Actonville, Reservoir Hills, Springfield, Tongaat and Mariannhill, the hon member Mr Nowbath, the member of the President’s Council, Mr Jajbhay, the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare, our host himself—the Acting Chairman of the Ministers’ Council—and myself.

There was talk about carrot dangling and so forth. Other hon members were being run down and it was too much for me. I felt that if people are so righteous, if nobody is here for the money, if nobody is here for carrots—because getting one’s salary is still a carrot, some carrots are big and some carrots are small—we must take away the carrots and see who remains here and who will come to work here for the community and the people. I still maintain that. I still want to move that motion.

I told the hon member for Springfield to draw up that motion and to give it to me. Yesterday he did not have it ready. I asked him in the presence of my Chief Whip whether the motion was ready and he did not have it ready. It was only late yesterday afternoon that I got the motion. I could not read it, so I sent it to the typist to have it typed. She came back to me asking me what certain words were and I could not decipher the words myself, so I told her to ask the hon member for Springfield. Yesterday I gave the motion to be typed and it was given to me this morning. I am supposed to bring it before the caucus before I can move my motion in this House.

I would like to point out one thing, namely that I am not playing the fool. I mean what I say. I would like to put on record that I served on the SAIC. I served in the SA Indian Council, and I gave away my entire salary as well as twice as much to charity. I am prepared to do it. Up to this day I am prepared to do it. I have a farm and I can work. I work! Hon members must come and see how I work; not just any weekend, all weekends. Hon members can make a special appointment. Every minute of my life is utilised fully. I am productive. I am not unproductive, whether I am in this Parliament or outside of it, I will be productive. I do not have to depend on remuneration from this House.

I now come to the debate itself. Everything has a positive and a negative aspect. Many hon members of this House expressed disapproval and dissatisfaction with the budget. However, looking on the positive side, I would like to mention that the budget for the 1989-90 fiscal year exceeds the present inflation rate by far. No matter how large the budget the hon the Minister may present, it will not help if the current attitudes do not change. After all, if one asks oneself the question who contributes to the Treasury, the answer is the ordinary man in the street. It is the ordinary man in the street who contributes to it, entrepreneurs, farmers, practically every man, woman and child in the country. Our country is already very, very heavily burdened with tax and we do not need any more taxation. If a person has to improve his way of life, he must strive to improve his way of life. I believe that man is master of his own destiny, that his future lies in his own hands and he must stop depending on the State to do everything for him. In the circumstances most people seem to blame apartheid because they believe that apartheid is the ceiling which limits development. I do not believe—I said it in the Chamber of Parliament and 1 shall say it again here—that apartheid is the root cause of all hon members’ problems. It is a major contributing factor, yes, but it is not the root cause of all hon members’ problems. There are other countries in the world, where they do not have any apartheid laws on their statute books, and they have major problems as well. However, as long as apartheid remains on the Statute Book, people will always have a scapegoat to blame for their failures. The best thing to do is to remove it. Do not give people excuses.

I believe that nothing comes for nothing. All good things come through hard work and the Bible very aptly said: As ye sow, so shall ye reap. In the hon the Minister’s budget speech, he states:

We must try to motivate every man, woman and child and ask them to play their roles. Without these roles the Government itself could not uplift the whole society. The British produce twice as much as South Africans and the Canadians’ productivity is four times as much as ours. Take the Japanese, whose productivity is eight times as much as ours. Therefore, if their productivity is eight times more than ours per capita, their advancement will also be eight times as much as ours. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, let us put personality clashes, inducements and carrot dangling aside. I want to get down to serious matters. It is common knowledge and an accepted fact that the economy is the main hub in our effort to keep the country going. If the economy is down, the country will land in difficulties. If the economy picks up, the country will prosper. All the people of the country must therefore put their shoulders to the wheel in an effort to build up the economy.

The Indian community in this country has been deprived for too long with regard to the necessities of life. Against all odds, however, the Indian community has managed to keep its head above water. I think it is only fair that when we ask for basic requirements, the authorities should see to it that it is provided. There are two important factors in the lives of the Indian community, namely housing and education. There are others too, but these two are very important.

With regard to housing, I want to point out that for the past four years this House has not undertaken any new projects in the Transvaal. What was done was merely the completion of projects initiated by the old Department of Community Development. In my constituency, Actonville, practically nothing can be shown. During 1987, R1 million was disbursed for the erection of 40 ground related houses. More houses should be provided, because there is a waiting list of just over 3 000 families. In an effort to find accommodation, people have taken to living in caravans and outbuildings.

After a long, long time the Villa Lisa project has come into being, but there has not been any progress. I have made a request previously, but I want to repeat it. People need a roof over their heads. A project must be undertaken to provide the necessary infrastructure and housing development simultaneously. Our people are frustrated, because they feel they should at least have a place to live. Housing is a dire necessity. People are content when they have a roof over their heads. It breeds all kinds of evil when people do not have a roof over their heads. I think it is time that the House of Delegates gave some consideration to the requirements of people in the Transvaal, particularly those who live on the East Rand. As far as my constituency is concerned, housing is a dire need. We need things yesterday, not tomorrow! I trust that the hon the Minister will take note of this.

With regard to education, I want to say that there is a training centre in Actonville. This training centre has acquired land from the Benoni municipality and there are 28 registered student inmates at the moment. The training centre caters for handicapped children who cannot fend for themselves. The object of this training centre is to teach children to occupy their rightful place in society so that they can feel they are also part of society. The building which they are now using was given to them on loan by the owner who lives in the Actonville area. I would like to thank him for allowing them to use the place gratis.

When we started we had 11 children and it has now grown to 28 inmates. The place is becoming so congested that there is no room. Moreover, the waiting list is growing. There are approximately six Coloured children who have applied for admission there. The House of Representatives has approved of it, but we are still waiting for the approval of the House of Delegates.

Besides that there are ten children from Actonville who are in the same category and who are presently 50 kilometres away at the Jiswa Training Centre for the Mentally Handicapped in Lenasia because they do not have accommodation at the Actonville training centre. Three of the children are going to a White training centre because there is no accommodation for them in our centre.

What we are asking is that a structure be erected to accommodate these children and the facilities to train them. Our request is falling on deaf ears. The Actonville training centre has made many requests but nothing seems to come of them.

Sometimes promises are made to us but we do not see any results.

This training centre has other requirements. These children need the attention of the community. We need paramedics and physiotherapists. We used to use the physiotherapist of a Black clinic adjoining Actonville, but they have now moved to Daveyton and we therefore no longer have the services of a physiotherapist. We also do not have speech and occupational therapists. This is what we require and the Actonville training centre has asked for this. I have applied on their behalf and they have written letters themselves, but nothing seems to be coming their way. At least we are trying.

Last week I once again had an urgent call from the centre and I once more appeal to the hon the Minister that this matter be taken into consideration and that something be done for our handicapped children.

There has been a request for a technical college in Benoni. We have often asked for that but each time I am told that a survey has been made and that the Indian community is not technically orientated. This is nonsense. These surveys can never be positive until one provides the services.

I shall give hon members examples of that. When pre-school classes were initiated in Actonville in Benoni, people were reluctant to send their children there. It was felt that it would not become a reality or come into existence. However, after it had been started and the facilities had been made available, every one of the six or seven schools in Benoni started a pre-school class. Today all those classes are full and we have admission difficulties. That shows that once one provides the facilities one will find people who require that assistance. However, if one does not provide that assistance one cannot work on theoretical surveys.

When the Actonville training centre was commenced people in Benoni thought that it was not a necessity and that it would not work. They started out with three children. I was there originally. The numbers grew to eight, ten and 11 and today there are 28 children and we are having admission difficulties. Had we at that time said that we did not have handicapped children and that it would not work, we would still not have had that centre.

An art class was initiated in Actonville. Today we have a full class. People did not think that that class would be full, but once we started it we had a full class. The M A Jussub School which is about 50 kilometres away from Actonville is too far for our children to travel to.

The school must come to them.

Yes, that is correct. The school must come to them. We want a school. We have a ready-made school. It is just a matter of taking it over. If we show a little initiative we shall get that school.

I am told that they are hampered by security problems. I do not know which security measures hamper our people there because in that area we have Indian businesses such as Indian take-away restaurants and Indian garages. That building is now deteriorating because it is being used as an unlawful thoroughfare. At the back of the building is the Benoni station and there is also a Black taxi rank. People are using it as an unlawful thoroughfare and that building is now deteriorating.

If we can take it over we can put it to good use. Our children who drop out of school are sent to industries while they lack the necessary technical knowledge. The result is that they are underpaid and they cannot get promoted because they do not have the facilities.

If we can obtain those facilities the whole situation will be different. We do have enough applicants. It is of no use to say that our people are not orientated in that direction. There are enough children interested but then we must first provide the necessary facilities.

The M H Jussub School is not functioning because I think there is a lack of motivation as well as a lack of trained staff for the teaching of students. Let us therefore first produce the facilities and then we can see whether we have enough interested persons. It is of no use to say that people do not need it and that we must therefore forget about it. We are here to serve our community and we must do that to the best of our abilities.

I want to underline the comment of the hon the Minister of the Budget which he made in his speech. I quote as follows:

I fully agree with him there. His hon colleagues in the White Cabinet, however, do not agree with this. Let me mention an example. In Bloemfontein there is a White school where 80% of the children’s parents are prepared to admit our children to that school. The school also has Black pupils who are the children of diplomats. However, the hon the Deputy Minister of Education will not give us a permit for the admission of our children to that school.

The hon the Minister of the Budget once said that our children must attend White schools. I fully agree with him but it is his hon colleagues who will not allow it. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I am indebted to the hon the Chief Whip of the Official Opposition in this House for affording me a few minutes to react to two specific points that were raised by the hon the Leader of the Majority Party in this House after I spoke.

It must be clear to all of us who have taken part in this debate that the one issue that has characterised this debate has been the question of stability or the lack of it in this House. This debate has been characterised by the accusation that one or other party is responsible for the instability in this House.

It must be clear to everybody who listened to this debate that there is instability in this House. It must be clear to everybody that the instability has been caused by the so-called carrot dangling that has taken place.

It is not for me to again canvass this issue except to say that if the hon member for Glenview really believes that we should now address this problem of instability which, as I have indicated, has been caused by all the carrot dangling, then he must see to it that his Chief Whip does not allow the draft resolution that was moved by me a few days ago to languish on the order paper.

That draft resolution addresses precisely this problem. It addresses the problem of the instability and the carrot dangling and it addresses the problem as to who is responsible for this state of affairs. I would like to take this opportunity to say again that if this is what we really wish to achieve in this House, let us allow that draft resolution to be debated, let us allow a committee to be formed and let that committee decide who made the offers, to whom they were made and what has been the result.

Who were the white ants?

Yes, and who were the white ants and who were the black ants.

Another issue was raised by the hon member for Glenview and I take it in the spirit in which it was offered. It was a good point. He asked—if I understood him correctly—why people come to this Chamber and do not offer constructive criticism in trying to make sure that the allocation made to the Minister of the Budget is enlarged to the extent that it could be enlarged. That is a very good point, but in this regard I want to refer to the very commendable action taken by the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare in this House. He too would like to engage hon members of this House to address a particular problem. I must commend him because he has gone about this in a very honourable way. As far as I am aware, he has appointed a committee to look into the question of social benefits and how to achieve the parity that all of us talk about. I would like to commend that example to the hon the Minister of the Budget and to the hon member for Glenview. I would also like to remind both hon gentlemen that that was a suggestion made by the hon member for Reservoir Hills and myself when this whole issue about stability and who was going to take over control of this administration arose.

I am sorry that I again have to refer to the hon member for Isipingo, but he was also in the vanguard of that move to ensure that under each Ministry a committee would be appointed which would investigate the problems, and which would be alive to the input and would recommend to the Minister concerned what could be done to improve the proper functioning of those respective departments. I would like to know what has happened to that gentleman’s agreement. If that agreement is, in fact, enforced and put into practice we can obviate all of this letting out of hot air that has been going on.

Before I resume my seat, let me just say one thing. We in the PFP do not have any carrots to dangle. All that we have, are principles.

Mr Chairman, I too would like to extend my congratulations to my colleague the hon the Minister of the Budget for the wonderful manner in which he presented his budget yesterday.

With the limited time at my disposal I want to try and respond to some of the points raised by hon members. Should I fail to complete my response to all hon members I will be presenting my Vote on Tuesday and I will then certainly respond to all the points raised.

Firstly, I want to respond to the point raised by the hon member for Isipingo with regard to the question of child abuse, rape, alcoholism and drug abuse. The former is an issue that is of deep concern to us and I would like to give the assurance here that, as far as we are concerned, child protection units have been established at the district surgeon’s rooms at Verulam, Phoenix Health Centre and the R K Khan Hospital.

These units are not separate entities, but are an integral part of the primary health care service. The departments made submissions for the introduction of social work services in schools, for it is in schools that identification of, and intervention in respect of, child abuse is crucial.

I now wish to respond to the hon member for Tongaat; I note he is not present at the moment. He mentioned yesterday that disability grants and other grants are cut off without notice. However, I do not think his information is correct. All the new applications for grants which have been successful are processed within six to eight weeks, and all applicants for grants which on review are unsuccessful, are informed approximately two to three weeks prior to the grants being discontinued. However, it is not correct to state that grants are discontinued without notice. I now go on to the hon member for Lenasia West, who mentioned my visit to Thomsville in Lenasia. Mention was made of the fact that rather more discussion had taken place in respect of housing, but just to put the record straight, the invitation was extended by the Lenasia Management Committee, and that hon colleague was also present there. The purpose of the visit was to establish the social problem which would have emerged in this particular area. My hon colleague is aware of this over-congestion. Because of our deep concern, the hon the Acting Chairman of the Ministers’ Council accompanied me last week together with the Lenasia Management Committee, because these are the army-type barracks built by the previous Department of Community Development. They were totally unacceptable as human habitation. My concern stemmed purely from the aspect of the development problems that might have resulted from this particular exercise. I hope the hon member accepts that explanation.

The hon member for Reservoir Hills mentioned the involvement of hon Ministers in free settlement areas. He may rest assured that all of us have made certain representations, and I for one have made representations with regard to Kabah near Uitenhage—which is well-known owing to the riots that occurred there some years ago. Blacks were uprooted there. Recently a notice has been published to proclaim those as either Indian, Coloured or White areas. I made representations to the effect that these be declared free settlement areas in order to allow the Blacks to go back to where they were originally.

The hon member for Reservoir Hills mentioned the question of parity in pensions. It is a fact—the hon member for Springfield mentioned it a little earlier—that I did appoint a committee under the chairmanship of the hon member for Red Hill, together with the hon member for Reservoir Hills and Dr B T Naidoo, to touch on the bread-and-butter issues which our hon members are very much concerned about. I understand from my hon colleague that an interim report will be presented to me on Tuesday next week. It is to be hoped that from then onwards we shall be able to pursue the matter further.

The hon member for Mariannhill mentioned the Phoenix Hospital. It is a fact that this matter was discussed some time ago. It is now a number of years since we came to Parliament. I just wish to report to him at this stage that the administrative preparations are under way to proceed with the Phoenix Hospital. It will be built in the near future. The planning, building and finalisation takes some time. We cannot commit ourselves at this stage to an exact date. We have certain problems, and I shall discuss this with the hon member.

The other point I want to raise was not in fact raised in the course of the discussion, but the hon member for Lenasia Central submitted a Notice of Motion with regard to the Lenasia Hospital Board. I just wanted to mention here that when that board was in fact to be convened, three MPs were asked to submit names. We had a total of 26 names, of which 6 were appointed on the recommendation of the MPs, including my hon colleague the hon member for Lenasia Central. At no stage did I ever indicate in my request that they should comprise members of the Indian group. I appreciate the point raised by the hon member in wanting to submit that Notice of Motion, because as far as that hospital is concerned it is not confined to Indians only.

It is there for all races and we understand that alongside the hospital we have an area known as Ennerdale which is well-known to hon members. There are members of the Coloured community there and I will certainly, when a name is submitted to me, ensure that we have a fair representation, even if we have to call additional members.

I think those were the only matters raised as far as my particular portfolio is concerned. Should there be any other matters relating to health and welfare, hon members will have the opportunity to discuss them when I present my budget speech—most probably on Monday afternoon. From then on hon members will be at liberty to ask any questions emanating from this particular portfolio.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank hon members and my hon colleagues in the Ministers’ Council for their participation in the budget vote. Almost all that has been said in this debate was irrelevant to the issue before this House. I expected more of the contributions to relate to the budget figures which I put before the House. What I observed was rather a character assassination of hon members on both sides.

I want to say that the character assassination began as a result of hon members who are now members of the Opposition initiating such attacks. There has certainly got to be a reaction from the majority party in this House.

This side did the same thing wrong.

I did not disturb the hon member for Lenasia East when he was speaking because I do not indulge in the kind of behaviour which I witnessed him indulging in.

On the list before me, I have the name of the hon member for Actonville as the member for the NPP. I wonder if he is confused or whether he does not know his elbow from his arm? I refer specifically to that hon member in relation to the motion which he proposed this morning. He attributed words to me which are not my words. They are words manufactured by the hon member for Actonville. I know why some hon members of this House are latching on to what I said on 10 February 1989, simply because the results of the intentions of what the majority party in this House expect with regard to stability, will soon be demonstrated.

I, therefore, want to quote from Hansard so that I am not misunderstood. I did not need any castigation as regards the character of the hon member for Laudium. I said that the report of the James Commission involved so many hon members of this House that it should act as a deterrent to hon members as well as to the community outside so that they do not indulge in malpractice. This is what I had to say:

I go on and then stop to say:

There is an interjection which says:

I then said:

This should have closed the issue. However, we accept the fact that Laudium is very dear to the hon member.

Some hon member reacted by saying that it was favouritism, to which I said that it was not favouritism because to me favouritism is corruption. I was very guarded about what I had to say. The hon member for Laudium stood up and gave an explanation. What was my reaction to him? I said: “Mr Chairman, I accept the explanation.” I am big enough, when an hon member gives an explanation, to accept that explanation. What is all this about a notice of motion that will be given? Why should there be character assassination of the hon member for Laudium? I am the first to say that in politics there are circumstances which demand certain decisions and a change of attitudes. I say that we are political animals and we must know how to act.

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

I am taking no questions, Mr Chairman. Everything which is now being prompted and being said cuts no ice with me or any hon member on this side of the House or any hon member who has integrity and ability. What is this talk about stability in the House? Has the membership on this side of the House not established stability?

There is a small majority.

Mr Chairman, whether it is a simple majority or not, it is a majority, and that majority has to be recognised. Therefore, when one speaks of instability, one speaks of one’s own understanding of instability in relation to what is generally accepted as stability.

[Inaudible.]

I would have said the same thing if I played the role of the Leader of the Official Opposition. Everything which I heard here today and yesterday—and I am sure others have also heard it—is causing the House of Delegates to become irrelevant in the tricameral system, simply because we indulge in these kind of actions here. It is being accepted and taken for granted that the House of Delegates can do whatever it likes. We have become irrelevant. It is all simply because …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon the Minister is referring to me, but I have not moved a motion. I have just conveyed a motion on behalf of somebody else. He must not direct his questions to me.

Order! That is not a point of order.

Mr Chairman, I join the leader of the majority party and those on the other side who call for stability, stability in the sense that we must apply our minds, our strength and all that we possess to the fullest for the enhancement of the system, for we have dented the history of Indian South African political participation by actions in this House, which have brought us down in the eyes of our own community. Let us stop now.

My message yesterday was very clear. We must not live in the past and in history, but we must make history. We will only make history if we apply our minds to the issues before us. This is what we should be doing.

I know that the hon member for Springfield and his benchmate, the hon member for Reservoir Hills, always speak of the high ideals of the PFP, etc, but the hon member for Randburg is on record in the newspapers as saying that he does not want candidates in the House of Delegates.

It is not true.

It is on paper. I want the hon member to read the Sunday newspapers. I am wondering whether the two hon members’ participation there has given him reason to make such statements to the newspapers. I do not accept …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon the Minister is now ascribing something to somebody outside this Chamber which is totally incorrect. He has my word for it.

Order! That is not a point of order.

It is relevant to the participation of PFP members in this House, and where the three parties are getting together, we now find …

You have got it wrong.

Perhaps I have got it wrong because the newspapers have got it wrong. I will accept that there could be a misunderstanding of the issue by the Press. I would like that to be corrected by the hon member for Randburg in the House of Assembly. He should state that he did not mean what he said.

I come back to the debate itself. I thank the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition for his contribution. I did not want to say to him that the books of Government are not the books of private enterprise or individuals. We are governed by an Act of Parliament. We have to be careful with regard to our entries. We are subject to the Auditor-General and in addition we are subject to the Joint Committee on Public Accounts of Parliament and we have to be very careful. Therefore, when hon members of this House speak on the finances of the State, they should please be aware of what it entails in relation to proper bookkeeping. The accounts of the State, this House or any other House of Parliament, only close on 31 August each year. Therefore from now until August we cannot certainly speak of what is unspent in the previous year. I am explaining again, as I did last year—as hon members will see if they looked in Hansard—that I said so.

I now come to the hon member for Reservoir Hills. I do agree that not all Indians are trade-orientated. I should have qualified it to the extent that business-orientated was also clearly understood. However, I do want to say that we should look at our history. We were immigrants in this country as indentured labourers to the cane fields. The moment we received our freedom from an agreement of three or five years, we Indians—or our forefathers—were given a piece of land by the then barons. On that land we cultivated vegetables, etc. What did our forebears do? They sold the vegetables that they cultivated. That in itself was trade. Therefore I accept that I should have qualified my statement by saying that not all Indians are business or trade-orientated, but that we have vastly differing vocations. Had my departmental officials or I not put in that R12,5 million as accumulated surpluses, I wonder whether hon members in this House would have picked it up.

I picked it up last time.

No, the hon member did not.

Yes, I did.

Not on accumulated surpluses. Be that as it may, hon members have forgotten that I brought in the R12,5 million in the Additional Appropriation. I spent money, did I not?

Yes, you did.

Therefore, the R12,5 million is not an accumulated fund. As I said, on 31 August 1989 the books will close. We have already spent R7 million of that money. Only two days ago the Minister of Finance put away R1 billion for contingency purposes.

How much are you going to put away?

I do not have that amount to put away for us. When one gets these accumulated funds, it is money left over from the period 1984 up to this fiscal year. I therefore do not think that hon members should be so alarmed as to say that we do not spend money as we should. An amount of R7 million has already been spent. By the time we come to the end of the financial year, there will be more expenditure.

The hon member for Reservoir Hills asked whether it was necessary to have such long and protracted negotiations before we arrive at the budget figure for income and expenditure. It is a long and protracted process. It does take time. The budget year starts 14, 16 or 18 months earlier. It is properly discussed by all hon Ministers of each department, and then with the Treasury. In relation to our exercise in getting funds, there are no lax attitudes on the part of hon Ministers or any of my departmental officials.

Mr Chairman, I appreciate the requirements of all the departments that are put to the Treasury. What we receive, of course, is calculated according to what we need. Could the hon the Minister tell hon members to what extent he gets the full amount that we claim from the Treasury?

I will give the hon member an answer when I sum up. This is a general question which appears on the Order Paper. In relation to a question by my colleague, the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture, about the Development Bank, I want to say that the Development Bank’s functions do not just stop within the boundaries of South Africa. They include the TBVC areas, the homelands, independent or self-governing areas and Malawi to a certain extent. I understand that they will extend as far as Mozambique. However, the fact is that our approach to the Development Bank has been on the basis of how they can help the House of Delegates in relation to funds. Whatever is made available must be put into our budget estimates. Treasury also has to approve this. What is very favourable in relation to the loans that will be available, is the structure of 4% to 12% interest charges. Naturally, this depends on the projects that we are going to embark upon.

I think the hon member for Laudium also needs an explanation about backlogs expressed as a function of White standards. I will explain this. Before 1984 Indian affairs were in the hands of the then Minister of the Interior. They budgeted for the requirements of Indian affairs. As a result of this there were no definite figures for Indian expenditure as such, because there was no House of Delegates then. When the criteria were being discussed as to how these Houses would be funded, there was no formula at the time, but only a projected norm.

The projected norm was a level or a cut-off at one. If there is a level or a cut-off at one, the Whites would be at the one level and the Coloured and Indian communities would get up to the one level. Our counterparts, the Black community, also would come up to the one level so that parity, if at all, could be reached within a given year. It was not a 4:2:1 formula. That is where we are misinformed. There was never an acceptance of a 4:2:1 formula in relation to finances. It has never been so. It was expected that we would reach parity by the year 2010, if we had to carry out a given norm on which we were going to work.

I think I have explained this before, but I will explain again that my colleagues in the Ministers’ Council have taken note of what has been said in relation to their particular Ministries. When their Votes are discussed they will answer hon members.

It is not an easy matter for a Minister of the Budget or, for that matter, a Minister of Finance to foresee the exact expenditure of the State and, in this case, the Administration: House of Delegates. We work on an estimate and therefore we come to hon members with an Additional Appropriation Bill, asking them to give their consent to the expenditures for the year.

The point that the hon member for Isipingo made in regard to people like heads of department, executives, chief executives and directors, was well-made. If the presence of the chief director or directors in Cape Town causes any backlog or inefficiency at our headquarters in Durban, we must avoid it. However, as is required by the general affairs Ministers, the Ministers in the House of Delegates also need to be assisted. This assistance must be given in Parliament during the parliamentary session. Therefore their presence is needed. However, we have approached the Commission for Administration to look at the infrastructure of the House of Delegates with a view to expanding its personnel. We have addressed this matter. There is a need for certain additional people or officials who will bear the responsibility in Durban whilst our chief director or directors are in Cape Town. We shall not just act arbitrarily in this matter. We shall ask the Commission for Administration that is there for that purpose, to investigate the matter. No arm of the Government or any administration will do anything without the proper permission of the Commission for Administration.

The hon member for Bayview spoke about agriculture. I said in my speech that an agricultural credit board will be established. A Bill in that regard will soon be before the House. However, with the concurrence of the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture, I have made provision for a reasonable amount with which the Indian farmers who apply, can be assisted. When the Agricultural Credit Board comes into existence it will help all members of the community who are deserving of aid.

The hon member for Springfield once again used his favourite word “short-changed” and said that we have been short-changed by R0,5 billion in relation to the House of Assembly. We are aware of the shortcomings of the formula as described in section 84—that is why I addressed it in my speech. In fact, all the formulas have not been finally agreed to. Therefore, when we motivate funds for our administration, recognition is given to and cognisance taken of our requirements. However, I agree with hon members that we are far from our actual needs because there is a historical imbalance. The hon leader of the majority party at one stage explained that there is a valley.

We have been deprived of and denied our rightful amenities, facilities and necessities in the past. We are addressing this problem and we will do our very best to improve the situation. In the next estimate we would like to see increases in the funds allocated to us.

The hon member for Lenasia East has always doubted the administration. He has made certain allegations with regard to education, housing etc. I think that any hon member who has anything to say or any irregularity to point out is at liberty to do so in writing to the hon the Acting Chairman of the Ministers’ Council or to the Director-General in the House of Delegates. Hon members should rather do that than coming to this debate and saying things here purely for the sake of rhetoric and to make some contribution in the House. Hon members should rather write about specific matters to the hon the Acting Chairman of the Ministers’ Council or to the Director-General so that these matters can be looked into.

I want to thank the hon member Mr Thaver for his contribution. I also want to say to him that when we find that the opposition parties want to make some allegations against us in the majority party we must act in a manner that will humble them and raise us. [Interjections.] I do believe that the hon member Mr Thaver has done a good job and I would like to thank him for his contribution.

I now come to the hon member for Lenasia West. My colleague the hon the Minister of Health Service and Welfare has given him the necessary explanation.

I agree with the hon member for Tongaat that any budget should take cognisance of the inflation rate and its possible escalation. The budget that I have presented here has taken the inflation factor into consideration.

In regard to the growth point situation I want to say that it is a general affair but certainly we in the Ministers’ Council are aware of the unemployment situation being a result of the decentralisation of industries. At every possible opportunity we have presented a case for the retention or the increase of industries in those areas.

I want to thank the hon member for Havenside for the compliments he paid me and my hon colleagues on the budget. With regard to the land that falls under the ownership of the House of Delegates, I want to say that the Housing Development Board is in fact now the owner—the land is in its name. Every effort is being made to expedite the development of these areas. My hon colleague has taken note of this matter.

The hon member for Stanger referred to the dental faculty at the University of Durban-Westville. The officials of the Department of National Health and Population Development have visited our site and looked at our plans. They have made certain suggestions that the establishment should comply with the norms set by the department.

They have gone beyond the agreement reached between the House of Delegates and the Treasury. We now have a certificate from the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development that the usual norms which should have applied have been set aside. The House of Delegates has received a special dispensation that they can build the dental faculty. I think we shall soon see some progress.

I want to thank the hon members for Isipingo, Southern Natal and Bayview and the hon the Deputy Minister of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture for their contributions. I also want to thank the hon member for Red Hill—I know parity in pensions is always a pet subject. The issue here is that he is the chairman of the committee established by my hon colleague and we are expecting a recommendation from that committee.

The hon member for Springfield spoke of ministerial manipulation. I do not know where this manipulation comes in when decisions are taken by the members of the Ministers’ Council. It is a decision of the Ministers’ Council. Whether it is a policy decision or whatever, the line functions are those of the Ministers and no Minister, as has been pointed out by the James Commission, interferes with another Minister’s functions.

I found that the hon member for Springfield was losing his cool in this debate. I just want to tell him that one should refrain from using such hard language against a former hon colleague. I think “lust for power” etc are not words that should be used in this august House.

I want to thank the hon member for Glenview, the hon the Acting Chairman of the Ministers’ Council and the hon member for Mariannhill for their contributions. I want to repeat that if the hon member for Mariannhill knows of any “goings on”, as he calls it, in the Ministry of Education and Culture he must please be specific. If he points this out to the hon the Minister he will address the problem.

The hon member for Cavendish suggested changes in structures and I agree with him. Therefore, I said earlier that the Commission for Administration has been approached for an expansion of our infrastructure in relation to personnel. I agree with him that we must not live in the past, but that we must forget the past. We must go forward and see how we can best serve the people we are expected to serve in the best interests of our community.

I would like to end by again saying thank you to every hon member for their understanding of the budget and the constraints and limitations placed on me as Minister of the Budget. I can assure hon members that in my personal discussions with the hon the Minister of Finance I have, to the best of my ability, motivated the case for extra funds to be made available to the House of Delegates. However, the state of the economy does not permit even the central Government that consists of the general Cabinet Ministers as well as those from the other Houses, to receive funds to the full extent to which they are requesting such funds. Therefore, I want hon members to show some understanding on this matter. Next year, hopefully, we will do our best—that is if I am still the Minister of the Budget—to serve our needs to the fullest extent.

I do not want to be misunderstood when I say that it is time now for hon members in this House to forget petty bickering or attacks on one another. Let us all apply our minds to what we have come here for. Let it not be said that an election will be the answer to the problems of the House of Delegates. If an election is held, I want to be the first one to say that I want to go and give an account of my participation in this House to those who have sent me here. An election is the best test of how the people outside see us. Hopefully this will perhaps be the last speech of mine as the Minister of the Budget. I am praying that this will be my last speech as the Minister of the Budget, because I want to give account to and put myself to the test before my constituents.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a first time.