Order! I have to announce that Mr Speaker has called a joint sitting of the three Houses of Parliament for Thursday, 19 February, at 14h15 for the delivering of Second Reading speeches on certain bills.

laid upon the Table:

1. (1) (a) Additional Appropriation Bill (House of Assembly) [B 51—87 (HA)]—(Minister of the Budget and Welfare).
2. (b) Certificate by the State President in terms of section 31 of the Constitution, 1983, that the Bill deals with matters which are own affairs of the House of Assembly.
3. (2) Admission of Advocates Amendment Bill [B 54—87 (GA)]—(Standing Committee on Justice).

as Chairman, presented the Report of the Select Committee on the Constitution, dated 16 February 1987, as follows:

as Chairman, presented the Third Report of the Standing Select Committee on Trade and Industry, relative to the Trade Practices Act, 1976 (Act 76 of 1976), dated 17 February 1987, as follows:

Your Committee furthermore begs to report that it is of the opinion that the following important principles should be addressed:

1. (a) The encompassing function of the existing Competition Board with regard to harmful trade practices and consumer protection;
2. (b) the appointment of committees of the Competition Board to investigate and deal with matters related to consumer protection;
3. (c) the co-option of members of all race groups strictly on merit to serve on the said committees;
4. (d) the availability of appeals to the courts; and
5. (e) the strengthening of the position of the Consumer Council to ensure greater effectiveness of the Council for the consumer.

as Chairman, presented the Third Report of the Standing Select Committee on Finance, dated 17 February 1987, as follows:

Bill to be read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Before I address the House on the Part Appropriation Bill, I should like to make a statement about social pensions and grants. The amount of R29 933 800 which was made available to the Administration: House of Assembly for the 1987-88 financial year by the Minister of Finance to complement the existing social pensions and grants, will be utilised as follows with effect from 1 October 1987: Social pensioners and parents who receive grants will receive an additional amount of R20 per month. Beneficiaries will therefore receive an amount of R218 per month as from 1 October as against the amount of R198 they receive at present. Foster parents’ grants will be increased by R20 from R133 per month to R153 per month, and children’s grants will be increased by R7 per month from R59 per month to R66 per month. Financial provision has also been made to adjust the means test in terms of these concessions as from 1 October 1987. Single care allowances and grants payable in terms of the Mental Health Act, 1973, will also be increased by an amount of R20 per month from R198 to R218 per month.

Mr Chairman, I want to start by moving an amendment, which reads as follows:

1. (1) the system of government portion of which is sought to be financed by this legislation is not conducive to good race relations in South Africa and has resulted in additional unnecessary bureaucracy and expenditure of the taxpayer’s money; and
2. (2) the ineffective administration and policies of the National Party, members of which constitute the Ministers’ Council of the House of Assembly, have contributed to the highest levels of unemployment, inflation and political instability in South Africa within living memory.”.

I want to say right at the outset that each one of these things can be proved beyond question. There is no doubt that the tri cameral system as it exists at the moment has certainly not been conducive to good race relations in South Africa. Up to the present time, even as we sit in this House today, no formula for the bringing of Black people into the central Government of South Africa in a manner acceptable both to the Government and to the Black people has been put on the Table. Not even negotiations to establish such a formula have been commenced.

Not by the PFP either.

The remarkable thing about the hon member for Mossel Bay and the reason why he is better off when he is sitting where you are sitting, Mr Chairman, is that he actually does not know that the PFP is not yet the Government of the country. Unfortunately for all of us the NP is actually still the Government.

The second aspect in our amendment to which I want to refer is the question of the unnecessary bureaucracy and the expenditure of taxpayers’ money. It is not only I who believe that there is this unnecessary expenditure; I want to read from a publication that the hon the Minister of Finance is so fond of quoting, the Financial Mail. I read from the issue of 30 January:

The fact of the duplication of services and the fact that the taxpayer is paying unnecessary money for a system that does not work and has brought instability to this country is therefore to my mind beyond question.

I now want to challenge the NP and in particular the hon the Minister of National Education as the leader of his party in the Transvaal—I have quite a lot to say about him in the short time available to me—to deny that the Government has brought about and contributed to the highest level of unemployment that South Africa has ever had. Is it not a fact that we have never had unemployment as high as now and during 1986? They have therefore achieved peaks of unemployment never seen before in South Africa.

Secondly, they have achieved peaks of inflation never seen before in living memory in South Africa. Thirdly, we have had instability in South Africa to an extent that we have never seen before. If that is not so there is no reason for the state of emergency in accordance with the argument of the NP. This is therefore perhaps one of the most accurate and best motivated amendments that one could have, the South African situation being what it is at this particular time in our history.

I now want to deal with a few things which arise from the hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare’s speech. The first is the question of the increase in pensions. What I find remarkable—I said this in the debate on the general affairs Part Appropriation Bill—is that it is announced now in February for October. What is even more remarkable is that the amount of the increase is well below the inflation rate of 1986! I do not know whether the hon the Minister knows what the inflation rate was in 1986; by the end of the year it was in excess of 18% and close to 19%. On the other hand the increase given to social pensioners, if my calculation in the short time that I have had since he made this announcement is right, is only about 10%. How does he expect people to keep up standards when the poorest of the poor will receive an increase in social pensions of 10% and when the inflation rate is at the level that I mentioned? It is absolutely ludicrous to have that expectation.

The hon the Minister made another remarkable point in his long speech. The hon the Minister is quite a nice fellow but with due respect to him I have to say that he seems to use a lot of words to say exactly nothing. We are talking here of a formula for the allocation of money to the three different administrations and to general affairs. We have been waiting for this formula for literally years and years—ever since the tricameral system was instituted. Talking about the formula the hon the Minister said the following:

May I ask the hon the Minister why he is keeping the formula as to how money is going to be apportioned among the three administrations and general affairs a secret till after the election? Is he afraid of the CP or is he afraid of us? Or does he not know what the formula is? [Interjections.] I think he should make up his mind as to whom he is afraid of because he is definitely afraid of something. [Interjections.] If it is going to be presented to Parliament later this year somebody should know that formula. I challenge the hon the Minister to get up in reply to this debate and tell South Africa what the formula is that has been worked out. Let us know what is being done and let us know what is taking place in South Africa. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister also spoke of his support for privatization. The hon the Minister may wave his arms around but that is not what I want—I want the formula.

Make your speech!

I want his formula— I do not need his rude remarks.

Please carry on!

Do not worry, I will make my speech. Because the hon the Minister is rattled it does not mean that he can start making rude remarks. [Interjections.] Do not make rude remarks.

The hon the Minister then spoke of privatization. Let us therefore talk of privatization and let the hon the Minister give us one example of privatization which he has brought about in this administration. I am not referring to general affairs—let him give us one example of privatization in the Administration of the House of Assembly. The hon the Minister laughs. Laughing is private sure, but other than laughter let him give us an example of privatization. [Interjections.] There is only talk of privatization in South Africa but in reality no privatization is taking place in the country.

You are just a little man!

What is the matter with that hon member?

I said you were a little man. Do not be so petty.

Because he cannot answer the question he starts talking about pettiness. However, let us talk about pettiness and this is where I want the hon the Minister of National Education to listen.

I want to ask him a very simple question: Does he believe—he must listen very carefully—that I support the ANC and that my support for the ANC has been well-displayed in my speeches?

I have never said that.

I am asking him if he has said that.

I have never said that.

That is what his people are saying in the Yeoville constituency as part of their election campaign. [Interjections.] I have proof of it and I will challenge the hon the Minister. The hon the Minister has personally taken it upon himself—this information comes from his own ranks—to insist that the NP should put up a candidate in the Yeoville constituency even when his people said they did not want to fight there. Is that not true?

Do you not want to fight?

The hon the Minister now comes with a smear campaign to try to link me to the ANC. I want to challenge him if he has the courage to do it—I choose these words very carefully and they come from his material …

Order! I advise the hon member to tackle the people.

The people?

Yes.

Of which people are you talking, Sir?

The people who are accusing the hon member of that.

There sits the leader of those people, Mr Chairman. He is the leader in the Transvaal—he is the responsible man. [Interjections.]

Let me ask him another question. Does he believe in upholding the independence of the judiciary and equality under the law?

Yes, it is our policy.

Right. Does the hon the Minister think I believe in it?

Yes, I am sure you share it with me.

Thank you.

Secondly, does he advocate the promotion of private initiative, free enterprise and effective competition on the base of a sound economy? Does he?

You know what our policy is.

What I am reading from is their own propaganda sheet which is a bunch of lies and untruths which they are foisting on the public.

Let me give the hon members another example. They ask a question and say that one supports the NP if one answers “yes” to it. The question is the following:

Does the hon the Minister believe in that?

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether he is offended at our opposing him? [Interjections.]

No, Sir. I welcome the election, but what I do not welcome is the personal antagonism of the leader of the NP in Transvaal and engaging in the smear tactics of linking people with the ANC.

That is untrue. [Interjections.]

That is what he and his party are doing, and if he does it outside of this House and I can prove that he is involved in it, I promise him he will have action about it.

That is untrue!

I am saying to you, Sir, that they are issuing material saying that all South Africans should participate in joint decision-making, but I want to know what is their definition of “all South Africans”. Does it include Blacks? [Interjections.] Where do Blacks participate in joint decision-making in South Africa?

Read my speech in the no-confidence debate! [Interjections.]

Let us go further. They say the following:

Is the hon the Minister allowing all South Africans to choose the structures? What is he doing? He is giving the people a bunch of untruths, and lies in order to mislead them in an election campaign where the real issues are the instability caused by this Government and the wrong application of policies and administration. The real issues in South Africa are inflation and economic mismanagement, and the fact that no one in the NP knows where their policy is leading to. Because they have no real issue they have decided to spend their time in smear tactics in seeking to link people with organisations which are banned in South Africa. That is despicable in the extreme.

Hear, hear!

Mr Chairman, I just want to tell the hon the Minister of National Education that he must not misunderstand the hon member for Yeoville. The hon member was actually looking for a bit of sympathy from the hon the Minister, because over and above the fact that this may be his farewell speech, this hon member got hurt along with his party. [Interjections.] Why do I say this? The hon member for Bryanston, who knows that hon member and his party far better than I do, is sitting here very close to me. Let me make this statement: If half of what the hon member for Bryanston has said about that party is true, I do not think it is worthwhile to enter into a political debate with that party in this House.

The hon member for Yeoville submitted here that the passing of this Part Appropriation would contribute to instability, unemployment, inflation and so on. The policy of the hon member for Yeoville’s party will cost the taxpayer far more than the NP’s policy is costing him, and it does cost the taxpayer something.

The hon member for Yeoville also asked us to spell out our policy in this debate. Now in debates thus far we have heard that there is ostensibly uncertainty regarding what is being envisaged by this party in respect of the political development of the Black people in this country.

This is own affairs!

Sir, the hon member for Rissik, who at one stage made such a fuss about the matter of a so-called colourless identity document, and after a short time made a complete about-face, must listen for a moment.

You are talking nonsense …[Interjections.]

No, there need not be any uncertainty regarding the direction in which the NP is moving with regard to the political rights of the Black people. [Interjections.] Those hon members would do well to listen patiently to a very clear explanation by the hon the State President of precisely what the policy is …

In which year was that?

This speech was made on 13 August 1986 during the federal congress in Durban. [Interjections.] What is the direction in which the NP is moving with regard to the Black people? The hon the State President said there were basically three policy directions which had to be complied with to do justice to the political rights of the Blacks. In the first place, like in the self-governing states, leaders—the hon the State President then refers to the Black city community—must

This is the first point of departure of the NP.

The second point of departure in respect of Black political rights is laid down by way of a question which the hon the State President asks:

Consequently in the second place what is at issue is the gaining of full autonomy by Black city communities. [Interjections.]

In the third place there is a policy direction which we have already partially implemented, and for which we are again asking a mandate, and this is that Black people must gain representation by way of participation in executive committees and regional services councils.

In the fourth place, what about the highest tier about which the hon members of the CP are so uncertain?

The State President.

What about the highest tier? Sir, we have spelled out our policy in respect of this matter very clearly. I am again reading out to hon members what the hon the State President said in this connection:

[Interjections.] I cannot believe it when hon members tell me they do not understand this. Do they understand that over a long period we have achieved a pattern of co-operation with the TBVC countries, for example, within the multilateral Development Board of Ministers? [Interjections.] If, after having listened to this clear message in respect of the political development of Black people hon members say that they still do not understand it, they will never understand it.

It is quite clear, yes! [Interjections.]

We would do well to see what the CP’s solution is. In respect of the Coloureds and the Asians they are in favour of homelands, or are they no longer saying that?

We are saying that, yes.

Consequently the CP is still saying that the solution is homelands. [Interjections.] Very well, let us see what these homelands look like according to their party’s programme of principles. Under point 2 the homeland idea is set out as follows:

The second point then goes on as follows:

All that the CP has, therefore, actually done is to give “group areas” another name, namely “homelands”. Then the hon members think that they have solved the problem.

I think that in the election this country’s voters will eventually realise that they must choose between three alternatives only. The first alternative is that of the PFP, namely power-sharing without a substructure of own affairs. Consequently there is no substructure within which the own community and population group can have control over its own affairs.

The second alternative is joint responsibility, joint decision-making on general affairs, own decision-making on own affairs—the alternative of the National Party. The third alternative is not the alternative of the Conservative Party. No, Sir, it is the alternative of the hon member for Sasolburg.

Jaap’s alternative!

The third alternative is that of domination and the recognition of the homelands. A choice will have to be made between these three alternatives. [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon members of the Conservative Party this. In due course the hon member for Sasolburg will realise the following: If he stays under the same political blanket as the CP for long enough he will discover their political curves. He will discover that the Conservative Party intends to take over the policy of the HNP, but not the HNP’s name or its leaders. The CP is opposed to that. But they will take over the policy of the HNP because it is the only alternative they can choose.

And you are now singing your swan song here!

The Conservative Party will swallow the policy of the HNP lock, stock and barrel.

Just be careful that nobody swallows you! [Interjections.)

Mr Chairman, I move as a further amendment:

1. (1) he will seek to have the House of Assembly granted constitutional power to levy taxes, so that it may once again develop into a sovereign legislative body for Whites;
2. (2) he will take active steps to improve the salary and service conditions of employees in the relevant own affairs departments; and
3. (3) he will endeavour to bring about the elimination of the imbalance in tax liability to the benefit of companies and other population groups at the expense of the White taxpayer.”.

Order! At this stage I just want to point out to the hon member for Brakpan that at present I am not quite certain whether the third point of his amendment is permissible. I shall reserve my ruling in that connection. The hon member may continue.

As you please, Mr Chairman.

Dawie cannot even levy a dog tax!

Mr Chairman, in his introductory speech the hon the Minister himself said that as Minister of the Budget he did not have taxation powers. That is, in reality, an admission that the hon the Minister and his party are conceding that they do not have a right to self-determination to the extent that we have always believed one should. At a certain stage last year the hon the Minister of Manpower announced that R600 million was being made available for matters involving manpower, ie for the training of the unemployed, for in-service training, for the establishment of facilities for the re-employment of the jobless and so on. What, however, do we find today? We have continually asked the hon the Minister of Manpower how that money is distributed amongst Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Black people. I now take it that this aspect, to which the hon the Minister referred in his Budget speech—that in regard to job-opportunities for those who have been unemployed for a long time—relates to the total amount of R3,8 million that has now been spent. Would the hon the Minister, at some or other stage, just tell us how much of that R600 million, to which the hon the Minister of Manpower referred, was spent on Whites? We should like to know that. We have been waiting for those figures for a long time now.

They no longer keep a record!

Mr Chairman, this Government wants us to believe that there has been an improvement in the South African economy, that there is going to be a positive growth-rate this year, etc. Let us, however, just take a note of what the United Building Society said, in November 1986, about our economic prospects for 1987. It said that the fiscal shortfall was going to increase to R7 billion. The Black unemployment rate was 2 million or 30% of the Black labour force. Eighty one thousand Whites, Coloureds and Asians were unemployed. 1 422 professional and technical workers left South Africa during the first seven months of 1986, as against 1 659 throughout 1985.

That, Sir, later increased to 1 200 per month, ie 40 per day, and that brought the United Building Society to the conclusion, and I quote:

Apart from that, bankruptcies increased by 26,2% from July to September 1986, compared with the same period during the previous year. In 1985 bankruptcies doubled, compared to 1984. In 1980 the lost manhours per thousand workers was 34, whilst it was 117 in 1985. Whilst the hon the Minister of Manpower was fiddling around here yesterday, the labour position in South Africa was going up in flames.

We have always learned that when a debtor asks his creditors for an extension for the repayment of his debt, that is an act of insolvency and one can have him sequestrated. The other day we listened to Dr Stals saying, on television, that he did not know whether there would be any further extensions in regard to South Africa’s debt to the monetary community. The fact that there are requests for a further extension in this regard is an act of insolvency. So Dr De Loor is correct when he says that technically this country is bankrupt. He will probably also receive a telephone call to rectify what he has done.

With reference to the hon member for Fauresmith’s speech, let me point out that I made enquiries at the NP information service this morning about the manifesto that was made public yesterday evening, with such fanfare, by the Botha Broadcasting Corporation. All I could get was Die Nasionalis of February 1987. That morning-paper of the NP states very dejectedly:

Is this not the opportunity, whilst we are gathered here, to publicise that policy? The hon member for Fauresmith speaks about the national council which will resemble a European parliament. Goodness me! He has not even encountered one Black leader of stature or credibility to come and talk about that national council. Does he know whether the various components of that European parliament have relinquished their sovereignty in such a parliament? What is going to happen here? Does he want us to relinquish our sovereignty to that Black national council or that mixed national council?

In this little NP document there is another interesting basic principle: The representation of all in democratic bodies. And therefore in Parliament too. That is all it means, is it not. This is contained in their manifesto, even if those hon members perhaps do not know it. Mention is also made of:

It is therefore being said that the Biesiesvlei location could become independent, as my hon friend from Lichtenburg has said. The biggest joke, however, is …

You will be the ambassador!

… that that party ridiculed the CP, saying that our policy of Coloured homelands would cost R8 billion, because we would grant independence to every Coloured area in South Africa. The hon the State President, however, is actually now saying that the metropolitan areas in South Africa can all become autonomous and, in time, can all become independent.

Such a patchwork policy!

Now the hon the Minister in the State President’s Office—I am glad he is here—asks how partition works. We must now explain to him how partition works. They, however, refuse to spell out this plan which previous national leaders have condemned as the most diabolic plan with which any political party has ever threatened South Africa.

But can you explain partition?

I am going to now.

It is amazing that the hon the Minister does not know what partition is. It amazes me, because it illustrates to me that that hon Minister has never really been a Nationalist. [Interjections.] I am also quite certain that he himself has never really been a Republican either, because if he says that the hon the State President is the greatest reformer in the history of South Africa, and he therefore does not …

I did not say that. I said … [Interjections.]

Dr Jan Hofmeyr of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of Cape Town expounded a great truth about that party:

Explain partition.

Yes, I am now coming to that. Partition works on the basis of the division of power so that each people or ethnic group governs itself in its own territory …

Where?

… in regard to every facet of … [Interjections.] Mr Chairman, could you please give me a chance to complete my speech?

Order! The hon member is making his speech.

I am saying that partition applies in regard to every facet of the national economy and does not require the consent of the other two Houses for a budget such as this. So much for self-determination.

The identification of the territory is a process that extends over a long period, as the hon the Minister himself knows, of course. The hon the Deputy Minister of Public Works and Land Affairs specifically said today, in reply to a question, that certain territories were still going to be incorporated into Qwaqwa and certain territories not. [Interjections.] That was also the course of events after the 1936 legislation. Even today that process has not yet been completed. Now the hon the Minister is asking me how partition works.

Your partition!

I want to give him a very fine example. Partition means only one thing. There is no such thing as our partition or any other partition. It is a question of the partitioning of a certain territory. [Interjections.] The difference between partition and power-sharing was strikingly illustrated a few weeks ago, because no State President of the Republic of South Africa would dare to give a leader like Chief Minister Buthelezi the kind of dressing-down that he accorded Rev Hendrickse the other day when he gave him a dressing-down and browbeat him. You see, Sir, the hon Rev Hendrickse is a victim of power-sharing.

Order! I think the hon member is expressing himself a little strongly when he says the hon the State President “browbeat” someone.

Very well, Sir, he gave him a dressing-down, and I withdraw the other word.

Demolished him! [Interjections.]

The hon Rev Hendrickse is a victim of power-sharing, but in accordance with the policy of partition Chief Minister Buthelezi is the dignified leader of a proud people.

The hon the Minister asks what costs will be involved. This CP project will cost less than this clumsy, impractical and unproductive tricameral system. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members are interrupting the hon member too frequently.

The hon the Minister says we unanimously accepted the proposals in his 1977 draft Bill. He should, however, just go back to the debates of April 1982. He should just have a look at Hansard, vol 100, col 4415. I do not have a great deal of time at my disposal, but here I have correspondence that I conducted with him. I was a member of that caucus.

I was there too.

The hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, who was the chairman of the Coloured Affairs study group, was also a member of that caucus, and the former member for Klip River was there too, because he was the chairman of another section—I think it was Indian Affairs. The hon member for Rissik was the chairman of the Internal Affairs study group.

And Indian Affairs.

We spent the whole morning arguing with the hon the Minister about this matter. So much so that I wrote the hon the Minister a letter. Here is my letter dated 26 March 1979 in which I told him:

The hon the Minister said here the other day that the Council of Cabinets could refer matters directly to the various Parliaments and could ignore the White Parliament. That is specifically the point on which I wrote to him. [Interjections.] Then I received this lovely letter … [Interjections.] No, I do not want to reply to a question. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member does not want to answer a question.

I do not want to ask a question; I just want to explain something.

Order! The hon the Minister may not explain anything now.

I then received a reply from the hon the Minister in which he told me:

He went on to say:

Then all members of the caucus approved this. [Interjections.]

That is untrue.

This letter from the hon the Minister was dated 5 April 1979.

On 20 March you approved it.

Subsequently there were no further meetings. As early as 30 March the House of Assembly had decided to appoint a select committee to examine the Constitution. There were never any further meetings about this matter.

The draft constitution was approved.

Then that hon Minister comes along and says he did not want to contradict Mr Vorster. [Interjections.]

Order! I know the hon member’s time is very limited. The hon the Minister will have an opportunity of furnishing an explanation at a later stage.

The worst thing of all is that he said that at the time he did not want to contradict our beloved former State President, because it was not convenient. Now, after his death, when the hon Mr Vorster can no longer reply, he contradicts him. He wants to join his State President in giving Mr Vorster’s widow a commemorative medal. Now he is prepared to contradict Mr Vorster. It is a disgrace to the political life of this country …

[Inaudible.]

… that an hon Minister can do such a thing. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member moved an amendment. Points 1 and 2 are permissible. I just want to tell the hon member for Brakpan that the third point is not permissible.

Mr Chairman, may I address you on that?

Order! I have already given my ruling and am satisfied that it is correct.

Mr Chairman, I do not intend to react strongly to the hon member for Brakpan’s speech. The hon member and the hon the Minister in the State President’s office are holding discussions on what happened in 1979. A question now poses itself: If, at that particular stage, hon members felt so strongly about those matters, why did the hon members remain where they were until 1982? [Interjections.] That is a matter hon members must settle for themselves. [Interjections.]

The hon member made a great fuss about his intention of telling us exactly what partition was. The following quite simple question was put to him: If there are going to be separate homelands, where is the homeland for the Coloureds going to be? The hon member countered with this interesting statement: “But, it is a process that takes time.” That hon member must now tell his CP followers out there: “Look, when we come into power, it is a process that is going to take time.” How long? A decade? Two decades? With whom is the hon member going to negotiate about that territory? [Interjections.]

Sir, may I put a question to the hon member?

No.

The last thing I want to tell the hon member is that hon members of the CP have repeatedly been challenged to tell us what their policy of partition is going to cost, but repeatedly they tell us what our policy is going to cost. Hon members of the CP do not have the courage or the facts to tell us what their policy is going to cost.

[Inaudible.]

That is all I want to tell the hon member for Brakpan.

I now want to focus my attention on education. Let me state that the 1983 Constitution gave substance to the concept of general and own affairs, as embodied, too, in section 14 of the Constitution, where definitions of education and of own affairs as such are furnished. This separation of general and own affairs is, of course, based on the reality of a multi-cultural society. I am afraid that quite often we fail to see this. As a consequence the education system must also be embedded in this same reality of life, because there are inextricable ties between education and society as such.

On the grounds of that basic point of departure, education must take into account the inter-dependence of the various population groups in the spheres of commerce and industry, national security and finance, and also the inter-cultural interests and the reality of daily contacts in a multiplicity of spheres.

That being true, it is equally true, in contrast, that the right to protection, the right to self-determination in the case of minority groups and the right to dissociation, alongside association on a wide front, should be taken into account.

Politics—I am not speaking now of party politics or politicking, but politics in the sense of principles—culture and education are shaped by a specific philosophy of life and a world-view of a specific people. Hence, too, the undeniable links between education and culture that come to the fore in the educational systems of all multi-cultural and multinational countries, and not only in the Republic of South Africa. Education—this is an internationally accepted fact—is after all the transfer of culture.

So it is important to purposefully pursue equal opportunities in the furnishing of education to all groups in this country. My hon colleague’s Department of National Education is already, by way of its overall educational structures, promoting communality in education in the Republic of South Africa and is contributing to the equal treatment and mutual understanding and respect the various population groups have for education.

On the other hand, own educational structures for the relevant population groups create an individual milieu within which each group does not feel any threat to its own language, culture, religion or educational ideals.

The new educational dispensation has, as its objective, the creation of structures within which effective education, culture-orientated education, with a Christian emphasis and the preparation of people for a complex society— this is important and we cannot dissociate ourselves from it— can come into its own. That is why the school also has a definite task in the creation of sound human relations in a multi-cultural society.

It is the responsibility of every school to prepare the pupils entrusted to its care for a society in which the recognition of human dignity is an essential prerequisite. [Interjections.] Nothing must be done to inhibit the achievement of this ideal. To that end the involvement and empathy of the parents and their physical presence at school functions, but more specifically their empathy by way of participation in statutory bodies, are vitally necessary. The devolution of authority to that level makes it essential for parents to be involved under all circumstances so that they can make their contribution to shaping the spirit and character of the relevant school, and also towards achieving this ideal of the cultivation of better human relations.

Since the inception of this department a great deal has been achieved in extending White education as an own affair.

The Government has again illustrated its seriousness about own affairs by granting, after a very objective evaluation, increased status to the Department of Education and Culture, as is apparent from the elevation of the post of the Chief Executive Director to a level equal to that of Director-General, whilst a post has also been created at the level of Deputy Director-General. To do justice to the own affairs nature and educational character of my department, and bearing in mind the historical nomenclature, it was decided to designate the former post as that of Superintendent-General of Education.

I have already referred to the fact that education and politics, in the sense in which I have defined those concepts, cannot be separated from one another. On the other hand, school premises and the classroom may never be abused for party-political gain. [Interjections.] Party-politics has no place within the school set-up.

Hey, Piet, what were you doing for so many years in your class? [Interjections.]

The school, with teachers in the classrooms and on school premises, carries out its task of educating people, teaching its pupils, with a view to their achieving academic successes at the end of the year. For that hon member, sitting their shouting at the back, let me say that we cannot allow education to be discredited by virtue of the abuses perpetrated by specific people in an effort to achieve party-political gain. That applies to the whole gamut, regardless of the party to which a specific teacher may belong. [Interjections.] I therefore make a very serious appeal to school principals and teachers to take note of this and to conduct themselves in public, particularly during the period of the election which is at hand, in such a way that they do not adversely affect their schools or education as a whole.

Are you now threatening the teachers? [Interjections.]

That hon member has threats on the brain. He also has many other things on the brain. It is no use reacting to that. [Interjections.]

Order! I see the hon member for Rissik nodding his head, but I just want to give him the assurance that he is not the only hon member making interjections. I am also speaking to other hon members. Please allow the hon the Minister to complete his speech now. The hon the Minister may continue.

When I say that they may not abuse their positions for political purposes, let me add, however, that this does not deprive teachers of their civic duty and responsibility to society at the party-political level.

What is more, apart from the guidelines I mentioned earlier, like any other citizen in this country, male or female, teachers have the right to be members of or to serve on the executive of a political party of their choice. What is involved here is that teachers at school should not abuse the educational milieu for party-political gain. [Interjections.]

I also want to say that over the past year my department has instituted an in-depth investigation into State expenditure on the universities under my jurisdiction. As a result I held discussions, from December 1986 to February of this year, with rectors and chairmen of the councils of all the respective universities on the rationalisation of the provision of university education. It appears that if universities are allowed to grow at the present rate, State spending will not be able to keep pace, unless cuts are made in other equally important sectors. If student numbers at universities continue growing, this would lead to the State subsidy per student decreasing significantly. Consequently certain steps were considered, and subsequently discussed with the university leaders, to restrict the negative trends in the interests of the universities themselves and of the country as a whole. The failure rate at universities, and the large numbers of students who leave university without obtaining any qualifications, indicate that the requirements for admission can he more strictly implemented. This would result in the more economical expenditure of State and other funds as far as the universities are concerned.

There is an imbalance in the numbers of students admitted to technikons and universities. For the sake of providing an essential technical labour force for the overall development of the country, it is necessary for a larger number of students to be channelled to technikons, without detrimentally affecting universities in the process. I have consequently decided on an overall restriction in the growth of the number of students attending universities. The steps being taken are aimed merely at undergraduates, since postgraduate training still has to provide for the high-level labour-force needs of the country. Regional needs will, however, be taken into account.

I want to make it very clear that there will be no interference in the sphere of university autonomy. Universities themselves will decide on the admission of students. [Interjections.] The State will, however, link its subsidy to universities to a restriction on the full-time or equivalent students in accordance with what the State considers to be in the interests of the country and the resources of the Treasury.

I should like to take this opportunity of expressing my appreciation for the high standard of service rendered to the country by the universities. I also appreciate the fact that the university leaders themselves have begun restricting admission, increasing admission standards and rationalising their institutions with a view to high cost effectiveness. I shall be issuing a Press statement about this matter.

What do have to say about Menlo Park?

In conclusion I should like to inform the House of the following: As a result of Press reports, the funding of education by private undertakings, with a view to opening up some public schools, was recently investigated in depth by my department. The conversion of a public school into a private school is a far-reaching step in the South African edcucational set-up, and we have given thorough consideration to the expected implications of this sensitive issue. In a multi-cultural society such as that in South Africa, however, private schools do have a right to exist, and they are therefore a recognised component in the provision of education. The opening up of public schools encroaches upon the principle of own schools, as embodied in the Constitution. It is clear that at present the country is in a phase of transition and reform. White education has always been a source of stability and security, and we should try to maintain this at all times.

It has therefore been decided, firstly, that for the present specific public schools will not, by way of sale or transfer, be alienated to private bodies; secondly, that bodies or persons who specificially want to make donations on behalf of private education are advised to give the money to existing private schools or to finance the establishment of a new private school; and lastly, that in due course the matter will be given further consideration when policy aspects relating to the preservation of the community fife of individual communities are discussed.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister spoke exclusively about educational matters, and I therefore do not propose to discuss his speech. I do, however, wish to make one point on that subject. Certain hon members kept on referring to Menlo Park. I would have appreciated it if he had given an indication of his view of the recent incident there, and had also told us how such a thing need not happen again, because there are ways of avoiding it.

You should have listened; I did.

Anyway, I do not want to get involved in educational matters, so I will just carry on with my main points.

The hon the Minister made an odd remark in his introductory speech on this Part Appropriation Bill. He said that the first own affairs Appropriation Act of 1985 amounted to R2 350 million and the second to R4,87 billion, and that this Part Appropriation Bill appropriates an amount of R4 billion. He said that this was indicative of the remarkable development of the Administration: House of Assembly over the short period of its existence. There may be other people who have different views on whether it is a remarkable achievement of development. It could be considered remarkable inflation or, in fact, a remarkable waste of money.

[Inaudible.]

Well, as I say, I look upon it as a remarkable build-up of bureaucracy.

Further on in his speech, the hon the Minister made the point that he felt obliged to draw our attention to the important principle on which consensus in respect of the financing of own affairs had been reached. I wonder if the hon the Minister would be kind enough in his reply to indicate with whom consensus was reached. He did not make that particular point clear.

At the outset I want to make it clear that, although we accept the principle of own affairs—we did so when we accepted the new Constitution—we believe that the present method of dealing with own affairs is totally hopeless. It is not satisfactory for two main reasons. The first is that it is an imposed system by the White Parliament and was not negotiated among the various race groups and thus lacks any real credibility particularly among Black South Africans. Secondly, the financing and control systems are far too expensive and complex. Nobody appreciated at the time that we were going to have whole new sets of ministries—virtually five or six for each House—when own affairs came into being. We in these benches, I might add, are still strong advocates of the protection of all cultural, language and religious heritage matters. Furthermore, we believe that any attempt to interfere detrimentally with those rights should be firmly suppressed but that the system for doing so should be negotiated among all groups and not imposed as in the present system.

It has already been demonstrated at the second tier that such a negotiated agreement can be achieved—I refer, of course, to the Natal-kwaZulu Indaba. We believe that a negotiated system would have credibility and would also be far less expensive and complicated than the present rather clumsy and profligate system that is now in operation. I am not even talking about the additional aspects of the system which are not yet operational but are in the process of being created. I refer here, of course, to the regional services council system, the main purpose of which, as far as I can gather, is to separate general affairs from own affairs in local government. This appears to me to be an attempt to create separate boroughs which will be racially oriented and will handle the own affairs of the race group that happens to live there whilst general affairs will be dealt with by the regional services council.

Apart from the fact that it is not going to be possible, we believe, to create very many local authorities which will be racially exclusive—incidentally this will negate the main object of establishing a regional services council—it will also be too expensive, it will not be supported by a large section of the population and it has certainly been strongly opposed by commerce and industry, incidentally, which is being bludgeoned into paying for this little lot.

Again it might be a fair question to ask: Who controls local government now? A little further on in the hon the Minister’s address he makes the point—and please excuse my Afrikaans which is not very good:

Again the question is: Who really controls local government now? One must remember that the government’s policy is stated to be the devolution of power.

In the past local government had considerable autonomy with the provincial executive having very limited control. If and when the new systems are fully in operation local authorities can be arbitrarily chopped up into ethnic boroughs proliferating the number of local authorities and the officials needed to run them. Some aspects are under the control of nominated Exco’s—I am merely trying to illustrate who really controls local government at the moment—while other functions are under the control of a group of Ministers for local government and housing—one in this House, one in the House of Delegates and one in the House of Representatives. Ultimately, however, they all come under the umbrella control of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning.

That is not the end of the complexities we will have in local government. Parliament itself has to pass Bills which can be held up in any of the three Houses. Indeed there are at the moment four local government Bills presently on the Order Paper, one of which was mooted more than two years ago. It is likely to be another year before it comes into effect. In passing let me say that I do not quite know how the local authorities are going to have elections in March next year unless there is some rapidity in the passing of the Local Government Bodies Electoral Bill. This has been delayed because it has received no support from certain of the other Houses. It may get the support in this House because the Government can bludgeon it through but it has not received support elsewhere.

I am worried about local government which is one of the more important aspects of government because it is close to the hearts of the people; they know and care about what is going on. I am worried that this system of own affairs is ultimately going to destroy the local government system as we know it and not replace it with something either as good or even better. I have sympathy with the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Works; he has a problem. It is a problem largely not of his own making. It is from another ministry that these Bills have emanated.

It is rather unfortunate that one has to speak this way on own affairs because we have no problem with the concept of the protection of one’s rights. However, we certainly believe that the Government has evolved a remarkably clumsy and inept system.

Mr Chairman, in his speech during the no-confidence debate the hon the Minister of National Education said that they—the NP—wanted as far as possible to preserve certain things, namely group security and an own community life, which included own schools and residential areas. When the bomb burst in Menlo Park, that hon Minister, the hon the Minister of Education and Culture and the entire NP collapsed and they did not take up the cudgels for the White man’s given right to decide whether he wanted to allow a Black to participate in a sports meeting at a White school. [Interjections.] Suddenly they were not there any more; there was no sign of them.

The leaders were the NP newspapers. Rapport, the old woman, was first in the line. It rushed to get at the school and the control board, knock them down and malign them. They went so far as to enlist the aid of all the left wingers, the boxers and overseas countries. If they had not been so quick off the mark, the ANC would have joined in too. They were a bit too quick for the ANC. It is an absolute disgrace that while we are talking about the interests of the White man here today, there is such flagrant and clear proof that the Government does not care a rap about the White man’s given right in his own schoolgrounds. [Interjections.] Now the hon the Minister of Education and Culture actually comes here today, after this has happened, and says that he has appealed to the school principals and the teachers not to practice politics in education in this time of crisis. Why does he not rather appeal to Rapport and all the other NP newspapers, with the exception of Die Vaderland. That newspaper at least whispered on page 3— softly so that the people could not hear it too clearly—that schools can refuse Black athletes. Only Die Vaderland did this. Other than that the entire NP Press and the party itself either stormed in and descended on Menlo Park or did absolutely nothing to protect the rights of the White man. Weaker and more useless champions for the White man’s given rights—even among hon members of the Government—than the hon the Minister of Education and Culture and the hon the Minister of National Education the White people cannot get. They are worth absolutely nothing to the White man. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member is being interrupted too often, particularly from the back, and also from my right. The hon member may proceed.

In this election campaign we want to tell the people that the Government is constantly soothing the White public with the one story that they can at least preserve their own group, their own culture, their own schools and their own residential areas.

But then a test was applied and the result was announced dramatically and worldwide, and this on the eve of the election. It was a simple case, where it was the right of the parents. If they wished they could have told the parents that we were going to hold an election in Menlo Park and get rid of the right-wingers. They were entitled to do that. We will take up their challenge—my five children all attended Menlo Park school—but then the Government must realise that they will be taking politics into the schools. We in our turn will appeal to the teachers willing to do so and tell them: Talk Afrikaner Nationalism, talk about the White man and attack the Government in the classroom when it comes to the pinch, because the Government did not protect your rights. The Government is a bunch of milksops (“ou meide”); that is all I can say about them. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member must withdraw that.

The Government is a bunch of weaklings!

Order!

Mr Chairman, I withdraw that word. [Interjections.]

You are an absolute disgrace!

Order! The hon member for Kimberley South cannot say that the hon member for Sasol burg is a disgrace. He must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, but he is disgraceful!

Order! The hon member must withdraw it unconditionally.

I withdraw it, Sir.

Mr Chairman, I do not want to deign to sink to the level of the hon member for Sasolburg. [Interjections.] One thing is certain: The hon member for Sasolburg is very worried about his seat. The speech he made here this afternoon was one of his farewell speeches. [Interjections.] My time is really very limited.

†Unfortunately I do not have time to react to some of the comments made by the hon member for Umbilo this afternoon but I would like to thank him for the co-operation which I have received from him over the years, and I wish him well.

*Because my time is so limited, I want to use the opportunity this afternoon to concentrate on one specific subject. I broached the subject, the question of rent control and associated matters, in the discussion of my Vote last year as well. I want to make use of the opportunity to broach certain matters which I regard as being important in connection with the phasing out of rent control.

†At present rent control is only applicable to those premises which were occupied by tenants before 21 October 1949 or premises occupied by tenants who have been identified as protected tenants on account of their limited income and their continuous occupation of such premises. The Government decided as far back as 1977 in response to the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry into Housing Matters that rent control should be phased out.

In its Third Report which was tabled on 9 July 1984 the Select Committee on Rent Control recommended that the phasing-out programme should be proceeded with in cases where the tenants were not in need of protection. I indicated during the discussion of my vote on 21 May 1986 what steps would be taken to give effect to these recommendations. I would like to refer hon members to Hansard, col 6177 of the same date.

These steps have since been attended to and a strategy has also been formulated whereby the further phasing-out programme will be commenced during February 1987 on a priority basis from area to area.

*The Interdepartmental Committee of Inquiry re Rental Formulae and Conditions of Sale of Housing financed by the State also had to investigate the revision of the level of income at which one can qualify for housing assistance from the Government. That committee recently gave an indication with reference to the proposed new income level. As a result of the possible connection between the two income levels it was possible to decide on the income levels in respect of rent control fairly recently.

To keep in step with inter alia the increase in the cost of living, income levels according to which a tenant would qualify as a protected tenant in 1983 have been increased to R850 per month for a married person and R450 per month for a single person. The Ministers’ Council of the House of Assembly has decided to adjust these income levels once again. The necessary preparation for implementing the decision has been done meanwhile.

†To ensure the continued protection of those who are lawfully in occupation of premises subject to rent control and who really need protection, it has also been decided that the phasing out of rent control will not affect the following persons for as long as they occupy the specific premises continuously and as long as their incomes do not exceed the following determined limits:

Firstly, married tenants or tenants with dependants who have a gross monthly income not exceeding R1 250. The gross monthly income is regarded as the combined income of husband and wife.

Secondly, single tenants without dependants with a gross monthly income not exceeding R750.

Furthermore I would like hon members to take note that all tenants of rent-controlled dwellings who are 70 years of age and older will, regardless of income, enjoy lifelong protection against exploitation and arbitrary ejectment subject to their occupying the said dwelling continuously.

*A proclamation which makes the above-mentioned qualifications applicable to protected tenants will appear in the Gazette on 20 February 1987.

The phasing out will be effected in order of priority in areas of an administratively manageable size. As soon as it is an area’s turn, questionnaires will be sent to all the tenants of premises in that area which are still subject to rent control in terms of Rent Board records, in order to determine which tenants qualify for continued rent control protection. On completion the questionnaires can be sent post-free to the relevant regional office of the department at the address which will be made available to tenants with the questionnaires.

Questionnaires in respect of the first areas in which the further phasing out will take place, will be sent on 20 February 1987 or as soon as possible after that date. Once the information that is received has been processed, the exemption of dwellings in the area will take place by means of an announcement in the Gazette. The same process will be followed with the remaining areas as soon as possible after this.

If a residential unit is exempted from rent control, the following will apply:

In the first place, a lessor may not require the lessee to vacate the premises within three calender months from the date of exemption unless such vacation is required on the basis of non-payment, misconduct or other circumstances for which section 28 of the Act provides.

In the second place, a lessor will not be allowed to increase the rental by more than 10% per annum within two years from the date of exemption.

Rent control is not being extended by these measures, since persons who occupy premises which are not subject to rent control at present will not qualify for protection in terms of the revised qualifications. If a lessor were at any time to increase the rental in such a way that exploitation can be proved, that residential unit can be placed under rent control once again.

It is important to make sure that the Rent Control Act is maintained, but I trust that the measures I have announced will contribute to increasingly suitable rental accommodation being made available by the private sector. At the same time these steps serve to confirm how earnest the Government is in its intention to protect those who need rent control protection.

I shall release a comprehensive Press statement about this matter.

Mr Chairman, the recommendations made by the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Works are to a large extent in keeping with what our committee recommended. However, since the existing limits have been applied since 1983, I would prefer to see the limits for married couples fixed not at R1 250 but R1 800, and for single people at R1 000.

I am also just a little disappointed that the hon the Minister has not seen fit to accept one very important recommendation, namely one concerning the people who are given notice on the understanding that improvements to the building are going to be made, and who have to vacate the building on six months’ notice. The existing provision has been totally abused and we have asked the hon the Minister to amend the Act so that the abuse can stop. People do not go back to those premises after six months. I hope the hon the Minister will do that soon. I do welcome the fact that the Act itself is not being phased out because although we are at the moment going through a period in which there is a lot of accommodation, we must remember that times can change. At a later stage we may be short of accommodation.

That brings me to the subject matter I want to deal with today. South Africa today finds itself in a Catch-22 situation. On the one hand we have a highly trained and well-equipped defence force, backed by the police, but under the direction of an intransigent Government. On the other hand we have a large Black population in which there are militant pressure groups seeking political rights in South Africa. They are increasing their pressure but, because of the forces against them, there is no way in which they can overcome this Government by force. So, we are locked into a kind of Catch-22 situation—the Government itself drags its heels on the question of reform while these people increase the tension and exacerbate the terrorism that goes on in South Africa.

The solution to this lies purely in the hands of the Government. They will find the solution if they do away with discrimination and if they abolish apartheid completely—not only de jure but also de facto, ie as far as every single aspect of apartheid in this country is concerned; and if they create equal opportunities for all persons in this country insofar as education, work and residential accommodation are concerned.

Everyone in the country is worried, and with reason, Sir. There can be no doubt that the pace of reform will dictate the pace at which peace and prosperity will be achieved in South Africa. It is clear that this Government has failed to bring about the necessary reform. That is why tension has increased. The Government lacks vision and direction.

In this atmosphere the hon the State President has called an election. One would have thought that there would be clear reasons as to why an election is to take place. One would want to know what the people in South Africa are to vote on and what mandate the Government is seeking.

Is the hon the State President really a man of his word? Does he carry out what he says? All we have to do to find out is to refer to the NP’s federal congress which took place in Durban in August 1986. I quote from a booklet issued by the NP in which, dealing with the question of dialogue, the hon the State President says:

Sir, where are the intended drastic changes to the Constitution? Why are we having an election at this stage? If drastic changes are to come, we can understand this but no drastic changes are envisaged.

Let us now look at the statements made by the hon the State President when he opened this session on 30 January. In his opening address he gave reasons for the coming election. What did he say? I quote:

*The hon the State President went on to say …

Do you agree with that?

That is not the point.

*The hon the State President said that young people should have a say in decisions about the future. He went on to say:

Where is the information about those steps? What are the steps that are going to be put to the electorate?

†The no-confidence debate is over and this debate is nearly finished. We are faced with an election for all three Houses in two years’ time, but now we also have to face the expense of the coming election for this House. [Interjections.] In 1981 the hon member for Green Point put a question to that side of the House, asking what the Government’s estimate of the cost of a general election was. The reply was that the cost would amount to approximately R2 600 000. In today’s terms that will be R10 million. If every member spends R30 000 on an election—there are 176 constituencies— the expense will amount to R10 million. If there is more than one candidate in a constituency—and there is—we are looking at an expense to this country of R50 million to run this election. [Interjections.]

An election is to take place in two years’ time, while we still have no idea what mandate the Government is looking for, why an election is to be held in May and why the country must go to this expense in the current economic climate. What is this all about, Sir? I cannot understand it. [Interjections.]

On the other hand, if the Government decides to …

Are you afraid? [Interjections.]

Oh, Sir, I have that hon Minister and many others to fight against ; we will see who wins. [Interjections.]

If the Government should, however, clearly state in respect of which issues it seeks a mandate everybody will know what we have to vote for. In that case we will be happy to fight an election because then we will know what it is all about and what the Government has in mind. At the moment we do not know that at all.

Furthermore, a great deal has been heard lately about the Group Areas Act, about the question of proportional representation and the so-called “Staatsraad”. We do not know of course what this “Staatsraad” is going to be. In this relation the Government can offer us nothing but vague “riglyne”. Therefore, Sir, if there was going to be drastic changes in the Constitution the Government would have to consult the Coloureds and the Indians too, because this affects everyone. Since the Government has decided not to consult the Coloureds and the Indians we must conclude that there will be no drastic changes, that no real mandate will be asked for, and that no real and meaningful changes will be effected in South Africa.

As far as the Group Areas Act, which forms part and parcel of the whole political scene in this country, is concerned the National Party is shirking its responsibility in relation to the issues of residence and education, particularly in regard to residence. What they have done is to allow grey areas to develop in places like Hillbrow, Jeppe, Mayfair and other parts of South Africa. Grey areas are illegal areas. The Government countenances illegal areas. The Government therefore finds itself trying to sit on two chairs. On the one hand there is the Group Areas Act which is not really being enforced. On the other hand the Government allows illegal practices to continue. So, where do the people stand? The Government has not faced up to its responsibility in relation to the application of the Group Areas Act.

There is really only one answer. The Group Areas Act must be scrapped in toto in South Africa. [Interjections.] That is the clear message received from all sources. The hon member for Innesdal told the British House of Commons committee that the Group Areas Act had to go. The hon member for Randburg resigned from the National Party as a result of the Group Areas Act. Mr Kurt von Schimding, who represented South Africa at the United Nations, was one of those who said the Group Areas Act had to go. Other people who conveyed the same message were Mr Justice Steyn, Mr Jannie Momberg and a sportsman such as Graeme Pollock. We in the PFP are also urging the Government to scrap the Group Areas Act completely. [Interjections.]

We believe that everybody should be allowed to live wherever he chooses and wherever he can afford to live. The President’s Council discussed the matter, and the indications from that quarter, according to Press reports, is that that body favours local option. I want to reject local option completely. The Government must face up to its responsibility. They must scrap the Group Areas Act and refrain from passing it on to local authorities or other bodies to decide whether it should be applied or not. There are strong pressures from all quarters in favour of the scrapping of the Group Areas Act, and therefore I say it should go.

In fact, Sir, a leader published in the Cape Times in connection with incidents on the Cape beaches during the Christmas holidays referred to the fact that the beaches had all been opened to all races. The Cape Times concluded that in spite of huge crowds on all the Cape beaches over the Christmas weekend racial mixing took place in a remarkable atmosphere of friendliness and tolerance. All the Cape beaches are open to all races, unlike those in Durban and Port Elizabeth.

And the Whites simply had to stay at home! [Interjections.]

I believe the hon the State President also said in Durban consideration could possibly be given to opening up the richer areas for all races but not the poorer areas. We reject that as well. The hon the State President declared himself in favour of a system of permits too. We reject that as well.

Now, Sir, I want to refer to the recent incident in Menlo Park in Pretoria. That was a most disgraceful and disgusting decision taken by that school board. Because they were entitled to local option they made that decision. I want to call on the Government to pass a law—an anti-apartheid law—stipulating that anyone who discriminates on the basis of race or colour will be punished. That should be done so that an incident of this nature will never be repeated in South Africa, and so that we in South Africa will not be disgraced and sport dragged into the gutter as before. [Interjections.] I deplore the attitude of the Conservative Party in relation to this issue. I deplore their standpoint in this regard, and I challenge the Conservative Party to state before the election whether or not they associate themselves with Eugène Terre’Blanche and the AWB and the Volks party. I want them to make a public statement in this connection.

In conclusion I want to state that South Africa needs a new deal. Therefore I call for a new deal of reform, of the abolition of apartheid and of a sharing of power on the basis that no single group will dominate another group.

Mr Chairman, this “new Prog” Government’s policy of power-sharing is aimed at wrecking or destroying sovereignty, self-determination and own affairs. Under a policy of powersharing there can be no question whatsoever of anything resembling self-determination or sovereignty for a specific people. It is a pity that the hon the Minister in the State President’s Office is not here, because I still want to have along discussion with him, until he is out of this Parliament altogether. In his absence I want to ask the hon the Minister in what constituency he is going to stand, so that we can tackle him there about all the things he has said.

For many years I was Chairman of the NP’s study group on Internal Affairs and on Indian Affairs. In his absence I want to tell the hon the Minister that never, during my period as a member of the NP, did any of that party’s study groups, congresses or whatever accept the policy of power-sharing. I want to tell this hon Minister today that we have not finished with him yet. The hon member for Brakpan has already spoken to the hon the Minister. I should like to tell him again what the previous hon Prime Minister, Mr John Vorster, said about him:

If Mr John Vorster said that someone was talking nonsense, that was one of the strongest ways in which he could, using parliamentary language, say that someone had told an untruth. I want to tell this hon Minister in his absence that he did not have the courage to say it whilst Mr John Vorster was alive, but it is typical of the NP to applaud a man who is holding the reins of power. The moment he is no longer holding the reins of power, however—they will do the same with the hon the State President—they spit on the memory of his achievements.

The hon the Minister says he does not know what partition is. Let me ask him where he has been all these years in South Africa. He is a Rip van Winkel. Does he not know what partition is? He should have been one of my first-year students so that I could have explained to him, in that first-year class, what partition is.

I want to mention three things to him. Partition in South Africa, and also throughout the world, can come into being into three ways. The first is by way of the historical occupation of certain territories by certain peoples. Most of the areas in southern Africa were partitioned in that way. It was the British Government, of which that hon Minister is a spiritual grandchild, which transformed the historical partitioning of southern Africa into a unitary State. This hon Minister and his policy in the NP is perpetuating the policy of British rule in South Africa.

The hon the Minister says he does not know what partition is.

I do not know what your partition is!

I shall go to Hennenman again and the hon the Minister can again set the police on me about what I have said in his absence …

It is a blatant untruth to say that I set the police on you.

I am saying the hon the Minister did do so. He set the police on me, and he did so under the auspices of his position as Vice-State President.

That is untrue!

I am telling him it is true. He should stand in some or other constituency so that we can tackle each other on that platform. He should stand in Rissik! Mr John Vorster said that the hon the Minister was talking nonsense. I am also saying, in Parliamentary language, that he is talking nonsense.

He does not know how partition came into being in South Africa? There was historical partitioning in South Africa. How does he think the Venda, the Zulus and the Shan gaans obtained their territories? How did the Whites obtained their territory?

And where is the Coloured homeland?

If the hon the Minister were to attend my lectures, I would tell him where it was.

The first principle is historical occupation of a territory. Does the hon the Minister not know that? Where does he think the Afrikaner obtained his land? [Interjections.] The hon the Minister was very brave when he was hiding behind his position as Vice-State President.

There is a second way in which partition can arise, and that is through physical violence, as in Pakistan. That is what the NP wants in South Africa. It wants to group a diversity of First-World and Third-World peoples into one constitutional dispensation. That would be the start of large-scale conflict in South Africa. The third point of the 1981 twelve-point plan said that there would be conflict, revolution and bloodshed in South Africa if power were shared with the Black people. Where was the hon the Minister when we held an election in 1981? Did he not tell his voters? No.

There was a third way in which partitioning could take place. It was the old NP policy to take the historical settlement patterns of southern Africa, restore the boundaries destroyed by British imperialism and thereby once again give peoples the right to govern themselves. That is self-determination.

I want to ask the hon the Minister whether he has such a short memory. He must go and ask the hon the Minister of Finance what he said during a previous election.

What did the NP say, this party which has become the party with the least credibility in the annals of world history? What did they say? Was the hon the Minister being honest with the voters of Kroonstad when he distributed this pamphlet amongst them and said that it was basic, that it was non-negotiable and that the NP had therefore always stood for sovereignty for every people? Did he never give that substance or significance? Did he ever think when he distributed that amongst his voters and said the NP stood for sovereignty for every people? If we in the CP now say we stand for the sovereignty of every people, he says he does not know where partition comes from. [Interjections.] We also said that the erstwhile hon Deputy Minister should not waste the money of the electorate, of members of the general public.

Secondly the hon the Minister had the following to say about self-determination:

He said that. Did he believe all this when he said it to the voters of Kroonstad? Did he believe it? There were guarantees for minority groups, own community life and own schools, but what is now happening at Menlo Park? They speak of self-determination, and a school, which wants to arrange a sports-meeting, decides how it wants to arrange it, but the moment it exercises that right which it has, according to the hon the Minister, leftist and radical leftist newspapers, make a mockery of these people’s choice relating to their own affairs. I want to tell the hon the Minister that his party has become a disgrace to the Afrikaner, to the Whites of this country. [Interjections.]

He said:

I invite him to spell out his policy to the Whites, to the Afrikaners. The NP must spell out its policy and tell the Afrikaner how it is going to involve 20 million Blacks without discriminating. How is the NP going to give them the franchise and the voting status that it accords to the Whites, whilst retaining the right to self-determination for the Whites? Surely the hon the Minister does not know what he is talking about? [Interjections.] Why did they not choose a party with a name a suited to their defeatist policy? Why do they call themselves a National Party? [Interjections.]

They say:

Did the hon the Minister believe all this when he said it? The hon the Minister must not think we have done with him and with the NP.

He opened a new radical left-wing youth organisation, Jeugkrag. He called it one of the outstanding youth organisation in our country and said:

What does this organisation stand for? It stands for the abolition of group areas, and a large number of them want to hold discussions with the ANC. I want to ask the hon the Minister what they intend doing with the Afrikaans cultural organisations. He no longer knows what is going on in present-day student political circles and amongst the youth …

I did not endorse their principles. They did not have their principles at the time. [Interjections.]

Yes, the hon the Minister conducted the opening ceremony …

He commended them.

… and commended them. He said they were representative of the youth of South Africa, but he did not know what their programme of principles was.

He extols people who have no principles.

Apparently the hon the Minister has been in the NP for years and obtained his promotion under the former Prime Minister, without ever knowing what he believed in. [Interjections.] I want to tell him that he is a member of an organisation of confidentiality. What is the subject of the latest circular which they received? That circular states that the major portion of the Government that the NP wants—it says, does it not, that this Parliament has served its purpose—can consist of Black people. Why do they not go and tell that to the inhabitants of the Free State? They do not tell the people. [Interjections.] They sit there, however, in their organisations of confidentiality where they have already decided to surrender. They have already decided that the survival of the White man is a thing of the past.

The Rapportryers state:

[Interjections.] Yes, I am first having a drink of water. I am drinking to the downfall of the NP. [Interjections.] The NP has destroyed every principle it ever stood for. It is now going forth and telling the public at large there is something called own affairs. When will the hon the Minister—he is now a senior front-bencher—stop trying to bluff the voters.

You said there was no such thing as own affairs.

But there is no such thing as own affairs.

Let me tell the hon the Minister that if one has an elementary knowledge of social an tropology, an elementary knowledge of what a people as an organism is, one realises that if that people wants to survive as a free organism, every facet of its pattern of life must be one of self-determination and it must have an own fatherland. The struggle of the Afrikaner and those Whites who joined the Afrikaner in his struggle in this southern land, has always been a struggle for self-determination and an own fatherland.

Where is the fatherland of the Coloureds?

If the hon the Minister is telling me that the Coloureds do not have a fatherland, does he want to say in the same breath that the White man does not have a fatherland?

Where is the fatherland of the Indians.

Does the hon the Minister want to say that the Zulus do not have a fatherland? The NP is writing off the White man’s own fatherland because the so-called Coloureds do not have a fatherland.

The NP, however, does not talk only of the Coloureds. The Black people are also going to be drawn into this parliamentary dispensation. What becomes of our self-determination then? What happens to the Whites’s own fatherland then? Now, suddenly, after a few hundred years, after the great trek and the Anglo-Boer War, the hon the Minister comes along and says that the Afrikaner, the White man, no longer has a fatherland.

The struggle in southern Africa for the surival of a people is only now going to reach its peak. This hon Minister has done what point 3 of the twelve-point plan states. The NP wants revolution, conflict and bloodshed in South Africa. The hon the Minister is free to go and read point 3 of the twelve-point plan. He will find it there. He distributed it amongst the voters. It is stated that if we introduced power-sharing with Blacks in this country we would have bloodshed, revolution and violence.

What was your standpoint when you were an old United Party supporter?

The hon the Minister must not refer to old United Party supporters now. The hon the Minister is even more leftist than Jan Hofmeyr.

Order!

The struggle in this country is in progress. We on this side of the House will not allow ourselves to be led, by a feeble NP, to abdication and the destruction of the things our forefathers fought for for many years. We shall go to the electorate and expose the NP for what it really is. We shall be returning. Five years ago the NP thought it was kicking us out of the NP and that as a so-called splinter group we would vanish from the scene.

In spite of many problems in this country, there is a rising, swelling tide of nationalism, a true and pure nationalism, which is not prepared to be engulfed in a Third-World sea. The CP will see to that. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Rissik posed as a very great Afrikaner here this afternoon. The sentiments honoured by him are honoured on this side of the House too, however.

But they are invisible!

The hon member is definitely not helping the Afrikaners by launching personal attacks on the basis and of the nature with which he did so this afternoon. We shall propagate the protection of the Whites’ position in this country with the greatest conviction from platform to platform, even under this dispensation. [Interjections.] My colleague, the hon the Minister of Education and Culture, gave a demonstration this afternoon of the development of educational matters, the end of divided control and the upgrading of the executive head of education. And this is a development of what is a cultural matter to the Afrikaner: Group-orientated and culturally linked education for every population group in this country. We shall continue with that.

The NP was also accused this afternoon of having a vague policy. When the hon member for Pietersburg spoke about the alternative, he said:

In the same breath the hon member for Lichtenburg came and said, according to the CP standpoint, “no additional land”.

Who said that? You are not telling the truth. [Interjections.]

It is in …

Where is it? [Interjections.]

It is in the CP’s Programme of Principles and Policy.

It is not there. [Interjections.]

“No additional land to the 1936 …” [Interjections.]

Read it!

It is here somewhere; I am just paging through this quickly. It is very definitely here. [Interjections.] The hon member made it very clear that no additional land would be made available for the development of Black states. They would adhere to the land quota in terms of the 1936 Act, he said.

Read it!

I shall read it to the hon member. I cannot find the place now, but it is definitely there. [Interjections.] I shall read it to hon members in a moment. Then they can laugh again. [Interjections.]

I should like to place on record the contribution made by my predecessor in respect of the development of own affairs as far as agriculture is concerned. He made an exceptional contribution, particularly in respect of the grazing strategy he established. I think it has had great impact and has contributed largely to the protection of one of our most important resources, viz natural grazing.

I also want to place on record that I shall do everything in my power in this connection to develop own affairs in agriculture as far as possible. I want to express the conviction that my ability to do so will be increased with the aid of the two hon Deputy Ministers who will assist me in this connection.

I now come back to the matter we discussed earlier, and read to hon members from the CP’s Programme of Principles and Policy (page 7, par 2.3.9):

[Interjections.] There we have it.

A number of attacks have been made recently on the aid measures that are being taken to help agriculture to survive. At present agriculture is in a survival stage, after all. The hon member for Lichtenburg designed an instant plan the other day. He said we should abolish the employment creation programme, because in that way we will save R1 000 million. He also said they had studied the Budget and that R3 000 million was being wasted.

That is correct.

They said that because agriculture was suffering at the moment, they could help agriculture accordingly because they would have sufficient funds. That is an instant solution. We have become used to the hon member’s instant solutions whenever he has a shortage of funds. I want to remind the hon member, however, that he also had an instant solution in 1976, when he had a shortage of funds to buy out trust land. [Interjections.] He said then we should buy land and pay the farmers on a 40% cash and 60% Government stock basis. Those Government stocks were paper, Sir, which cost the farmers millions of rands. They sustained losses amounting to millions of rands as a result.

Later, in 1980, we had to change this situation. Up to and including last year, the Government had to make payments to redeem these papers at face value. [Interjections.] That is how that hon member’s instant solutions work.

I shall give another example. In 1984, when we had a great crop failure, and when the farmers’ debt was developing, this hon member came to me and said we should borrow money from foreign countries. The interest rate at the time was 8,75%. Can the hon member remember that?

Yes, but I said you should have it investigated. [Interjections.]

Thank goodness, we did investigate it. I also informed the hon member that it was not the correct method. That is the kind of instant solution that hon member believes in, however. We do not quite agree, therefore, that these ideas will necessarily lead to the salvation of agriculture. [Interjections.]

As the drought conditions in South Africa developed, we adapted the drought-aid measures from time to time and also succeeded in keeping as many of our farmers as possible on the land, and in enabling them to produce. Almost R1 000 million has been spent on this in various forms during the past three seasons. Meanwhile the drought has worsened and has begun to gain an immensely strong hold on our farmers. Large scale production losses have taken place as a result— to such an extent that the farmers have had to become more dependent on external financing. At the same time, however, interest rates reached a very high level at that time, and the farmers’ debt burden increased from R5,78 billion in December 1984 to R11,11 billion in December 1985. There was an unfavourable combination of circumstances, therefore.

Various schemes are being instituted to cope with these problems. There are the Land Bank consolidation schemes—the so-called two-plus-20-schemes; the six year and 10 year debt consolidation schemes at cooperatives; interest subsidies on the production credit; agricultural credit schemes; phase aid schemes for the cattle grazing areas; and interest subsidies in respect of certain industries such as meat, milk, maize, etcetera.

Since the large scale introduction of these aid schemes, this assistance has had an ac ceptional influence. In the first place, the fact that the loans were granted to consolidate debt, prevented any shop-owners from causing farmers to sell out. In the second place the concession that the repayment period could be increased prevented land from having to be sold and the farmers’ most important security from being lost in the process. In addition a capitalisation of interest took place so that the farmers’ cash flow could improve in the process. Subsidisation of interest took place during this period, and in this way we succeeded to a great extent in keeping the farmers on their land to date.

South Africa is not the only country with agricultural problems, however. Farmers in the USA are also experiencing great problems at present because of the fact that land prices and export prices have collapsed completely. I read an article written by the agricultural advisor of a commercial bank in which he said that according to a recent edition of the magazine Time, approximately 30% of the farmers in the State of Iowa are being faced by bankruptcy. The most important causes of this, are, on the one hand the strong dollar which makes export products on world markets impossibly expensive, and higher interest rates on the other, which have resulted in a very low capital return. This does not happen only in South Africa, therefore. The South African farmers are experiencing the same problem in respect of their export products at the moment. The grain prices have collapsed. We have used all possible methods in an effort to cope with this position. The consumer is paying as much as R46 per ton at the moment to restrict these export losses, but meanwhile the market has dropped, and for as long as the market keeps on dropping, one will have greater export losses because one has to export more. South Africa is not the only country experiencing problems in this connection, therefore.

A whole series of unfavourable conditions has developed in agriculture and these conditions are destroying agriculture including its capital formation etcetera, in South Africa. That is why the hon the State President has decided to refer the whole matter to the Economic Advisory Council. The Economic Advisory Council has pointed out five problem areas. In actual fact it has pointed out 10 problem areas, but the five most important ones are the following: In the first place, world surpluses with resulting drastic drops in prices, especially as far as the grain industries are concerned; secondly, the drop in production as a result of drought. Hon members can have a look at the index figures in respect of physical volume. Rising interest rates at a stage when agriculture had become more dependent on external financing is the third problem area, and the fourth is inflation and the unbridled rising input costs. The average interest rate in 1985, after the application of the subsidies, was 18,5%. The consumer price index at that stage, was 16,2% and the prices of farming requirements rose by approximately 19%. The import of capital goods for agriculture has become tremendously expensive and at the same time there has been a drop in exports.

The fifth problem was the incorrect allocation and application of resources. We shall have to consider these five problems and a proper inquiry will have to be instituted in this connection.

The most important finding of the advisory council resides in the following, however: The private sector, the banking sector and industry realise the importance of agriculture as part of our national economy in South Africa. This has a further meaning, however. The advisory council’s finding also means that the rest of the economy has a greater involvement in the agricultural reconstruction programmes. All these sectors accept co-responsibility in assisting in the reconstruction programmes.

The adjustment of existing schemes under the budget that was announced, can be applied now—this is additional to the existing schemes—and we should be able to encourage survival in the process. New schemes have been added as well. The possibility is now being created for banks also to take part by means of subsidising production credit, and we shall be able to support agriculture further in this way.

I conclude by saying that the reconstruction programme of agriculture is not such a simple task, and that is why a five year scheme was announced in this connection. We plan to spend more than R200 million during the first of these five years. If necessary, further consideration can be given to that amount in future.

Reconstruction affects a large number of facets. It concerns the consolidatio of units inter alia.

Order! Hon members may not stand around talking in the aisles while an hon Minister is making a speech.

Mr Speaker, may I address you on your ruling? I think a little latitude is normally allowed to the Whips to arrange debates, as I have to on this occasion.

Order! I accept the hon member’s explanation, but I think he went a little further than his duties as a Whip required. The hon the Minister may proceed.

The department is making a study of the whole matter at present. We shall have to adjust the functions of the department in the process to render specific service in this connection, viz the extension of its services and of its extension services; in other words a service that is adapted to a reconstruction plan for agriculture. That is what we are going to work with, and I am sure that over a period of time we shall attain success and place agriculture on a sound basis.

Mr Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to follow the hon the Minister. From a practical point of view, it is very important that the own affairs agriculture portfolio has been combined with that of general affairs. There was too much overlapping in the past, and one welcomes the fact that the hon the Minister now has control of both portfolios.

I just want to touch briefly on one or two points which the hon the Minister made because I have a very short time at my disposal. He referred to the question of financial assistance. I am prepared to accept the fact that due to his efforts a great deal has been achieved for the farming community in an attempt to alleviate some of their economic problems and I have no hesitation in complimenting him on that particular aspect.

What worries me, however, is that we are going from one investigation to another. We had an investigation into protectionism some years ago. That gave way to an investigation into input costs, and that investigation has now been placed at the door of the State President’s Economic Advisory Committee. The question that one now asks oneself is: When are we going to reach finality in this process of investigation because the time is coming when we will really have to get the ship back on course? We have also had the Marketing Council investigating certain aspects of the marketing board system which I consider very important and I strongly support the move.

I want to deal with an aspect which is of considerable concern to me in the agricultural field. There is a dangerous trend rearing its head in agriculture at the present time in that there is an ever-widening gap between the price that is paid to the producer and the price that the consumer is called upon to pay for agricultural products. I ascribe this to the fact that the consumer on the one hand is absolutely punch drunk and the producer, on the other, tends to accept price levels more meekly now than he did a couple of years ago because of the very serious problems he faced with product surpluses. The result, as I see it, is that the producer and the consumer are now ideal targets for exploitation. I want to appeal to the consumer organizations as well as to agricultural organizations through organized agriculture to get their act together. They must monitor increases in the costs of foodstuffs. We know that whenever reference is made to the rate of inflation in this country one of the first targets to which everyone points is the increase in the price of foodstuffs. Unless those two groups get their act together the exploitation of the farmer and the consumer is just going to continue.

I want to deal very briefly with two particular products. The first one is milk. I think it is very apt that I should raise this now particularly in the light of the recent warning which the hon the Minister has sounded in regard to the price of milk. Incidentally, may I just say that I strongly support the statement that he made in respect of introducing price control should it become necessary.

I want the House to understand the true position and therefore I want to submit a few figures. Let us look at the price of milk in the Transvaal and let us endeavour to find out who the people are who are making the money. Is it the farmer or the distributor or even the retailer? For the information of the House may I give the following figure: Over the period of three and a half years from 1 July 1983 to 16 February 1987—which was yesterday—the amount that the distributor paid for a litre of milk increased by 14,45 cents of which the producer only received an increase of 11,9 cents per litre. Yet—and this is the significant factor—the home delivery price of milk over that same period increased by some 37,5 cents per litre to a total of 92 cents per litre. One needs to ask oneself: Who is getting more than their fair share of this cake? I could say a great deal about the price of meat and the high costs involved in the marketing of meat from the producer’s point of view but unfortunately time does not permit.

Finally, I would like to record our appreciation on these benches for the great work of the former Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply, Mr Sarel Hayward, for the conscientious and dedicated manner in which he ran his portfolio.

Mr Speaker, my time is extremely limited so the hon member for Mooi River will forgive me if I do not follow directly on his speech.

I am glad that the hon the Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply is here this afternoon because I too would like to wish him well in his new post and associate myself with his remarks concerning his predecessor, Mr Hayward, whom I held in high personal regard.

Last week the hon member for Bezui denhout told this House while he was speaking on the effects of sanctions how his own profitable fruit-juice export business to the United States had collapsed overnight because of sanctions. It is of course an unfortunate fact that the agricultural industry and in particular those branches that are dependent on the export market are exceptionally vulnerable to adverse political developments such as boycotts and trade sanctions. There is no doubt at all that without the export market many agricultural industries would either collapse or suffer grievous setbacks. I refer in particular to the wool, mohair, sugar, fruit and fruit-related industries. The combined value of those commodities is well over R1 billion.

Unfortunately none of these commodities could be described as being of strategic importance to any of the importing countries. Moreover the international market is often oversupplied and very competitive. This makes these industries particularly vulnerable. If this export industry should collapse as a result of sanctions it would have very severe repercussions indeed for tens of thousands of South Africans, Black as well as White, who are dependent on this export market for their livelihood.

The connection between sanctions, trade boycotts and domestic economic disorder is easy for farmers to make. However, the connection between sanctions and the policies of this Government is one which they have apparently been reluctant to make in the past. It is one that they are going to have to face up to in the future. Farmers in this country must know that as long as they support a Government which pursues a policy of racial domination and discrimination—in other words apartheid—they will be sowing the seeds of their own financial destruction. It is time that this message was spelled out to them clearly and concisely. Put at its simplest, South African farmers will ultimately have to choose between a society which is racially structured and poor and one which is non-racial and rich.

One must ask if farmers are going to succumb to what one could call the “pumpkins on the roof syndrome” which says: “To blazes with the political aspirations of Black and Brown people, to blazes with world opinion.” I have a good supply of pumpkins on my roof and would rather spend the rest of my life in poverty eating pumpkins than give in to the question of genuine power-sharing with other peoples of this country”. One sincerely hopes that they do not succumb to this negative and defeatist attitude. One hopes that our farming community will face up to the realities of political life in this country before it is too late.

One of the most serious acts of discrimination which is enforced by this Government and which is seized upon as a major weapon by those organisations intent on smashing our economy is the fact that Blacks are debarred from owning farmland in so-called White South Africa. It is claimed that the agricultural produce which is being boycotted is being produced by the apartheid system and the fact that little or no export produce is derived from Black farmers makes this a difficult argument to refute.

We believe the Government should remove all restrictions on the ownership of farmland as a matter of urgency. Those Whites who would raise objections about having Black freehold neighbours must be made to understand that ultimately this is the best assurance that they will have to enable them to continue farming as a minority group. It will mean—this is important—that Blacks have accepted the concept of freehold ownership as opposed to the socialist policy of state ownership and that Blacks are prepared to accept and be drawn into the free market and the freehold tenure system.

Increasingly the debate in this country is being drawn towards economics and the future of a market-related economy. Farmers have a great deal to lose if this Government’s obsession with apartheid causes the two essentials of successful agriculture—that is a market-related system based on freehold tenure system.

I wish to turn briefly to the hon the Minister of Education and Culture. I want to refer to the Menlo Park incident which we have heard about this afternoon. The responses of the hon the Minister of Education and Culture and the hon the Minister of Home Affairs were interesting. The hon the Minister of Home Affairs called this “a classic case of local option”. I would like to contrast this response with that of his colleague, the hon the Minister of Education and Culture, as well as the hon the State President, to a similar incident.

I refer here to the refusal of the Cape Department of Education to register a computer science teacher in my constituency because she was Coloured.

No local option!

Miss Gail Thomas was an exceptional graduate of Rhodes University and she was the only applicant for the post at the computer centre in Grahamstown. The school committees concerned interviewed her and found her entirely satisfactory. They therefore exercised their local option and said that they were happy with that teacher and that they were prepared to accept her.

Unfortunately apartheid backed by the hon the Minister and the hon the State President triumphed over this local option so that Miss Thomas is today without a job and the schools in Grahamstown are without a teacher. [Interjections.] This so-called reformist Government is so obsessed with apartheid that it would rather have children go uneducated than have them taught by a teacher not classified as White. Local option, it would appear, can only be evoked to enforce apartheid and not the reverse. So much for local option and so much for reform! It is a farce and as soon as South Africans come to realise this, the better.

Mr Speaker,

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak and for the time which has been allocated to me by the hon Whips of the Government. Unfortunately I only have a few minutes to deal with a large number of points and unfortunately there are many things that I would have liked to have dealt with but which I will not have time to mention.

In the election towards which South Africa is now proceeding the public will have to decide on a number of very significant matters. They will have to decide whether or not they will give the Government a mandate for further rapid real reform. I hope that they do so, and I hope that the Government responds with enthusiasm and determination to that mandate when it comes. South Africa will have to decide whether it is going to give the Government a mandate to negotiate the sharing of power with the Black community of South Africa.

Speak Afrikaans, Horace!

I shall do so with pleasure, Mr Chairman, not that the hon member will understand it any better!

†South Africa will have to decide where it stands on the fundamental matter of security. South Africa is going to have to decide whether it is going to associate with or tolerate the extreme left, on the one hand, or the extreme right, on the other hand. South Africa will have to decide whether at this stage it will bring together all the truly moderate forces in our country into one powerful, effective front, in order to offset the powers on the left and the powers on the right.

I believe that at this stage the vast majority of South Africans are moderate people, but unfortunately we are not organized. Unfortunately there is disarray in our ranks, there is squabbling about petty affairs and petty matters. While this is happening, the far left and the far right consistently and continuously erode the support base of the moderate centre.

The moderates must organize themselves on a commitment to three broad programmes, namely the programme of true liberalism, involving the true fundamental freedoms of choice, association, religion, expression and enterprise; the programme of true democracy—not “People’s democracy”, not democracy based on the Soviet style; and in terms of the concept of a truly free enterprise economy.

Using those programmes as a basis the vast majority of South Africans can be organized to present an effective bulwark to the far right and the far left.

I have just left the PFP. I believe that the PFP will have to decide for itself where it stands. The members of that party have to decide whether they are going to be part of the extreme radical left, or whether they are going to associate themselves with the moderate centre. As a founder member of that party and as someone who has dedicated 13 years of his life to promoting its fortunes and working for it, I reluctantly came to the conclusion that there were significant groupings within that party that were determined that the PFP should be part of the extreme radical left. [Interjections.]

Then why were you seeking nomination again?

In order to attempt to reform that hon member’s party from within! [Interjections.] I failed, and I am sorry. I failed and I apologize to South Africa for that. [Interjections.]

The PFP often, by way of rhetoric, denies that this is so. Unfortunately its actions speak far more loudly than its words. I can mention scores of examples. I have a large dossier which I have compiled of scores of examples of where the PFP’s actions have indicated where its sympathies, its true associations and its hopes lie. I cannot mention them all here now, but until 6 May we will have many opportunities to deal with that.

However, just the other day in this House the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central put a question on the Question Paper regarding certain moderate Black South African people who have travelled overseas in order to defend South Africa’s real interests.

Whom did they represent?

They represented their party, which is a moderate Black party. [Interjections.]

The deliberate, calculated intention in putting that question was that the Government should indicate in this House that those people have travelled with the Government’s financial assistance and to mark and to brand them as agents of the Government. [Interjections.] Does that party realise how despicable and irresponsible that action is? [Interjections.] Do they realise how irresponsible and despicable it is to brand people as Government agents when they know that, in the Black community, it could result in their being necklaced? Do they realise that by saying that it is in effect a death sentence for those people?

Sir, what is the sin of those moderate Black people? I know them. Their so-called sin is the fact that they are moderate, that they are Christians, that they believe in democracy and the private enterprise system and that they are against violence. Did the PFP ever question people who travelled overseas representing the revolutionary groups? Do they ever question where the money comes from to finance the revolutionary groups?

Is that taxpayers’ money?

No, when Libya pays through certain financial institutions in South Africa for the trips of those people, they are silent as the grave. When, however, moderate, responsible Black South Africans, who are exposed to threats to their lives and possessions, whose children are threatened every day with the necklace— people who cannot walk the streets because they are moderate and want to oppose the onslaught of communism—want to go out and speak on behalf of South Africa, it is portrayed as a sin which should be punished. They must be branded. [Interjections.]

†Sir, I can mention many things but I do not have the time. Recently the PFP Youth Movement decided to accept the principles of selective sanctions against South Africa; of moving away from the capitalistic economic system towards a social-democratic or welfare state; and of forging stronger links with more radical organizations such as the End Conscription Campaign and the United Democratic Front.

I was at a function about a year ago. A leading member of the PFP—she was a city councillor and previously a provincial councillor—and her husband had just returned from a pilgrimage to Lusaka. These people were eminent members of the PFP, far more important and senior than I was. The lady’s husband was the chairman of the PFP’s National Convention Alliance Movement. In the presence of a number of people they said those members of the ANC whom they had visited were all very fine gentlemen, including Joe Slovo, and that they could never be responsible for any terrorism. They said they were far brighter than anyone in the South African Parliament. Furthermore, according to them the ANC were not terrorists; the police were the real terrorists in South Africa. To end off, in a statement directed at me, she said there was also no such thing as a verligte Afrikaner; all Afrikaners were ver kramp.

You keep very strange company, Horace.

I used to keep very strange company but that has improved recently!

Sir, if you look at the documents being circulated within UDF circles—I cannot read all these things out to you—you will see that they give the game away. They say when the PFP calls for the release of Mandela and for the unbanning of the ANC, it is not a victory for the system but a victory for the people whose struggles have pushed the PFP that far. If I had the time I would have liked to quote from the many documents of the ANC and the UDF to indicate not that the PFP is a subversive party or that it is highly irresponsible but that they are becoming the unwitting agents—they are the useful idiots to whom Lenin referred—of forces which are directed at the destruction of South Africa. [Interjections.] When I say that, Sir, I speak on behalf of all moderate, responsible South Africans—not on behalf of the Government because they bear a heavy responsibility for the existing situation in this country.

Are you singing for your supper?

The ANC’s meeting with the PFP in Lusaka was, according to the UDF—

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has said that by the time the election takes place South Africa will have forgotten about Horace van Rensburg. I believe, Sir, that by the day of the election the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition may regret that he ever said that. I say this because if I should have any function in the coming election at all I hope it will be in order to go around this country to plead with South Africans to accept rapid reform—real, meaningful reform—and to give the Gqvemment a mandate to continue with that. [Interjections.] I also hope to be able to plead with the people to give the Government a mandate for the sharing of power … [Interjections.] … and to plead with the people to be vigilant against the forces from the far left which are attempting to destroy this country and everything which is meaningful and dear to us. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Bryanston will not hold it against me for not replying to his speech. I merely wish to affirm that I wholeheartedly endorse everything he has just said here about the PFP. [Interjections.]

I should like to express my thanks to the hon the Chief Whip of Parliament and all the hon Whips for the opportunity of being able to speak in this House for the last time this afternoon. I also wish to convey my thanks to the National Party caucus, to the hon the State President, hon Cabinet Ministers …

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Is it permissible that an hon member of this House—the hon member for Bryanston— should have thirty pieces of silver sent to him? [Interjections.]

Order! What is it the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central is trying to insinuate?

Mr Speaker, I am aware of the fact that this has happened.

Order! When did what happen?

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Bryanston is in possession of it right now. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Carletonville may proceed with his speech.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I should like to express my thanks to the hon the State President, to hon Cabinet Ministers, hon Deputy Ministers and hon members of the caucus for the splendid leadership, co-operation and support received from them during my period of service in Parliament. My thanks, too, Mr Speaker, to you and the Chairmen and Deputy Chairmen who also exhibited great forbearance in permitting hon members to wander somewhat from the point now and then. Furthermore, my hearty thanks and appreciation also go today to the officials for their unfaltering help and support throughout the time I spent in Parliament. I want to say here today that they facilitated and eased my task enormously.

As the award of salary increases to these people is now under consideration, I should like to request the hon the Ministers involved as well as employers throughout the Republic of South Africa to bear the high inflation rate in mind when considering salary increases for these people because our public servants are worth every cent they earn—and far in excess of that.

I should next also like to thank the voters of Carletonville for the confidence they reposed in me in sending me here. I thank them for that confidence they had in me. I have to add that the Carletonville corps of voters consists largely of workers; they constitute almost 80% of the total number of constituents in that electoral division. That is another reason why we know the workers of South Africa support this Government. [Interjections.] On account of the training and retraining workers receive today, I believe we may all be very proud of the corps of workers of South Africa. The workers play a far more important part than is immediately obvious.

The workers of South Africa help in the growth and the progress of the country as well. They have a large share in choosing the rulers of the country as a result of our democratic system. That is why the worker has supported the government of the day for 40 years because he has been aware of the genuine interest of the Government in the worker of South Africa. This Government has always had a soft spot for the South African worker.

At this point, when we are once again at the threshold of an election, I wish to point out only one matter to the Opposition in this Parliament. They are so apt to underrate the worker’s intelligence, therefore the worker will not support Opposition parties in this election again either.

Mr Speaker, thank you very much for the opportunity to voice these few words of farewell. My thanks to you and all those present.

Order! It has been brought to my attention that an hon member of the House or someone else sent the hon member for Bryanston this bag containing 30 pieces of silver—5-cent coins. Did an hon member of this House do this? If so, will the hon member please stand.

Mr Speaker, I sent it to the hon member for Bryanston.

Order! What is the insinuation?

It is usually reserved for people who betray their colleagues, Sir.

Order! I am not prepared to accept the explanation given by the hon member. The hon member will apologise, not only to the hon member for Bryanston but to this House, and he will take his money back.

May I have the money? [Interjections.]

No, Sir, I cannot apologise.

Then the hon member, having disregarded the authority of the Chair, must withdraw from the Chamber for the remainder of the day’s sitting.

[Whereupon the member withdrew.]

Mr Speaker, I wanted to address the hon member for Johannesburg North on a point of order, and ask him whether he could make such a statement about an ex-colleague of his who crossed the floor, when most of the frontbenchers sitting in that party have done the same thing! [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Speaker, the bulk of the remarks that I intend to make will be directed at the NP and in particular concern their control of education, or their lack of control, in this country.

I think, in the circumstances, a word or two should be reserved for the hon member for Bryanston. I, personally, would agree— and I am certain that my colleagues on this side of the House would agree—with the three attributes that he sets for the moderates of South Africa. We do believe in true liberalism—the freedom of each individual to speak his mind and to stand his ground. We do believe in true democracy and we do believe in a true free enterprise economy. That is more than can be said for any single member of the Nationalist Party!

Say it in Afrikaans. We want to hear if you can!

Today the position of the hon member for Bryanston is an ambivalent one, because he stands in the changing South African political scene and, knowing that it is changing, attempts to paint in vitriol and gall the position of this party on the extreme left. That we are not, that we never have been and that we will never be.

No, Mr Speaker, we do not believe that it is a sin to be moderate, that it is a sin to be Christian and that it is a sin to be committed to free enterprise. That is what most of us are.

Most of you!

If the hon members who laughed hysterically at that would acknowledge that there are members of this party who are not Christian, they can with draw their laughter. [Interjections.] It is from the mouths of fools that such laughter comes. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member is not allowed to refer to other hon members as fools. He must withdraw that remark.

Mr Speaker, may I address you on that?

Order! No, the hon member must withdraw that remark.

I withdraw it.

I agree with the point that was made by the hon the Minister of Education and Culture about the raising of the status of the head of the Department of Education and Culture. I am very pleased that they are going to call him the Superintendent-General. It is at least a position historically known in the South African education scene.

I should like to turn to the Menlo Park incident which is a clear warning to this country of the dangers of lack of foresight. I congratulate the hon the Deputy Minister of Finance, Dr G Marais, and the hon the Minister of Home Affairs on their support for open sport, but they must search their consciences—as must the NP—on this. They have handed a loaded gun to every racist in South Africa and now they are squealing because that gun has gone off. Menlo Park is not the first incident of this kind, neither will it be the last. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister of Home Affairs is the leader of his party in Natal and perhaps he or the hon the Minister of Education and Culture would like to react publicly to the following.

The sports policy of the Natal Education Department—which is probably the same as that of all education departments—is that, should any school with sportsmen of any colour but White wish to play in any competition with any other school, they should advise the host school of that fact. Should the host school refuse to accept the pupils of colour as competitors, then the visiting school has the choice of dropping its players or of not competing. However, the situation is far worse in the case of interschool competition where any of the competing schools may object to the presence of non-White children, and then the mixed school is obliged to withdraw from that interschool competition.

That is the hon the Minister’s policy. That is the loaded pistol which has just gone off. Can the little girls of St Catherine’s Convent in Empangeni—thirteen year olds—play sport? No, they cannot because schools in Empangeni refuse to play against them. Can the girls at St Dominic’s in Newcastle play sport? No, they cannot. Can Nardeni Convent in Vryheid play? No, they cannot. The point is that a single incident affecting a boy in matric has been across the front pages, but I am far more concerned and ashamed about those little thirteen year old girls who are being turned away because of their colour. I feel sorry for Nkululeko Skweyiya—his name means “freedom”, by the way—but the racial pressuring exists because of the policy of the NP on sport. This policy must change.

I call upon them to change this absurd sport policy. [Interjections.] Now is the time—the hon the Minister is about to hear a suggestion—to revise that policy to exclude the racists. They should make the policy one of individual choice. Should any pupil or parent not wish the pupils of a particular school to compete against any other pupil of any other school, then let them suspend themselves. At the moment it is the innocent who suffer because of their colour. Let those who choose racism suffer the consequences and move into their lonely laager. That is their right. That is individual choice—the hon the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs can take note of this. [Interjections.] Let them get out.

Yet, their policy is staggering.

My colleague the hon member for Albany mentioned the lack of devolution of decisionmaking on the selection of teachers. So it goes with the policy which the hon the Minister has announced just today regarding the funding of open education by private organisations. BP South Africa donates R20 million, but the hon the Minister does not want to sell his schools to allow them to be opened.

A second area I wish to cover is that of education financing. For a non-obscure reason not totally unconnected to the coming election, this Government has not told the voters what is happening in school funding. This Government is going to be haunted by the fact that it is not telling the public of South Africa the truth about education funding or tuition fees before this election.

Mr Speaker, today sees the first time I am able to rise and participate in a debate of this nature. I could not do this previously as my approach to concepts differed from those discussed in this type of debate.

The concept of “own affairs” is usually illustrated with the aid of an image of a number of vertical pillars which are then arched over with a roof in accordance with general affairs—the roof personifying com munality.

I believe there is such a thing as own affairs, as group rights, but then it can only hold true if we can invert this image of the pillars with the roof resting on them; that one is able to lay a foundation capable of bearing columns, out of which columns can, in fact, grow without limit, to leave what is distinctive free to develop and be itself. This inverted picture symbolises a foundation and columns which can grow out of it in any way. The columns therefore symbolise the exclusive.

The foundation itself is a constitutional dispensation which has to be arranged and negotiated—agreed—in such a way that the columns of own affairs, of group rights, do not impact upon each other; that each may be free, without a ceiling, to be able to exist to the full and without constraint.

But then again: To define the “own” according to race confines the space surrounding the columns; the false definition limits it. I listened to the hon the Minister of Education and Culture’s speech in this regard. He made a very good speech, unfortunately based on a faulty definition. The definition apart, I think I agree with him fully in essence.

The definition of a group as “White” or “Black” no longer works today; we all know this. It no longer tells us who we are; it does not have room to be able to grow organically. I am not attempting to say by this that we are just one big happy family in South Africa; we are not. What I am trying to say is that the South African state community, every one in South Africa, in part is precisely an unhappy family because we limit each of its members in fulfilling himself by prescribing his role and being in advance; by defining and limiting him to something which he is not, or at least to something which he is not in full.

If we see the own, the group and group rights as the picture of columns capable of unlimited growth out of the foundation, that the very foundation makes that growth possible in an organic way, we can approach nearer to the truth and nearer to answers for South Africa for the 21st century. Scenarios of conflict then disappear and we can begin examining master plans for prosperity.

It is universally acknowledged today that peoples, ethnic groups or cultural groups, religious or language groups have the right to protection of their own—of their own affairs. These groups receive that very protection through the starting point of freedom of association.

The Government has already in principle approved the adoption of a human rights charter.

Order! Will the hon member resume his seat. The time for the debate has expired. Unfortunately, I cannot permit him to continue speaking.

Mr Chairman, I move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

Agreed to.

Mr Speaker, I move:

Mr Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to discuss the Part Appropriation Bill of the SATS once again, because in the Second Reading I welcomed the hon the Minister who is new to the job. When, however, he delivered his Second Reading speech, it was quite obvious that it had been prepared for him to a certain extent. It was quite a reasonable speech; but I think the hon the Minister’s own nature or character emerged when he replied to the Second Reading debate. [Interjections.] I thought it was a rather spiteful, petty speech. This is something we did not have in the Transport Services debate when his predecessor occupied that particular post. The hon the Minister even went so far, during the debate, as to bring in the “boerehaat” issue. I should now like to quote something to the hon the Minister.

[Inaudible.]

No, it was not. In fact, it was not mentioned at all until the hon the Minister saw fit to talk, in his reply to the debate, about “boerehaat”. I want to draw to his attention what was said in this weekend’s Rapport. That hon Minister and a number of other hon Ministers have been throwing this issue across the floor of the House, and I believe it was put very well in Rapport. I read from yesterday’s Herald where they quote Rapport as follows:

It goes on to say:

I believe those words are very true. I believe we should rather try to build something in this country than to try to destroy and break things down. I do not believe that age-old “boerehaat” issue has any place in this election, and I do not believe it does the hon the Minister any service to raise the issue in a Transport Services debate.

We now have no fewer than five political appointees in the SATS. For the first time we now have a Deputy Minister. That Deputy Minister is of course the hon the Deputy Minister of Transport Affairs. The hon the Minister’s predecessors were able, for many years, to deal with the old Department of Transport and with the SATS without the assistance of a Deputy Minister. There was a very good reason for this: There were three political appointees to the SATS, namely, the three Commissioners. They were appointed specifically to give political advice to both the SATS and the Minister. So we already had the equivalent then of three Deputy Ministers, and now we have a fourth. We have no less than the hon the Minister, the hon the Deputy Minister and the three Commissioners, all feeding off the NP gravy train—the SATS.

I believe this should not happen. I have nothing against the hon the Deputy Minister as a person. I believe, however, that the position he occupies is a position which nobody should occupy. I wonder why it is necessary for us suddenly to have a Deputy Minister. Perhaps, in his reply to this Third Reading debate the hon the Minister would like to tell us in this House what it is going to cost per annum to have a Deputy Minister in the SATS. I am referring now to the salaries, the motor cars, the secretaries and other staff, the offices and the office furniture. In fact, I see in the additional appropriation that provision has been made for office furniture. We know that in the past this was paid for out of the National Roads Fund, and so I should like the hon the Minister’s assurance that the furniture for the offices of the hon the Deputy Minister will not be paid for by the National Roads Fund.

What is the cost of this going to be?

Now you are being petty. [Interjections.]

While I am on the subject of the hon the Deputy Minister, I want to say that he has a very good method of conducting a debate, as he proved once again during his Second Reading speech. What he does is to quote an hon member incorrectly, and then to shoot down the incorrect quotation. I want to give a demonstration of this by quoting from the hon the Deputy Minister’s Hansard transcript, in which he said the following:

What I actually said in my speech, was the following:

Note that I said 30%, and not 100%—

That was not the only point you made in that regard.

But it is! Nowhere else in my speech did I mention anything to do with the South African Transport Services making appeals to anybody. I therefore submit that the hon the Deputy Minister quotes me incorrectly and then proceeds to tear down the quotation.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon the Minister, or rather the hon member … [Interjections.]

On May 7!

… whether he also mentioned in his speech that the SATS were giving the private hauliers a tremendous number of problems with all their appeals and so forth.

Oh yes, I certainly did. I said in my speech that 30% of the applications were in fact opposed by the South African Transport Services, but that was not what the hon the Deputy Minister said. Enough of that, however.

I now want to turn to the South African Airways, because the other thing that I hold against the hon the Deputy Minister is that although he had a lot of time during the Second Reading debate to tell us about the realities of the situation, he chose rather to address the media at a Press function on the subject of the privatisation of South African Airways, and did not say a word about it in this House.

The first I heard about the privatisation of the SAA was what I read in the Press the next day, having already delivered my speech during the Second Reading debate. Why does the hon the Minister retain that sort of information to give to the Press, and not inform this House? It would appear that he does not believe that this House is of any importance. He would rather go and tell the Press about the possibility of the privatisation of the SAA than tell this House. If the hon the Deputy Minister maintains that he did mention it in his Second Reading speech, I would like him to quote the specific passage for me.

I believe, however, that the gradual privatisation of the SAA would probably be a very good thing, and I would like to congratulate the hon the Minister if this is what he is planning. In fact, I suggested this very move on 5 March 1984 in the first speech that I made as the Official Opposition’s spokesman on transport affairs. On that occasion I mentioned a number of reasons why I believed it should happen. I am not going to quote from them at this stage, but what I am going to quote is what the then hon Minister said on this subject on 7 March 1984 (Hansard: Assembly, vol 112, col 2407):

It would appear that the PFP, as usual, was well ahead of the NP at that stage.

We could, I believe, now have a possible further reason for the privatisation of the SAA in the long term. I have no doubt that a private sector airline has more chance of being allowed international landing rights than an airline which is a State monopoly. We know of the problems that the SAA has with the USA, and I think it is in October this year that we will no longer be allowed to land in Australia. We must ask ourselves why. Patently, it is because of the policies which this Government has pursued for so long. That is the only reason. However, just possibly, if there was a private component in the SAA, there might be a possibility—I do not think it is a very big possibility but there is a chance—that we might escape more sanctions.

I think we have a case in point when one looks at Sasol. I am quite convinced, for instance, that if Sasol had not been partly owned by private enterprise or had not been partially privatised it would never have been removed from the American sanctions hit-list from which it was just a few weeks ago. So I believe that the hon the Minister should proceed with dispatch with this issue of hiving off the SAA from the SATS and perhaps privatising it. He must not allow vested interests in the public sector to delay the process.

I believe we need to go even further in respect of air services in South Africa. I suppose it is not totally relevant to the Transport Services Part Appropriation Bill but I should like to quote a Mr Howard Williams who is the managing director of international tourism consultants Howard and Howard. He is quoted in the Financial Mail of 30 January of this year as saying:

I think that is an excellent point. We know very well that we can attract a tremendous number of tourists from countries throughout the world if they are only offered the means to get here at a reasonable price. If a person in Western Europe wants to have a holiday in winter he has to pay an enormous sum of money if he wants to spend that holiday in South Africa. I have no doubt that private enterprise and the charter companies could cut that fare considerably. That would be to the advantage of the hotel industry in South Africa. It would be to the advantage of all South Africans so that people could come to this country and see for themselves what South Africa is like, rather than see the one-sided image which they get on their television screens overseas. That, I believe, could do a lot of good.

I will leave that matter because my time unfortunately has run out. However, I do hope that the hon the Minister will act with dispatch in this matter.

Mr Speaker, it is very obvious that the hon member for Port Elizbeth Central is off the rails. The hon member for Bryanston caught them on the wrong track. They will never overcome this serious setback. They are punch-drunk and time can never heal them again.

*The SATS has always been privileged to have among the ablest Ministers and officials in the State machinery. Here and there one has outshone the other but on the whole they have been top men who knew their work and sometimes had to carry it out under very difficult circumstances. I also wish to pay tribute to the former Minister of Transport Affairs. He was not only a leader par excellence; to me he was also a unique phenomenon. I want to congratulate the new hon Minister and wish him the best of luck too. He has shown his eagerness to undertake the task in the short while he has already been at the helm. He has such a dapper walk; I like it and I hope he will manage the SATS just as smartly.

I wish to express the same wishes to the new hon Deputy Minister. In the light of all he still seems prepared to take on, we have to assume there is a great deal of steam left in him. [Interjections.]

In past years there was frequent scathing reference to the SATS and its people as being supposedly inept. Today—it was the case before too—the SATS is never static; it has a well-trained marketing team continually seeking clients by inter alia establishing their needs as regards the conveyance of their goods. This provides regular cause for renewal. We should renew and adapt because without doing this every organisation or undertaking goes under. This applies everywhere—even in this House. There are groups here which are falling apart already for lack of renewal; only the adhesive tape is still keeping them together.

Various new SATS services have already been identified and implemented. In 1982 express freight services were instituted between Durban and Johannesburg for the first time; today these services exist almost nation wide. Whereas delivery took days in earlier times, it is now done overnight on certain routes. For instance, if the hon member for Mossel Bay puts his laundry on the train now, it can still be ironed at Riversdal tonight and he can wear it again tomorrow. [Interjections.]

As both the hon the Minister and the hon the Deputy Minister hail from the Cape, this province and its people will have to do their share in supporting the SATS. The hon the Minister told us that the SATS did not summarily close stations and abandon certain routes. The reason lies in the withdrawal of public support. The State and the SATS have great confidence in the Cape Province and especially in the Western Cape.

This is no wonder either because one only has to view the beautiful surroundings. I am referring to our part of the country now. We have everything; we have good, industrious people with a sound outlook on fife and a great deal of sense. A few are slightly out of line but fortunately form the minority. Because this is such a wonderful area, the SATS embarked upon large capital outlays here in the Western Cape. I am thinking, for instance, of the container service points at Bellville and in the Table Bay Harbour from where containers of international size are received and delivered within a radius of 70 kilometres.

There are also the intercity services provided within the exempted areas with an existing fleet of delivery vehicles. This service can hold its own in competition with every other carrier as regards the costs and quality of service furnished.

The SATS has also decided to erect its first automatic sorting system in Bellville. This system will largely be controlled by computer and will change the entire operating structure with attendant saving of costs.

We are grateful for everything the SATS has accomplished for us but we should also make use of it. It is not merely there as an ornament.

The greatest SATS asset lies in its people and that is why the organisation takes personnel development seriously. The objective of the Western Cape manpower section is to furnish a personnel development service effectively and economically to enable the organisation to deal with future challenges. The unique contribution of the Western Cape in this regard is based on the institution of two courses, the team-building course and the productivity course. The objective of the team-building course is the identification of problems regarding individuals of all races in the organisation as well as problems in the physical working environment in the organisation. Problems are analysed and solutions found to them. One of the strengths of the course is that these problems are tackled by the workers in conjunction with management, that they find solutions to them in the work situation and develop plans of action which are instituted. The productivity group is one of five to eight workers of related grades who meet weekly for an hour to solve problems concerning their own work situation. Western Cape Transport Services can pat itself on the back because it cares for its employees.

Time is short and I wish to pay a visit to Worcester as well. If one arrives at the attractive town or city of Worcester by means of SATS transport and one takes the Robertson road, there is a large piece of land on one’s left. We call it the loco site. Now that steam locomotives are a thing of the past, the SATS no longer use them either. On behalf of the SAP, negotiations are currently taking place with the Department of Public Works and Land Affairs on the erection of a new police station. The municipality of Worcester also wants more land for the Worcester museum. The hon the Minister controls that land; it is his. There is little doubt that we shall acquire that land; only the price is at issue. I wish to request the hon the Minister amicably …

Order! The hon member had better continue discussing the price with the hon the Minister tomorrow. The time has come to adjourn the House.