Mr Speaker, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Speaker, I move:

The object of the Additional Appropriation Bill now before the House is to appropriate an additional amount of R7,658 million for the financial year 1986-87. This amount is constituted as set out in the document tabled.

The total additional requirements of the Administration: House of Assembly totalled R104,147 million for 1986-87. This amount appeared impossible to finance. The Treasury of the Department of Finance released an amount of R29 million of the 2% suspension, which was initially applied to the Administration, for partial funding of the request.

As this provision of R29 million could not satisfy the most essential requirements included in the total shortfall of R104,147 million, the Ministers’ Council decided to make an amount of R41,3 million available from surplus funds relating to the 1985-86 financial year to finance a portion of the total shortfall.

The result of the above is an additional request for only R7,658 million. An earnest appeal was addressed to departments of the Administration: House of Assembly to apply the necessary financial discipline in the expenditure of funds. I can testify to the utmost co-operation from my colleagues on the Ministers’ Council in this regard.

I should now like to deal with the requests for individual Votes.

Concerning Votes 1, 2 and 3—“Health Services and Welfare”, “Agriculture and Water Supply” and “Education and Culture” respectively, only nominal provision is requested. These requests arise from movements which were found to be essential and the relevant adjustments are now being indicated as revised amounts in the Additional Appropriation, of which hon members have received a copy.

My colleagues will provide further details of these requests in the discussion of their Votes. I shall therefore confine myself to the following comments.

† Vote No 1—“Health Services and Welfare”

The increased expenditure for welfare promotion was necessitated by four factors, namely, an increase in social pensioners; children’s homes which experienced financial hardship; an increase in tariffs for social relief schemes; and an increase in projects which were completed by welfare organizations and had to be subsidized.

Social pensioners increased during the year by approximately 500 per month in contrast to 300 per month during the previous financial year. An amount of R3,290 million is needed in order to make provision for this unexpected increase.

Children’s homes which are run solely by private welfare organizations experienced increasing problems during the past financial year in covering running costs with available funds. In order to prevent certain children’s homes from closing down, the department was compelled to increase subsidies to children’s homes by 20%. An amount of R2 403 000 will be used for this purpose.

The department was also compelled to increase the amounts payable in respect of social relief schemes by 10% in order to compensate partially for the increase in the consumer price index. An amount of approximately R5 213 000 is needed for this purpose.

Further, an amount of about R1 400 000 was used for the subsidization of additional projects and services which were undertaken by welfare organizations and to which the highest priority was awarded by regional welfare boards.

The aforementioned expenditure which amounts to R12,306 million will be defrayed from the amounts of R41,3 million and R29 million mentioned earlier on. Additional funds have therefore not to be appropriated by the House of Assembly for this purpose and only a nominal amount of R1 000 is applied for.

Vote No 2—“Agriculture and Water Supply”

During the past years the Department of Agriculture and Water Supply had to struggle with extensive financial demands as a result of the devastating drought and the consequent drought relief which had to be given. The good rains of the recent past brought relief to a large part of our country. The implications thereof are reflected in the additional estimates.

I must, however, draw hon members’ attention to the fact that the farming community is still suffering from the influence of the drought over the past years. At the same time I wish to give the assurance that the Government will continually render its support where this is possible and necessary.

It is necessary to ask for a nominal amount of R1 000 only for the Vote: Agriculture and Water Supply.

*Vote No 3—“Education and Culture”

Appropriation procedures of the respective provincial education departments differ from those of central government departments with the result that various adjustments had to be made to satisfy the requirements of the financial management system. A great measure of success has already accompanied the achievement of uniformity only a few months after the takeover of the educational function and satisfying the requirements mentioned.

As regards the increase in expenditure for the Cape and Transvaal education departments, I have to point out that the funds requested are chiefly due to an underprovision of funds during the transfer of certain components affecting the educational function to the Department of Education and Culture. Various services had to be unravelled during the separation of functions and some of the funds were divided without supporting statistical details. I have to stress, however, that this is a non-recurring problem which has to be ascribed to the transitional phase for the establishment of education as an own affair.

The increased expenditure in the case of Education and Culture is also being made good from the amounts of R41,3 million and R29 million and the House of Assembly is not being requested to vote additional funds in this case either. Consequently only a nominal amount of R1 000 is being requested.

Vote No 4—“Local Government, Housing and Works”

The Government has launched a stimulatory package as regards housing and the increase to be voted here and for which approval is requested relates chiefly to this service. An additional amount of R7,604 million is required for this and is included in the Additional Appropriation tabled.

Vote No 5—“Budgetary and Auxiliary Services”

This Vote requires no extra funds under the Additional Appropriation.

Vote No 6—“Improvement of conditions of service”

An estimate regarding the Vote: Improvement of conditions of service had to be made and is obviously a very difficult task. An additional amount of only R51 000 is requested, however, which is evidence of careful calculations on the one hand and responsible personnel planning and intensive economy measures on the other.

Mr Speaker, it is of course interesting to refer back to the original appropriation debate for own affairs in this House which took place earlier last year. On that occasion, we had a considerable debate about the 2%. Regrettably, one has to say to the hon the Minister: “We told you so!” The reality is that the present additional estimates actually portray the hon the Minister as an illusionist, if I may use the term, perpetrating a certain sleight-of-hand. As far as the ordinary outside observer and the members of the public who read this Bill are concerned, all that is being asked for is R7,6 million, whereas as now becomes apparent from the hon the Minister’s own words, the truth is that the actual additional amount which he is spending is more than ten times as much. If the original estimates had been correctly presented to the House with the 2% properly allowed for, and if we had been told that the surplus from the past financial year would go back into revenue in the same way as it had in the ordinary course of events under the old dispensation, then the amount which is now involved would have necessitated additional estimates of well over ten times this amount.

To some extent, therefore, these additional estimates are an illusion, a bluff of the voters and something which conveys an entirely false impression of what is happening, because it will go down in the annals of history that there was a very small additional appropriation this year, whereas the truth is that the hon the Minister has used the R29 million and the R41,3 million in order to finance additional expenditure without having to show it in this Bill. That is nothing less or more than sleight of hand.

These additional estimates find us in an interesting situation, because, when we look at the original Constitution Act and the amendments which were effected—in particular at sections 82 and 84—we find that we are still without a formula today and have not yet been told how the figures are arrived at. I ask the hon the Minister to state how, in the negotiations with the other two Houses and with the hon the Minister of Finance, the figures came to be what they are. I should like to know what principle was involved, what formula, if any, was used, and in short, how these figures were arrived at. It seems to me that a completely arbitrary approach was adopted when it came to dealing with the finances of own affairs.

Let me deal with a couple of specific matters. Firstly, we are told that the increased expenditure in respect of welfare is due to an increase in the number of social pensioners. Nothing could demonstrate more clearly the misallocation of funds, the inefficient administration of this Government and the contribution they have made towards inflation than that very admission. What has happened, after all, is not only that there has been an increase in the number of social pensioners because of the natural tendency in a population, but also because of the impoverishment of large sections of our population. There is no doubt that the people who have contributed towards this impoverishment—in fact, they are responsible for it—are the NP Government. They themselves have proved that the number of social pensioners has increased at the rate of about 500 per month in contrast to 300 per month during the previous year—and this figure only pertains to Whites, since we are only dealing with Whites and not with any other population group!

I therefore want to repeat the plea I have already made: First of all, the social pension increase which was announced is inadequate; it is insufficient for next year. Secondly, because of the plight of the social pensioners, it should be paid now and should not be delayed. Finally, the means test should be reviewed. These three aspects in regard to social pensioners are vital. As we are debating the Additional Appropriation Bill (House of Assembly) I am, of course, only allowed by you, Sir, to speak about Whites.

The second matter I should like to touch on is the question of education, more specifically the question of private schools. I am very confident that the hon the Minister in whom this portfolio vests, is going to act fairly and properly in relation to this matter. I shall continue to have great confidence in the hon the Minister until he proves that I am wrong. However, Sir, you know from your own experience that the biggest lie that has ever been told, is: “The cheque is in the post”! You will also know from your own experience that the other great lie is: “I am only a poor country attorney and I do not know what is going on”. I should like to apply the first of those two stories to the hon the Minister entrusted with education in this House.

In regard to the subsidies for private schools, I am told that at the present moment every inquiry, or at least certainly those relating to the Transvaal—I am only familiar with the Transvaal—meets with the reply: “There is a letter in the post”. When one asks them what is happening and on what basis this is to take place, their reply is: “There is a letter in the post”. When one asks when one is going to be paid, the reply is: “There is a letter in the post”. With great respect, I must say that I have no confidence in letters in the post, based upon the experience of having to deal with debtors who are supposed to pay their debts. This is in fact a debt, if I may use that term, because the State has agreed to pay. The State has agreed to render this assistance and the schools are relying upon this assistance, and so it is a debt.

Will the hon the Minister—either the hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare or the hon the Minister of Education and Culture—please tell us what is in that famous letter in the post? Will he tell the country what is in the letter? Will he tell us when those payments are finally to be made? We are now told that they are going to be made in March, or at least that is the story. Furthermore, will he describe to us the basis of what is in those letters in the post? It is not a matter of just one letter in the post; there are letters in the post to a whole variety of private schools that I am aware of in the Transvaal. I believe that this matter needs to be dealt with as soon as possible.

The other matter which I would like to touch on, if I may, is the question of health services. I think the question of the aged sick and the aged chronically sick is becoming more and more of a serious problem. The question of providing facilities, coupled with the inflationary tendencies in South Africa, is becoming a very serious problem. Many of the institutions which care for the aged in South Africa are finding themselves in the position that unless they are able to draw upon money donated through the goodwill and the charity of private individuals, they cannot keep going at all. In view of the reduction in disposable incomes—that is incomes in real terms after the deduction of tax—the pressure upon people in South Africa to make donations is great but their inability to make them in adequate measure is also great.

I should like to make an appeal today that we review the whole question of assistance to the homes for the aged and be more generous in this regard.

I should also like to hear more about the situation in regard to pharmaceutical requirements which are specifically dealt with in the additional estimates. As a result of the four provinces now being dealt with together, are we going to see far more effective ways of dealing with pharmaceutical purchases than we have had before?

As far as the financing of agriculture is concerned, the hon members of the CP will no doubt deal with that but I also have some difficulty with regard to the whole approach to this question of financing. While it is true, as is alleged in the explanatory memorandum, that in many parts of South Africa the rains did bring some refief, only now, for example, is the hon the Minister dealing with the very serious problems facing the farmers in the Western Transvaal. I wonder whether we are making adequate provision to deal with the whole situation, not on an ad hoc basis as is the case now but on the basis of a long-term plan which we have discussed. According to that plan there will be money available for assistance regularly and agriculture will be put on a proper footing.

I ask myself whether we are dealing with this matter in a sufficiently urgent manner as there are farmers who find themselves in very great difficulty at this point in time.

Let me also deal with housing. Here, of course, we can only deal with housing for Whites although housing cannot really be dealt with in isolation. We believe that housing should be dealt with as a whole. The question that we really need to ask is at what level housing is being provided. I for instance read the other day about housing and the housing trust and that they were dealing with houses at about a level of R20 000. If we are going to deal with housing at that kind of level I want to ask the hon the Minister whether we have any hope at all of solving the housing problem for the lower income groups in South Africa. Again I think we have to bear in mind what inflation has done to our whole situation.

I want to finish, if I may, by asking what really are the classical questions which one asks in relation to this kind of debate. Firstly, additional estimates are to finance expenditure which was not anticipated. I listened very carefully to the hon the Minister’s speech—I have it here in front of me—and there is very little in these additional estimates which should not have been anticipated. Perhaps the calculations in regard to the social pensioners were wrong and therefore there was a lack of anticipation as to how harmful the economic policies of this Government would be for the country. However, in the main it has not been proven by the hon the Minister that this falls within the category of what is unanticipated expenditure in this regard.

The second issue is the question of financing. Here we have the most remarkable situation that we are an own affairs administration but we are actually largely dependent upon money that comes from general affairs and is voted. What has now happened is that we have kept money which was in surplus from last year, which was voted in excess of the requirements, and we are using it to finance this year instead of it going back into the general revenue fund as would have been the case if this tricameral system had not been introduced. The question that arises from this is whether it is ever intended by this administration of own affairs to seek to have their own revenue. In other words, are the levies which are specifically provided for in the Schedule going to be used and, if so, when are they going to be used? My guess is—it does not require much imagination to guess— that certainly once the election is behind us and the whole question of popularity with the electorate ceases to be so important to this Government, we are going to find that there will be new levies and new things which will appear on the scene. In the same way as the RSC levies are only to come into force after the election so we will find that the Schedule to the Constitution will suddenly become of interest. There will be new levies and new forms of taxation to extract money from the public of South Africa.

With great respect I have to say again that the way in which these particular additional estimates have been manipulated is the act of an illusionist, it is a piece of sleight-of-hand and it is an illusion by which the electorate of South Africa is being deceived as to the actual additional amount of money which is sought to be spent during the current financial year.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Yeoville has just referred to various matters which could just as well be debated in the Committee Stage. I just want to refer to a few of the matters he mentioned in his speech.

The first matter is that relating to pensions. To ask at this stage for the date of increase for social pensions to be brought forward to 1 April is, in my opinion, a purely political gimmick which the hon member has engineered here. It is traditional for the increase in social pensions to take place on 1 October. To come now suddenly and plead for the date of increase to be brought forward to 1 April, is to plead for something that is not practicable, and the hon member knows it. It is simply to score political points off us that the hon member is coming up with this proposal now.

I agree with the hon member that we need to look at the means test again, and I am sure the hon the Minister will do so in the future.

The hon member also referred to agriculture, and specifically to the drought in the Western Transvaal. The hon the Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply apologised for not being able to be in the House this afternoon for that very reason. He is on an official visit to the Western Transvaal to negotiate with the farming community there.

The NP accepts the principle of own affairs, not only as the basis for the present constitutional dispensation, but also for future development in South Africa. The concept of own affairs—ie the right to decide solely for oneself concerning own affairs— lends force to future bargaining and negotiations. [Interjections.] It lays the foundation for the protection of group rights. Because this is the case, it is also the key to future bargaining and consultation. After all, each group has the need to decide for itself about certain own affairs.

The Whites do not decide about their own affairs.

This is a real need, which the Whites have, too, and which has to be taken to the maximum extent soon. That is why certain groups have a real desire to decide on matters affecting them. One of these must surely be education; not because education means superiority for one group, but the need to decide for oneself on education resides in the cultural needs of groups.

This recognition of own affairs also means that there is a rapid devolution of power to a local level.

Like at Menlo Park!

The local community is already starting to play an extremely important and responsible role in this concept, and will continue to do so in the future.

I shall come to Menlo Park, Sir.

What about “Squeegee”?

This devolution of power to the local level makes these local authorities shoulder the total responsibility. After all, they represent the local community.

What becomes important in this respect, is the way in which this authority is exercised. An institution like this has a duty to itself as an institution in respect of exercising authority, but also to those it represents. Exercising the right to make decisions must always be assessed against the background of the will of the majority of those being represented.

The Menlo Park incident was probably initially dealt with, according to the judgement of the management council, in a manner for which they had a sanction. It could be that they believed this to be so, despite the status of that particular school, which is known in the whole of the Transvaal, and in fact countrywide, as the athletics school which has previously presented truly prestigious athletics meetings. [Interjections.] They were the kind of meetings that enjoyed recognition countrywide, and to which invitations were accepted. These meetings are regarded as being above the average school sports meetings.

Snob!

These are seen countrywide as being recognised prestigious meetings. I must therefore assume that the management council knew about this, and nevertheless decided not to admit the athlete concerned. It then soon became clear that the will of the overwhelming majority of parents did not agree with the decision of the management council. This places an onus on the management council concerned which it cannot avoid.

This brings another aspect to the fore which is going to be of the utmost importance in the future, and that is the importance and the need for involvement in the elections of local bodies. In the past only a few parents participated in the election of school committee members and members of control boards. In future parents will have to take increasing responsibility for getting to the polls. [Interjections.] The same argument is going to apply in 1988 when local authorities are elected. A meagre 15% and 20% percentage poll is no longer going to be good enough in the future. Local communities will have to display complete involvement. Only then will decision-making concerning own affairs come into its own.

So, too, is the election on 6 May this year of the utmost importance. The Whites are being given the opportunity to give their opinion on the direction on the road ahead. The choice the White voter has to make on 6 May, is of such major importance, that no voter could be so bold as to stay away from the polls. I have no doubt that the ultimate result is going to determine the fate of South Africa. A solid victory for the National Party is going to ensure that the negotiating parties can build on a stronger South Africa with greater confidence. [Interjections.]

You have already sold out the Whites! What are you still negotiating about? [Interjections.]

The National Party is the only party … The hon member for Langlaagte can moan and groan until he has had enough. It is true … [Interjections.]

I want to know what you still want to negotiate about.

Order!

The National Party is the only party that accepts the principle …

Tell me what you still want to negotiate about!

Order! The hon member for Langlaagte must please contain himself. He is making far too many interjections. The hon member for Gezina may proceed.

The National Party is the only party that accepts the principle that each group must decide for itself on its own affairs, whilst structures must be created which make it possible for each group to participate in such decision making with regard to general affairs.

That is not true!

Sir, the PFP only emphasises the latter, and pleads for an impossible potpourri of joint decision making on a common voters’ roll.

What is the difference between the Nats and the Progs?

This makes the concept of own affairs null and void …

Order! The hon member for Langlaagte will not make another single remark. The hon member for Gezina may proceed.

This is making the concept of own affairs null and void. It is abdication and the denial of the right of each group to decide about its own affairs. The CP’s concept of partition implies that a process of division and separation must first take place, the so-called “relocation of peoples” (“volksverhuising”), and the establishment of various homelands, in other words, a completely impractical and unattainable concept.

The reality of today, tomorrow, and after 6 May is that a certain constitutional growth has taken place here in South Africa. There is a House of Assembly, a House of Delegates and a House of Representatives; six national states within South Africa; and large Black cities in our metropolitan areas. They exist in South Africa, and it is a reality. Furthermore, each group is firmly linked to the central Treasury. They cannot be separated from it. Each has a certain claim on the Treasury. That, too, is a reality. Each of these groups is also linked to a common fatherland. Not even the CP or the HNP can escape that reality.

I know and believe that the voter is going to accept these realities on 6 May, and is going to give the Government and the NP a solid mandate to give everyone a reasonable and fair chance to participate in decision making up to the highest level. Each group will be able to make those decisions itself in respect of own affairs. A different choice will necessarily lead to an impossible political confrontation, which will be unmanageable.

We take pleasure in supporting the Additional Appropriation Bill, and we want to thank the hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, and the hon Ministers responsible for own affairs for their dedication to those things that are important to us as Whites—our own education, agriculture, local authorities, housing and health services. We would like to congratulate them on the way they have handled the finances relating to own affairs.

Mr Chairman, at the request of the CP candidate in Gezina, the young Dr Corné Mulder, I want to ask the hon member for Gezina whether he will display the courage to appear on the same platform as Dr Mulder any time from now until before 6 May. [Interjections.]

Organise your own meetings. [Interjections.]

I am talking to the hon member now … [Interjections.] … and I just want him to listen. The CP candidate in Gezina is cordially inviting the hon member to appear on the same platform so that the cause, the principles and the policy of both parties can be stated. Does the hon member accept this? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member is making his speech.

Thank you, Sir. I want the hon member for Gezina to look at me and stop drinking water. I know he is anxious and has difficulties and problems, and he is running around and confused, but I want to ask him whether he is prepared to meet the young CP candidate. [Interjections.]

Goodbye, Daan.

You have already said goodbye; I am talking now.

He can arrange his own meetings; I am not arranging them.

He says he is not prepared to.

Oh, the hon member is not prepared to, but we shall be there, at his meetings. I shall personally see to it that I am there. I shall be there at Gezina and the hon member had better be prepared to answer questions. [Interjections.] We shall be there. I want to ask the hon member for Gezina why he quarrels with the hon member for Yeoville. After all, it was not so long ago that the NP and the NRP had an agreement to join forces against the PFP in Pinetown. What has happened to the hon member for Gezina’s friends now?

When the Klip River by-election took place, the hon the leader of the NP in Natal was constantly on television. Television has recently been used as an instrument of propaganda for the NP. The hon the leader of the NP in Natal then asked the members of the PFP in Klip River please to vote for the NP. If ever there was an indiscriminate suitor, who flirts with the left and the right—and does so freely—it is the NP.

I want to ask the hon member for Gezina, who is making such a fuss now, why members of the left wing are now leaving the NP as they are doing. Where are Dr Denis Wor rall, the hon member for Randburg and now also the great scholar, economist and academic, Professor Dr Sampie Terblanche? What are they all chorusing? The hon member for Gezina is one of the conservatives, who have remained behind. He became absolutely terrified at that time because he was then at the forefront of the right wing. That was still the old NP. [Interjections.]

Most of the conservatives are now moving away. They have resigned. “Oom” Charlie of Smithfield over there … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Middelburg and the hon member Dr Vilonel must give the hon member an opportunity to make his speech.

We want to send the hon member for Middelburg a white flag which he can hang in his study. It is a hallmark of his political career.

I want to return to the hon member for Gezina who is making such a fuss about the NP. I want to ask him what became of those great thinkers from the University of Stellenbosch, who formed the heart of the NP for all those years, and who set the tone. They veered further and further left. They formed the think-tank. What became of that think-tank? We and the Minister, who told us the other day in respect of Menlo Park that he was building bridges, are after all good friends. In all the years we have known each other there have never been problems; we have simply differed with each other. [Interjections.] All the hon the Minister’s friends who should be dealing with own affairs are with the “New Nats”. The whole Stellenbosch think-tank, which during the time of the late Dr Verwoerd began its tendency to snap at the NP through Nasionale Pers and so on, is now leaving the fold. I think the hon the Minister tried to acquit himself well of his task because the hon the State President relieved him of his previous portfolio and brought him here. He knows as well as I do that the NP is disintegrating fast.

The hon member for Gezina must not go now because I have not nearly finished with him. [Interjections.] The hon member knows that the left wing of the NP is left of the Progs. [Interjections.] In previous years we have allowed some of our Afrikaans universities simply to become a source of liberalism, and I and many of my colleagues warned of this and spoke against it. The hon the Minister of Education and Culture is reaping the fruits today. Where is the hon member for Stellenbosch? I think he is sound asleep over there. [Interjections.] Last year, or the year before that, when I discussed the request by the students’ council for the hostels there to be thrown open, he said I was launching a terrible attack on the University of Stellenbosch, which I never did. The hon the Minister and the cultural organisations in which he serves have made most of our universities breeding grounds for pink liberalism. Many of our so-called academics, instead of earning their salaries and genuinely exercising their knowledge, are educating the students to become denationalised and to be prepared for a new South Africa which we will supposedly be getting and in which the White man and the Afrikaner will no longer have a place.

I want to ask the hon member for Gezina a question, but I first want to tell him to remember that Dr Corné Mulder will be waiting for him there. I want to tell the hon the State President that he might have thrown out one Mulder but three of them will be coming back. [Interjections.] Oh, yes. Three of them will be coming back—Potchefstroom, Gezina and Randfontein. [Interjections.]

Order! There are too many interjections. I hear the voice of the hon member for Wit-bank and I can still hear the voice of the hon member Dr Vilonel. The hon member for Rissik may proceed.

I now want to put my question to the hon member for Gezina. Now as you know the NP is building a new nation, a nation made up of minority groups. The Afrikaner people is a minority group, and the Zulu people is a minority group. Now all the peoples are small groups in the one great nation the NP is going to build. I want to ask the hon member quite straightforwardly now whether he is going to write a new national anthem for the new South Africa the NP is building à la the little song of the “late” Deputy Minister, the hon member for Pretoria Central. I want the hon member to look me in the eyes when I ask him a question. I ask him again whether he is going to write a new national anthem for South Africa.

Do you need a new national anthem?

I do not need one but I want to know whether the hon member does. [Interjections.] Is he going to make a new flag for South Africa? Is the hon member going to write a new national anthem for this new South Africa the NP is building?

I have no need for a new national anthem. It appears to me that you are ashamed of the national anthem.

I do not even think about it. The hon member has written off the Afrikaner with the principles in which he now believes. The hon member is now ostensibly upbraiding the hon member for Yeoville but in the last elections he wooed the voters of the PFP. I now want to ask him whether the NP is also going to woo the voters in those constituencies the PFP is not contesting. What are they going to do there?

The hon member referred, inter alia, to agriculture. Years ago when I was a young MP here, the agricultural study group of the NP was the largest group. When the debate on agriculture took place it was the great debate of the year. Under the leadership of this aberrant NP, however, there is contempt for agriculture in South Africa. [Interjections.] This NP with its political philosophy cannot save us in the constitutional sphere, and still less save agriculture. [Interjections.] I now want to tell that hon Minister sitting there that he should drive with me from one town to the other in the rural areas and see what he has done to our farmers. [Interjections.] It was not simply a matter of the drought; he uprooted our people. He uprooted them on the farms in exactly the same way he is uprooting the rural towns. [Interjections.]

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

No, Sir.

I want to tell hon members that this happened because the farmers of South Africa became a small group as far as votes are concerned. The NP is interested only in the great monied interests such as those that gathered at the Carlton and Good Hope conferences. For the farmers who symbolise the small beginnings of the Afrikaner people, however, they no longer have any time. [Interjections.] I now want to ask the hon member for Gezina …

[Inaudible.]

I want to tell hon members something about that hon Deputy Minister. Two weeks ago we held a large meeting at Uniondale. That hon Deputy Minister then sat in a hotel with about 15 people around him. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

He will never see Oudtshoorn again! [Interjections.]

Order! I heard the hon the Deputy Minister say that the hon member’s whole life was made up of lies, and that he was lying. The hon the Deputy Minister must withdraw that. [Interjections.]

I withdraw it, Sir.

The hon member may proceed.

I will in any event put this to the test where he is going to retire, because he has accepted his political retirement.

I referred to tertiary education in South Africa and I want to tell the hon member for Gezina that I am concerned about the millions of rands that are going to our universities, while there is a certain small group of academics at our universities who use their positions to promote their left-wing philosophies. [Interjections.] I want to tell him that when the CP comes into power, we shall at least ensure that when classes are given at our universities the preparation of our students will be seen to, rather than toleration of these left-wing liberal professors. [Interjections.]

With reference to Menlo Park I want to say a few things to the hon member for Gezina. It is said that education is an own affair. A particular school, however, has decided how it wants to organise its sport.

That was a minority. [Interjections.]

Was it a minority or a majority? The fact is that they made a certain ruling. [Interjections.] However, the opinion of the NP with its left-wing Press—which is probably more left wing than Sampie Terreblanche—is that as soon as a decision in terms of the so-called right to own affairs has been made to hold its own sports meeting, a great fuss has to be made. It is the left-wing Afrikaner liberal Press that is causing so much tension, not the international community. [Interjections.]

Menlo Park is causing you a lot of trouble, is it not!

No, it is not causing us any trouble. [Interjections.] If I were that hon member I would hang my head in shame at what had happened to my principles.

What will happen next is that a Black couple will move into a White area and as soon as the neighbourhood objects to this, Beeid, Rapport, Die Burger and all the left-wing newspapers will be there to create an international incident. And this is own affairs! After that, if separate voters lists are compiled and one or two Black people are excluded, it will be the left-wing Afrikaans newspapers of this left-wing establishment that will sow the greatest discord. [Interjections.]

I say today: The dangers threatening the Afrikaner and the White man are not the English, the Jews, the Greeks or the Portuguese; nor did they emanate from the outside world. It was those people, the Afrikaners within the heart of Afrikanerdom. It was people such as hon members opposite us who forsook the principles of Afrikanerdom and nationalism, but continue to govern South Africa under the NP banner.

The CP is going forward as a united, powerful force towards 6 May. If 6 May does not signify the final downfall of the NP, it will be the beginning of the end. I am telling hon members—I know that politicians should not make predictions lightly, because it is said that the gift of prophecy has gone with the prophets of old—that the NP is on the brink of its downfall. They will not be governing this country for longer than three, four or five years, if they are still in power after 6 May. The CP is not going into this election with this so-called own affairs; it is an insult to any people still in favour of self-determination within an own fatherland. This is not what the CP is taking to the electorate; we are going to the electorate with clear principles and the clear policy that there is a variety of peoples in South Africa of which we are one.

The CP has the same characteristics as the Afrikaner had for decades and centuries in his struggle for survival in an own fatherland. Eighty or 90 years ago we, too, had dealings with people like hon members on the other side. We are going to the country with these principles and this plan and therefore most of the voters will support the CP and we shall take over the government. Our country will then be governed as it was meant to be governed, and will once again enjoy a golden era.

Mr Chairman, we frequently have to … [Interjections.]

Order! If the hon member for Kuruman and the hon the Deputy Minister wish to pursue their conversation, they must do so outside the House. The hon member for Caledon may proceed.

Mr Chairman, we frequently have to listen to the hon member for Rissik in this House. I do not often follow the hon member and consequently do not always listen to him very attentively but I had to do so today. It is very difficult to reply to the hon member. I must say it is a long while since last I heard so much unadulterated nonsense in a debate as we have just had from the hon member for Rissik. [Interjections.] During the course of his speech the hon member did not mention a single fact on any aspects of the policy of this side of the House.

He merely gossiped on various topics.

Yes, the hon member gossiped around and in the process dragged the farmers into the matter.

I want to tell the hon member for Rissik that I am a farmer and proud of the fact. I want to tell him I am more involved in agricultural organisations in South Africa and in co-operatives than the hon member. I want to tell him the farmers of South Africa are too proud to permit themselves to be used as a political plaything in the field of the hon member’s party. [Interjections.]

I want to leave the hon member at this point but, before doing so, I have a comment arising from his reference to former supporters of the NP who leave the party. The point of departure of this side of the House is that South Africa is a free country politically. People may conduct their politics wherever they wish and according to their convictions. Consequently there are no fewer than eight political parties in addition to the Government party in this Parliament. It poses no problem to us if people deviate to the left or the right of the NP because nothing will cause the NP to deviate from its course.

In the history of South Africa we have had our fair share of meddlesome people as well as foreign governments with prescriptions on how to govern the country. Internally we have seen the local pawns of the “active measures” programme of Moscow. We have seen the local pawns attempting to overcome South Africa too, like the rest of Africa, at the expense of progress and order. Today South Africa is being threatened from abroad by internal organisations striving for so-called peaceful objectives but the purpose of which is to destroy order and stability in the country.

It is a pity that, lacking an own, acceptable and convincing plan, the Official Opposition is lending credibility to many of these organisations attempting to undermine South Africa by giving them their open support.

On a previous occasion in this House we discussed the End Conscription Campaign and the Official Opposition’s support of this movement. I wish to refer to this again. This organisation, the End Conscription Campaign, which has built up contact on a personal level during the past 12 months …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Would the hon member be so kind as to tell me under what item the End Conscription Campaign falls?

Order! Thank you very much. The hon member may continue. I am listening very carefully.

Mr Chairman, I am getting to the point. I want to explain that the End Conscription Campaign …

Order! I also wish to point out that I have already allowed other hon members a certain amount of latitude.

The End Conscription Campaign forged open personal links with the Helsinki-based War Resisters International during the past 12 months. This has been identified as a component of the Moscow strategy of “active measures”. It is generally accepted …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I do not want to become involved in the technicalities of how far one can stretch discussions about education, social welfare or other own affairs matters but, with great respect, I do not find anything related to Helsinki, Moscow and all these things in the additional estimates, unless they are hidden! [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Yeoville will agree that certain White voters are concerned about the End Conscription Campaign. I am not quite certain what the hon member for Caledon intends saying but he might want to discuss that aspect.

He might not! [Interjections.]

I am furnishing hon members with the background to the origin of the End Conscription Campaign and its contacts.

[Interjections.] As hon members are aware, the End Conscription Campaign is especially active at schools, which fall under own affairs, and also at universities. [Interjections.] It is common knowledge that the supporters of the End Conscription Campaign, which was established in 1983, is active at English-medium public and private schools. In some cases it receives not only the support of the principals of the school but of members of the school committees too of whom some are members of the PFP and of this Parliament as well. I am referring specifically …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I am going to persist with points of order while this goes on. With regard to the additional estimates—the rules have been stated clearly a hundred times over—one has to deal with the matters in the estimates and matters relating to them. One does not deal with policies or matters of that nature. With great respect, Sir, when you look in your green book, you will see that that can be done when the main estimates are being discussed but not under the additional estimates. To bring the PFP, school committees and whatever else into the debate on the additional estimates and link them with the End Concription Campaign is an impertinence and an absolute abuse of the rules of this House. [Interjections.]

Order! I listened to the hon member for Yeoville’s point of order. Will the hon member for Caledon now increase the relevance of his speech to the subject under discussion.

Sir, I think I should put my case very briefly by saying that the End Conscription Campaign …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member is not obeying your ruling. The End Conscription Campaign does not appear in the additional estimates. I am against this movement as well, as you know, Sir. All I submit is that it has nothing to do with the subject matter of the additional estimates which we are debating now.

Order! The hon member for Yeoville has taken the same point of order a second time. He will therefore be precluded from raising it again since I have ruled upon it.

*Will the hon member for Caledon relate his speech to the Additional Appropriation Bill before the House.

Mr Chairman, concurrent with the End Conscription Campaign is a new organisation by the name of Education for an Aware …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon member for Caledon, I believe, is holding the Chair in contempt.

Order! The hon member for Hillbrow will realise that there are more ways than one of abusing the rules of the House.

*The hon member for Caledon has not yet had the opportunity of obeying my ruling, however. The hon member for Caledon may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I next wish to refer to an organisation known as Education for an Aware South Africa. I believe it is connected with the question of own affairs. This body is a new organisation of teachers who …

Is it a White organisation or not?

I wish to submit that it is an organisation promoting politics of protest at schools. I wish to quote from this organisation’s Newsletter No 2 of January 1986 in which we see the following:

That is quite right!

After a series of further statements, the writer continues as follows:

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I suggest that unless the hon member for Caledon can show that there is money in respect of this organisation on the estimates, he is again out of order. As far as I am aware there is no money for this organisation on the estimates. If there is, however, the hon the Minister, I believe, is in terrible trouble. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Caledon may proceed.

Mr Chairman, Edasa continues in its newsletter:

It then adds …

Order! Is the hon member able to tell me under what Vote this argument of his belongs?

Mr Chairman, my speech relates to the Vote “Education and Culture”. [Interjections.]

Order! I am still considering the hon member’s submission. What did the hon member say he was talking about?

Sir, I am speaking on education.

Order! The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, Edasa continues:

This newsletter continues:

Order! I believe I have now permitted the hon member to go far enough. It is clear to me that he is not quite in order now. The hon member will have to confine himself to the subject under discussion from now on.

Mr Chairman, in that case I shall close with a request to the hon the Minister which is that he consider ordering an investigation into the activities and objectives of the End Conscription Campaign and of Education for an Aware South Africa with a view to determining to what extent children at schools where these organisations are active are being influenced in favour of so-called politics of protest in South Africa. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Caledon is still out of order.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Caledon will excuse me if I do not follow on his “End Conscription Campaign”. [Interjections.] I would like to mention in passing that I am quite opposed to the End Conscription Campaign. I also want to say that if the hon member sought to imply that this campaign was being fostered in certain private schools he is being rather unfair towards the private schools in general. Whilst there might have been the odd one which did support this concept, this was certainly not so in the majority of cases. I hope that nobody has any misconceptions on that issue.

Inflation in South Africa is so bad that I shall freely concede that it is impossible for the finance people of the various departments to frame an accurate budget for any department. At first glance, in this particular budget, the variation that is required for the additional estimates is so small that it can almost be described as infinitesimal. However, as the hon member for Yeoville pointed out, the internal vote changes of expenditure— it is usually referred to virement—are very substantial indeed in the case of some of these votes. In the preparation of estimates this is not an uncommon situation because one works on the basis that the expenditure on the various votes will be used at a certain rate. Some go a little faster than others and some go a little slower than others resulting in the situation where it is sometimes possible and desirable to have this system of viriment to switch things over.

However, there are obviously certain questions which one would like to ask in respect of this virement. One subject in particular intrigues me and has been raised by a number of speakers this afternoon. It is the subject of agriculture, and it may surprise people that I refer to this issue. A huge sum of money is required for agriculture—another R66 million. Again certain amounts have not been spent—loans to farmers in designated areas, relief of distress, animal fodder etc—and this comes to a very substantial sum which certainly eases the situation in respect of finding the R66 million. In fact, if we had to find this without these easements elsewhere, the additional estimates would have presented a vastly different picture.

However, one notices that in every budget we have dealt with this session a substantial sum has been required for first aid treatment, almost, to the agricultural industry in South Africa. When one makes an investigation as to what the situation is, one finds that, in fact, it is a pretty disastrous situation. I am given to understand that at the present moment the agricultural industry is in debt to the tune of something of the order of R13 billion. Now, this is an astronomical sum within the South African context. Moreover, it is very dangerous indeed—particularly when one bears in mind that the agricultural industry is one of the three industries that bear the brunt of the support of the economic structure of South Africa.

The estimated total of gross turnover in that industry was something of the order of R7 billion last year or the year under discussion. However, the profits made amounted to the ridiculous sum of R1 million, not R1 billion. When one has a situation such as that, surely it is necessary to get one’s whole agricultural industry into focus and proper perspective. To try putting little bits of sticking plaster on this, that, and the other part of that particular industry, is really not facing up to the problem at all.

My friends in the farming industry give me to understand that way back in 1948, a rather significant year, I believe, the agricultural industry was in very little debt at all. There was a certain amount of debt, obviously; certain farmers always owe some money. Relatively speaking, however, there was very little money owing in the agricultural industry, and, furthermore, it was almost considered a disgrace to owe money if one were a farmer. That was the attitude, certainly of Natal farmers.

We have reached a situation now where there is R13 billion debt. How have we reached this situation? From what we can gather, only about 20% of the indebtedness is as a consequence of drought and natural misfortune. Something of the order of 80% is from other causes. I am not an agriculturist; I am some sort of a businessman, but I know this: There is no way at all that the agricultural industry in South Africa, by normal business means, can liquidate that R13 billion debt. It is just a physical impossibility. It cannot be done; not within the framework of the structure of agricultural economics. I believe that, although this is only a relatively small part—the additional estimates of the own affairs aspect of agriculture—one must use this opportunity to plead with the Government, if they are going to be the Government after the May election, to have a look at the situation to ensure that this matter is handled on a properly consolidated basis.

Frankly, if one is ever going to get the agricultural industry onto a sound footing, and as the Government itself has in the past provided what I prefer to term new money to put into the agricultural industry, I believe that they should give serious consideration to writing it off, because otherwise all they will be doing is destroying the incentive and the initiative of the farming community if they have this insuperable burden to overcome.

The position in regard to Vote 4 is of some interest. I am very pleased to see that housing is also getting a few extra million. This is presumably for White housing. I think it was the hon member for Yeoville who raised the point that we are still thinking in terms of housing that is too expensive. Having been involved in the building industry for the past 30 or 40 years, I still believe that South African standards for an initial house are far too high. First-time home owners should be provided with adequate space, and then be expected to do the finishing work over the years when they can afford to do so. This is where we are making a mistake.

I would like to ask the hon the Minister if he can tell me whether this money is to be used for building relatively low-cost housing or for formulating more plans and having more scientific studies and what have you. We probably have the finest collection of studies on housing of any country in the world. I understand that the new archives are likely to be built here in Cape Town at a cost of something of the order of R20 million, and I do not think they will be big enough to accommodate all the plans for housing and housing development schemes that have been produced in South Africa over very many years. I hope that the budgeted money is, in fact, going to be used for the production of low-cost housing.

I believe that the additional estimate is, in this instance, a relatively small affair, and that one must ultimately support it because the job has to go on, but there is one thing which has worried me as long as I have been in this House. No matter how much money a government get, when it comes to the end of the year they always want more. They always get more because outside in the street one has that large mass of long-suffering public who have to dig their hands more deeply into their pockets every year. I hope that, perhaps in the not too distant future, this Government or their successors will learn that the depth of the public pocket is not unlimited and that the more deeply people have to dig into their pockets, the more heavily one builds up inflation. This being the case, I would hope that a budget will come up one day in which the Government does not, as Oliver Twist did, ask for more.

Mr Chairman, I am sure the hon member for Umbilo will forgive me if I do not follow upon what he said. I really have no quarrel with it at all.

I have only a few minutes at my disposal today in these the dying moments of the last session of Parliament prior to the election. Firstly, I want to refer to the amount allocated under Vote 1 for pensions. In introducing the Second Reading today, the hon the Minister told us that the number of social pensioners increased by 500 per month compared to 300 per month the year before. That is virtually a 66% increase. This only goes to show that there are more people requiring more aid, and that more pensions are therefore required. Longevity is an important factor. The fact that more people are dependent on pensions means that we are giving them false hopes. They cannot balance their budgets if they are told that the increase in their pensions will only come into effect in October. This was the mistake made by the previous Minister of Finance, Dr Owen Horwood, who used to announce increases in March that only used to come into effect in October. This time, however, it is unforgivable. It is no good holding out false hopes to these people. If they are going to be given this increase in their pensions—an increase they both need and deserve!—they should be given it now. This is not an issue that should be used for canvassing for votes in an election.

The next question I want to raise relates to Vote 4, namely Local Government, Housing and Works. Under this heading we are voting some additional amounts. An additional amount of R9 million is being asked for housing aid. In his explanation the hon the Minister refers to the fact that we are participating in a “R750 million programme for the promotion of housing” for which an additional R9 million is now required.

I am pleased that the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Works is present here today. In the first place, he announced sometime last year that a special commission—the Housing Commission—was being appointed to go into the whole question of housing in South Africa. The names of the members appeared in the Government Gazette. I should now like to know from the hon the Minister what role these people are playing in regard to a national scheme for housing to be provided for all the people of South Africa, and why, if this is being done, an amount of only R9 million is being voted.

The problem I have is that this arises out of the Development and Housing Bill which was the first of the two own affairs Bills introduced to this House by the hon the Minister and in terms of which the hon the Minister required the establishment of the Development and Housing Board as well as the establishment of the Development and Housing Fund. This led to the transfer of assets from the Community Development Board to the newly established body.

The whole idea of dividing the responsibility for the provision of housing into separate own affairs as opposed to leaving it a general community affair, is retrogressive and is not in the best interests of the country. I do not believe we would have been in this serious position that we are in today had we continued with the old system of community development as a general affair involving all three Houses.

Difficulties have arisen. If the Government had had a plan, and if the body concerned had recommended, on the basis of funds to be voted, that adequate housing be provided for people of all races, we would not have had the problems we are facing today in many of the urban areas as a result of the urbanisation that has taken place. The reason for that problem is the inadequate provision of housing in areas such as those inhabited by the poorer Blacks, Coloureds and Indians. Now we have a hiatus: We have the National Party and its purely grey policy. It is that grey policy I want to outline today in my reply to the hon member for Gezina.

The hon member argued today that the NP are protecting group interests. Wherein does the protection of group interests lie, however, if the Government allow grey and “illegal” areas to develop, and if they grant permits to people of all races to live in areas in the cities? Some hon members of the CP, namely the hon member for Langlaagte and the hon member for Jeppe, as well as other hon members have accepted that their areas have become grey areas. There is thus no group protection in these areas for the people of various races. If, therefore, the Government are going to grant permits and are going to allow people of all races to live within one group area, then the only correct way to do it is to scrap the Group Areas Act completely. There should not be a grey area and there should not be an “illegal” area; everybody should be allowed to live where they can afford to. In that way there will not be bottlenecks in “special” areas, and, throughout South Africa, areas will be developed in which there will be an even spread of housing. In that way the body that the hon the Minister has established and the funds he is asking for today can be used to provide housing for all the population groups. One body, with one policy, can then devise a housing scheme. It is no good separating the responsibility for the provision of housing and the policy in respect of housing by having separate groups and separate bodies devising separate formulae for housing.

It is in the light of those circumstances that I wanted to draw the attention of this House to the problem that has arisen as far as housing is concerned.

Mr Chairman, I should also like to draw the attention of the House to Vote 4, Local Government, Housing and Works. As my colleague the hon member for Hillbrow has indicated, a considerable increase in the original budgeted amount is required. This amounts to a percentage of almost 43,8%, which is a very big increase.

In his motivation the hon the Minister indicated the reasons that are to a large extent responsible for this considerable increase, and I personally do not experience any major problems with that motivation. But what does cause me problems, is something which is not quite clearly stated here, but which is quite possibly being implied. It is said that this Vote deals with the acquisition of land and the control of State-owned land, and it is in accordance with this Vote that financing is being created for this department to purchase land owned by people of colour within a White group area. The White own affairs department responsible for housing therefore now needs the finance to buy land from Coloureds or Indians or whoever, so that those people can move from those areas and go and live in their own group areas. Of course something of this nature happened a short while ago.

In Lansdowne quite a number of families received letters from the department of the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Works, in which that department made an offer to buy their houses with money which could be made available by the Development and Housing Board. On the surface this approach appears to be cautious as an offer is merely being made. What is happening at the same time, however, is that the attention of the people to whom these letters are being sent, is being drawn to the fact that their presence in those areas is illegal. It is difficult to tell people that their presence in an area is illegal if they are the owners of their own land and their own houses in those areas, and if those people have been living in those areas long before they were declared a group area.

That is reform!

Yes, that is reform. That is the kind of thing that is happening and for which finance from this House is being voted to make it a financial possibility. [Interjections.] I should like to know from either the hon the Minister of the Budget, or the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Works what specific amount is being appropriated for this kind of transaction, so that the House may know how much the administration of group areas falling under this department is costing the country. Apart from what it is costing the country in terms of personal relations—we all know that it is a tragedy of national proportions—we should also like to know what it is costing us purely in financial terms.

Reference was made to own affairs, and I should just like to draw the House’s attention to what the so-called idea of own affairs has to do with the administration of group areas. As I indicated, these letters in which the offer is made, are sent out by the hon the Minister’s department. This happened after the group area had been declared by the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning. If those people want to accept the department’s offer, and they want alternative accommodation, they will have to apply to a second department, i e the Department of Local Government, Housing and Agriculture of the House of Representatives. If they do not want to make use of it, they have to apply to the provincial Administrator for a permit to stay there. These unfortunate people are thus dragged into an absolute bureaucratic nightmare, in which they deal with four different departments and in which they have to beg for mercy merely because they are living in that area where they own houses for which they have paid and where they lived long before that area was declared a group area.

Let me just say that this is an unforgivable situation. It is unforgivable that we should even allocate a cent for that purpose, and I sincerely hope that the hon the Minister will withdraw those offers and that he will give those people the assurance that they will be left in peace in future.

Mr Chairman, I want to echo the words of my hon colleague from Yeoville when he started this debate by pointing out that in this budget there is some sleight-of-hand. I liken it to the shell game. That game is played by having three shells face down with a pea under one of them. One shuffles them around and the question then is: Where is the pea? That is what the hon the Minister is doing with money. He is making it disappear. I believe what we have in the budget as a whole and in particular aspects—I want to refer to education in particular—is a shell game. All sorts of shufflings are taking place and the public, the taxpayer, is none the wiser.

On 10 February the hon the Minister of National Education, in answer to a question that I posed to him, agreed that common funding formulae for education are going to be used in the Budget for 1987-8 as an “interim frame of reference”—whatever that may mean. At the same time he indicated that the levying of tuition fees is an own affair. That is interesting, because does it mean—and I ask the hon the Minister—that all schools and all parents under his department—White schools and White parents in this case—are aware of the paring, of the cutting back, of the dismissal of teachers and the possible introduction of tuition fees, say of 10% of the cost of educating a child, some R180 or R220 per annum? Have they been told about this because it ties in directly with the budget that we have before us?

That is exactly what has happened to the universities. The university situation has reached the stage where the cutting back that has been threatened for so long has arrived. I believe that we are in a cover-up situation where parents will be told after the election what they will have to pay, just as the taxpayer, as my hon colleague from Yeoville pointed out, will be told after the election what he will have to pay.

In the Schedule that we have in front of us we find that for university and technikon education there is a decrease of R14 million with a footnote which states: “Further savings are expected”.

*Let us look at what Die Unie, the mouthpiece of the South African Teachers’ Union, of February 1987 has to say:

Now this is being cut back by a further R14 milion and “further savings are expected”.

†I find myself in an extraordinary position. We have here a R14 million cut in the allocation to universities and the money is being shuffled around. In addition the hon the Minister of Education and Culture, who is responsible for this Vote, says:

That is interesting. Apart from noting that they had a 13% cut in subsidies in 1985 and a 17% cut in subsidies and an additional R14 million in savings—plus more coming—in 1986 they are now going to be restricted in terms of numbers. What is the reality at the present moment? The growth rate of the universities between 1983 and 1984 was 3,7% and between 1984 and 1985 it was 5%. The universities are not exploding in numbers; the Government is applying a fiscal axe to universities, the most prestigious section of our educational community. I believe what needs to be answered by the hon the Minister is whether he believes putting an axe to the universities’ necks is the right thing to do. It is not possible for hon members of this House or the public outside even to understand on what basis this kind of axe is being applied.

We understand that the Department of National Education is the body responsible for formulating the common funding position. We understand that they are the ones who work with Sapse—the South African Post-School Education project—formula and the Sapse information. However, nobody knows whether the cutback on students that the hon the Minister is talking about is going to be applied on the basis of faculty, study direction, race or whatever. Is it going to be applied at individual universities? When one looks at the residential universities the hon the Minister is responsible for one sees that there is a widely divergent growth rate. Some, like UCT, are in fact falling in numbers or have been in the past few years. We therefore have to ask ourselves what kind of provision he is making.

I would like to turn now from the universities to the whole question of teachers’ salaries. The hon the Minister makes provision in this additional appropriation for funding in the Transvaal and the Cape Province. I would be very interested to know where that R17 million is being spent. Why was provision not made by the Transvaal and the Cape for the takeover of functions last year while Natal and the Free State seemed to get it right? What happened? I believe that we may well be looking at the area of teachers’ salaries included in that because one is aware from Press reports that the hon the Minister and his collegue, the hon the Minister of National Education, are deeply involved in discussions on teachers’ salaries. What I would like to know is whether teachers’ salary increases are going to be announced before the election or not. That is what I believe the situation should be. I think they should know before the election. I also think South Africa should know before the election what is going to happen to the public servants. The Government is now tapping the public servants and teachers on the shoulder with the hint that there will be the promise of something after the election.

Order! I have given the hon member some latitude …

Mr Chairman, I will stop at this point as far as teachers’ salaries are concerned.

I would like now to come to the hon member of Gezina and the Menlo Park incident. I have already said a few words about Menlo Park and I would just like to quote the hon the Minister of Home Affairs who preceded the present hon Minister of Education and Culture. Hon members must listen to what he said about the NP’s sports policy (Hansard: Assembly, 10 May 1985, col 5240):

Hon members must take note of the word “exclusively”—

I want to echo those words—

That is NP policy and yet last week at least three members of that party said school sport was different from the school programme. One can therefore integrate school sport but schooling and sitting on school benches must be kept separate. The Government cannot have it both ways. They are sitting on the fence with both legs on the ground and they are going to fall off very, very shortly.

Finally, I want to refer very quickly to two questions. The first concerns the funding of the Huguenot and Dias projects, which amounts to just over R1 million. We do not begrudge it; we believe that festivals of this nature—300 years in the one case and 500 in the other—have to be and should be celebrated. However, what I find extraordinary is that the Government has known for years that this date would come up but last year they did not budget anything at all for those festivals. Now they want to budget for an amount of R1 million.

The last matter that I want to touch upon concerns the appropriation for the administration of education. I believe we in this House have to guard against centralisation and a top-heavy administration of education and culture. We must realise that the principle of the devolution of education is very important. We are a federal party and we say that to create a big and too heavy administration at the centre is exactly what we do not need.

Mr Chairman, in the programme Education and Training an amount of R545 126 is being budgeted for the Cape. I should like to see us making more money available to the provinces whose schools are tremendously far behind at this stage as far as the provision of sports facilities and other facilities are concerned. There are a large number of schools in the Cape whose sports facilities are completely inadequate. In a place like Daniëlskuil there is a school, for example, which is almost 100 years old. This school has expanded a great deal during the past few years, but at the moment it is low on the waiting list for the necessary sports and other facilities. I would like to see more money being made available for the establishment of the necessary facilities in our schools.

Another problem area I am saddled with is Vanzylsrus. This area has been declared a designated area and approval has been given for the police station, for example, to be fenced in. This little place is almost on the border of Botswana, but we have been waiting for months for security fences to be erected around the school, which is situated close to the border. We should like this matter to be investigated.

We shall just have to try to negotiate to obtain these things for our schools in the Cape. The hon member for Gezina has after all said that the concept of own affairs, the budget for which we are now dealing with, gives the Whites a bargaining power.

The hon the State President said on television recently that own structures should also be created for Blacks. Like the Coloureds and Indians, the Blacks are now to be given seats in joint structures by means of own structures. This is in the same way as we Whites by means of this own structure have seats in a communal structure dealing with communal affairs. Blacks, like Whites, will be able to negotiate for their own affairs in these joint structures. In these joint structures, which emanate from the own structures, we will therefore have a process of negotiation between the Whites who are fighting for their own affairs and the Blacks who are bargaining for their own affairs.

The hon member for Gezina is possibly strongly emphasising the fact that own structures are being created for own affairs, but it is precisely by means of their own structures and their own affairs which are identified that every group receives representation in the joint structures. It is in these joint structures that the bargaining is going to take place and where there is going to be a conflict between the interests of the various groups.

We are heading for clashes and conflicts. Before the election takes place we want to state clearly that if we take the path which the hon member for Gezina called for, South Africa would be heading for conflict and eventual Black majority rule.

The CP does not only stand for own structures for Whites, but states that the Whites alone should have a say in all the facets that affect their lives. The Whites want total self-determination, in an own fatherland. This is the mandate that we are going to ask the people to give us on 6 May.

Mr Chairman, I would like to thank all the hon members who took part in the discussions this afternoon. Various hon members asked for details which they should preferably request of the respective Ministers during the Committee Stage. I shall therefore react in general to a number of matters raised by hon members, and my colleagues will provide further details later in the debate during the Committee Stage.

†The hon member for Yeoville played down the additional budget. I thought that at least for once he was going to praise the additional budget in that we are only asking for a small amount, just over R7 million, but he belittled it, and used quite strong language in doing so. He referred to it as a “sleight-of-hand”; he said the electorate was being deceived etc. Then he tried to explain why he was belittling it and why he was not giving us credit where credit was due. He said he was doing so because it was not really R7,6 million that we have overspent but far more than that. In the first instance he referred to the 2% cutback.

The fact is that the total amount saved through the 2% cutback last year amounted to R90,9 million. Although we had to ask the Department of Finance to relieve us of a certain proportion of that amount, it still means that we will be saving R61,9 million in terms of the original commitment to save 2% on our budget.

I would also like to tell the hon member that the increase in the number of social pensioners was partly due to the fact that we have removed the means test for war veterans of the First World War. That increased the number of pensioners quite substantially.

There are very good reasons why we can be truly proud of this additional budget, particularly when one considers the fact that we were asked to spend R17,6 million on the stimulatory package, an amount we had to find without the assistance of the Department of Finance. When one takes into consideration the R17,6 million that we spent for stimulatory purposes, one can see that we have done extremely well. The hon member for Yeoville is completely wrong in belittling this budget. The increase of only R7,6 million is a wonderful achievement, and I want to thank the hon Ministers and their departments for the discipline they have exercised in this difficult year in trying to stay within the budget and in fact exceeding it by a really small amount.

*I would like to say that, during the brief association I have had with the Administration: House of Assembly, it has become clear that it is a very purposeful and efficient administration. The fact that the additional appropriation amounts to R7,6 million testifies to the fact that we have here a team spirit which has enabled the various departments to display great self-discipline in spite of the fact that it has been a very difficult year.

†The hon member for Umbilo referred to the fact that it is difficult to be on target when inflation is running high. It is difficult to stay within one’s budget if costs are increasing on all fronts. Therefore it has been a great achievement and I am grateful to the hon Ministers and the heads of departments for their contributions.

*The hon the Minister of Education and Culture also told me that I could give the hon member for Yeoville the assurance that the letters were in the post.

†The letters are in the post. They will reach the schools within the time limit agreed upon between the schools and the educational bodies involved.

*They will receive the letters and disbursements for the first nine months of the period will be made at the end of February, and the money for the last three months will be paid out before 31 March. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Yeoville also talked about levies and enquired as to when we were going to introduce them. He wanted to know whether we were going to come to light with a great variety of levies directly after the election. I would like to tell the hon member that the principle of levies has already been accepted in theory as well as in practice. Levies already exist on various services provided to the public. It is therefore not a principle which has never been put into operation before. It exists in practice and works well. I think that serves to reply to the hon member for Yeoville.

The hon member for Rissik delivered his last speech in this Chamber today.

That will be the day! [Interjections.]

I have differed with the hon member over the years but, as he himself has indicated, we have at least differed in a good spirit.

Dawie, this is your last day here!

In 1972-73 we had a fierce debate when I said that Springboks should be selected on merit, irrespective of the population group to which they belonged, because they all played for South Africa. The hon member and I had wide differences of opinion at that time.

That difference of opinion still exists today. The hon member for Rissik takes the view that other population groups do not form part of the South Africa to which he belongs. [Interjections.] That is the essential difference between the point of departure of hon members on that side of the House and that of hon members on this side. We accept the reality that South Africa does not consist of Whites alone, and that we must accommodate the other population groups in this country politically as well. Our whole history, including that of the NP, has, in fact, been aimed at giving content to the political rights of Black people, Coloureds and Asians. Our whole history has revolved around giving content to the rights of these people—not around denying them.

That is why the NP has revised its policy accordingly over the years and why reform has been introduced gradually. We have now reached the point at which, although own national and independent states already exist and accommodation for Coloureds and Asians has also been included in the existing Constitution, the process of reform has not yet run its course, because there are still several million people within the borders of South Africa to whom political and other rights have to be granted. [Interjections.]

Because the CP is wrestling with the same problem, those hon members are now asking how it is going to be done. They say one should get rid of the problem by means of partition—those people should simply be pushed out of South Africa. They say that is the answer. It cannot, however, be done so easily, and more and more people in South Africa are realising that we must address the realities.

What does the hon member for Rissik say when realism breaks through in various areas, such as at our schools and among our young people? He then says they are leftist. He contends that this is due to the liberals at the universities; that is why he is leaving Rissik. He ascribes it to the liberals among Afrikaans newspapermen; that is why he does not read Afrikaans newspapers any more. Because there are, according to him, liberals in the NP, they have deviated from the policy.

I never said I do not read those newspapers, Dawie!

The hon member probably says that it is the liberal parents at Menlo Park who are now going to take the decisions on behalf of that school and its people. Take note that it will be the majority who will make the decisions. [Interjections.] The hon member for Rissik is so far out of step to the right that anyone who is not in step with him is simply typified as leftist-liberal. [Interjections.] He simply has to realise that there are many more people in this country who assess the future in a realistic and balanced way. He and his hon colleagues will realise this on 6 May. [Interjections.]

I would just like to tell the hon member that I think it a pity that he also makes such crass statements on own affairs. He said that own affairs was an insult to Whites. Sir, is it an insult that we are spending R4 billion on the education of White children? Is it an insult that hon members in this House are able to decide how those funds should be spent? Does the way in which White education is approached not concern the hon member and his party? Similarly, I can ask them if it is insulting that millions of rands are being made available for welfare for Whites and for agriculture and water supply. This is money which reaches every farm, every farmer, every child and every teacher in this country. Those hon members simply dismiss this as being insulting to Whites. I would like the hon member for Kuruman, and naturally the hon member for Rissik as well, to know that I believe that a big surprise awaits them and their colleagues on 6 May.

Yes, our victory will be a surprise ! [Interjections.]

The fact is that there are quite a number of those hon members— the hon member for Sunnyside is one of them—to whom we shall bid farewell today. We shall bid them farewell because we shall not see them again in this House.

One of these days I shall sit where you are now standing! [Interjections.]

The hon member for Umbilo also raised a number of questions which, I believe, the hon the Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply will reply to in detail during the Committee Stage.

Order! Regarding the content of the additional appropriation, I would just like to ask the hon the Minister if he has finished with 6 May. Is he now going to continue with something else?

Yes, Mr Chairman, I have finished with 6 May. [Interjections.]

†I should like, however, to respond to the questions raised by the hon member for Umbilo. Certainly, agriculture is important. It is very important indeed. The Government is giving a very high priority to agriculture. That is why the hon the State President referred this matter to his Economic Advisory Council which investigated the whole issue and made certain proposals which were accepted by the Government. In a debate a few days ago in this House the hon the Minister of Agriculture referred to steps the Government was taking in response to the recommendations made by the Economic Advisory Council. Further steps will be taken in that regard.

Mr Chairman, will the hon the Minister tell us whether that report of the Economic Advisory Council will be made public, and if so, when might we expect that to happen?

Mr Chairman, I have no doubt it will be made public. I am not in a position, however, to give the hon member an exact date. I take it that it will certainly be made public as soon as the department and the Government have had the opportunity of studying it in full. The hon the Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply will be able to furnish the hon member with more exact particulars relating to the date and so forth.

The hon member for Hillbrow also asked questions that really concern the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Works. The same applies to the hon member for Green Point.

*The hon the Minister indicated that he would discuss the matter raised here by the hon member for Green Point further during the Committee Stage. It is an important matter.

† As regards the hon member for Pinetown I should like to react to just one of his remarks. The rest of the points raised by him actually concern the hon the Minister of Education and Culture. The hon member for Pinetown also referred to the question of the formula. He must not think that the formula will suddenly provide more money.

How could it provide less?

The formula will simply provide a method by means of which the money provided by the Treasury will be divided among the various Houses. This will be done in such a way as to eliminate over a period of time the existing disparities. The formula was very difficult to accomplish. We worked very hard on it. The officials also worked very hard, and we are now close to the point where we will be able to make the formula known. So the hon member must just exercise a little more patience and we will satisfy his curiosity.

*The hon member for Kuruman also tried to get in a final thrust before the election. Naturally there will be conflicting interests in the joint structures. Conflicting interests are, however, part of the order of things in South Africa. The question is not whether they exist. The question is how they should be dealt with. The question is how those conflicting interests are to be managed. The hon member must not think he is going to lessen the conflicting interests when the CP one-sidedly announces that it will be able to push those people out into their own states and so exclude them from the South African problem. They will remain part of the set-up and conflict will increase to the extent to which we neglect to control and manage that conflict. That is why the hon member for Kuruman and his party are approaching a very difficult period, namely when they are going to have to explain how they, within their own political framework, are going to manage and control these differences.

Mr Chairman, I thank hon members again for their contributions. During the Committee Stage hon members will be given the opportunity to address specific questions to hon Ministers. In closing I would also like to express my gratitude towards the Administration: House of Assembly once again for an additional appropriation which, I believe, is truly praiseworthy. It is commendable, in such a difficult year, to remain within the limits of a budget so that, in the end, approval for an additional amount of only R7,6 million has to be requested.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, firstly, why is there an anticipated reduction in expenditure in respect of mental health? Secondly, as far as the special job creation projects are concerned, is it anticipated that this money will be spent fully or will it be overspent or underspent and, if so, for what reason? What specific things are being done which were not dealt with at the time when the original estimates were put? Thirdly, I raise the question in regard to pharmaceutical services. With the four provinces now having greater co-ordination, could savings be effected in respect of the purchase of pharmaceutical products?

Mr Chairman, could the hon member please indicate … the first question concerns …

The mental health programme, Item No 3, Vote 1. The summary is on page 1 of the roneoed copy which gives the greater detail. Does he have the explanatory memorandum? The hon the Minister must look at the first page. I hope this is not being included in my time, Mr Chairman.

It appears to me that the hon member has a different …

I am dealing with this year.

Yes. Is it the amount of R22 000?

No, I am dealing with the figure of R451 000 under the heading “decrease”.

Sorry, the hon the Deputy Minister of National Health will deal with that.

Mr Chairman, that amount to which the hon member for Yeoville referred, where R451 000 was not spent on mental health, is the result of posts that could not be filled. In fact, therefore, there is no overexpenditure under subprogramme 2—medical care—and this is merely a transfer of the funds to medical care. The total amount of R530 000 is therefore only, as far as the rising cost is concerned …

I am not referring to the R530 000, but to the R451 000 in regard to mental health.

Had the hon member for Yeoville been listening to me, he would have discovered that I was merely going on to explain to him how we transferred those funds. The posts could not be filled and for that reason there was underexpenditure in that Vote.

The next question asked by the hon member dealt with the buying mechanism in regard to pharmaceutical remedies, among other things. He questioned this. We appreciate his questioning it and that is why the Department of National Health and Population Development has directed an investigation into the purchase of pharmaceutical remedies on the basis of a central buying mechanism. The whole purpose is to achieve uniformity, and that investigation is still in progress.

The last question asked by the hon member for Yeoville—I did ot hear it clearly—concerned special job creation, for which R100 000 was voted. This amount was not utilized but I can assure the hon member that this R100 000 will still be receiving the necessary attention and that it will indeed be used towards job creation.

Mr Chairman, I do not understand the answers because, as regards special job creation, I understood the hon the Deputy Minister to say that the amount had not been used and that the matter was receiving attention. If it has not been used, I am amazed, because we are obviously in a period of unemployment. So, I asked whether it would be enough; whether they would need more and what was actually being done with it. However, we do not get any answers.

In regard to the question of mental health, the simple situation there is that, if there is an increase in expenditure of R530 000 in respect of medical care, that is an excess. In regard to mental health there is a decrease. Then it is said that posts were not filled and that that is the reason why the R451 000 was not spent. However, the increase in respect of medical care is in fact an excess while in regard to mental health it was not possible to spend all the money. Surely, as regards mental health, it should be possible to fill those posts and give adequate attention to the mental needs of the people in these institutions whom we are obliged to care for.

Mr Chairman, I can perhaps just tell the hon member that the job creation programme does not actually involve job creation so much as a welfare service to provide the unemployed with an income. That amount will be spent entirely on welfare—I dealt with this in the budget last week—for example supporting people who can no longer be covered by funds for the provision of employment or incorporated in existing job creation programmes. They are assisted on a welfare basis until adequate work can be found. That is what the amount was voted for and the entire amount will be spent.

Mr Chairman, with reference to the question which the hon member for Yeoville asked about the underexpenditure on mental health, I just want to tell him that he need not tell us that it is important to fill those posts. But the fact remains that the people who should have filled those posts were simply not available. Consequently that money could not be spent on salaries. The money was therefore available and, as there was overexpenditure or an increase in expenditure of virtually the same amount under medical care owing to the increased cost of dental apparatus and so on, the amount was transferred to the subprogramme Dentistry.

Vote agreed to.

Vote No 2—“Agriculture and Water Supply”:

Mr Chairman, under programme 9 we see that there has been a fairly substantial increase in expenditure under the item “Maintenance Services”. The increase is R2,178 million. It is about half way down the ninth programme. Could the hon the Deputy Minister tell us the reasons for this increase?

Mr Chairman, there are a variety of reasons for this increase. There are maintenance services. This concerns the maintenance of a number of experimental farms. There is an experimental farm in virtually every agricultural district. Money was spent in maintaining these experimental farms and making improvements there. I can give you a few examples in this connection.

The drainage works at Upington are one example. There are also, inter alia, the increased telephone costs which are included in this account. In respect of the protection of State property, approximately R55 000 was also spent on the erection of fences. On the Bien Donné experimental farm wire-netting cages were also erected at a cost of approximately R10 000. These are a number of small amounts. The largest amount was spent on the maintenance of almost 453 tractors belonging to the State. Approximately R26 000 was spent at the Citrus and Subtropical Fruit Research Institute at Messina. The amount paid out for the adjustment of salaries of technicians, which was retrospective, must also be included in this amount.

Certain of the State’s tractors and implements also had to be replaced. The State, as I have already mentioned, owns approximately 453 tractors. A number of these tractors—some are already 15 to 20 years old— had to be replaced. Because of the rising costs this totalled approximately R945 000.

I can mention other examples too. Workshop services also had to be paid for. This is normal expenditure in the industry. It is used for the repair of implements and the assurance that State assets do not deteriorate. Inflation has made these items relatively more expensive. That is why there was an increase in this entire amount.

Mr Chairman, would the hon the Deputy Minister tell us what the situation is at Groot Constantia which warrants this rather large amount of money to come to its assistance?

Mr Chairman, if one looks at this amount of almost R4,7 million which is now being spent on Groot Constantia, one must dwell for a moment on the history of Groot Constantia to understand it. Originally it was State land allocated to Simon van der Stel. Over the years, since 1957, it has really become State property again, after it had been leased for a while. It was in a relatively neglected condition. In 1957 this State land was operated as an experimental farm, with the objective that it should not be operated at a loss. That is why the accounts of Groot Constantia are inspected by the Select Committee on Public Accounts every year. In 1975 the running of Groot Constantia Estate was taken a step further when it was placed under the management of a control board; a control board consisting of six members. They must operate this experimental farm at a profit.

Groot Constantia also has another aspect over and above the farming aspect. It is a big tourist attraction. As regard the re-creation of Groot Constantia, the vineyards had to be replanted and the packing-shed and cellars had to be rebuilt to such extent that it could cape with the influx of visitors. Approximately 300 000 tourists visit this farm every year. This must be supervised.

The control board has incurred considerable expenses with regard to the improvements. In the process more than 150 000 hectares were replanted with 350 000 vines. Labourers houses were erected. The production and bottling unit in the cellar was repaired. The administrative offices were erected. Restaurant facilities and a marketing hall were created. All this means that these buildings, which are the property of the State, were initially financed by a loan by the control board. Consequently, the amount of R4,7 million is merely a repayment to compensate the control board for what is has created for the State; which are the State’s own assets.

Mr Chairman, I listened to the hon the Deputy Minister, but I see under programme 7 of the explanatory memorandum that R1 965 million for the establishment of State-aided water schemes is now going to be withdrawn. Would the hon the Deputy Minister tell us, seeing that nothing is being given to agriculture, except what is being saved, whether they consider agriculture and the state of emergency in which the country finds itself to be of so little importance that they are going to spend R4,7 million on Groot Constantia only? Why could this matter not have been held over? When was this planned? How did the planning of that loan take place? I think the hon the Deputy Minister must give us a little information.

Mr Chairman …

You have one nation …

Order!

… the saving to which the hon member for Sunnyside referred, resulted from the fact that the Worcester East Irrigation Scheme, which was budgeted for, is no longer going to be built because it is not economically justified. Consequently it was bugeted for, but as the hon member knows, a State-aided water works can only proceed to the point where tenders are invited, provided the State agrees to it, and we arrived at a point where, owing to circumstances, there were doubts about the economic justification for it. As a result the money was not allocated.

I think it is unfair to want to lay the blame for this on the Government, because it wants to act carefully in the interests of the farmers and not place an economic burden on them which they cannot afford. If that scheme goes through we can very easily arrive at schemes where the water tax is tremendously high, and then the farmers will not be able to manage anyway.

Why did the hon member not rather go back to other savings, which were also effected here, which were larger and can also be explained, for example, whereas there was large scale budgeting in previous Votes in respect of agricultural credit, owing to the fact that it has rained and certain districts are no longer on the emergency grazing list, large savings have accrued to the State in that regard? If it had not rained, if the drought had continued, the State would have spent that money, but because it did rain and those areas are consequently no longer on the list, there were large savings. This does not mean that the State wants to deprive the farmers of financial assistance. I think it is unfair to criticise the State in this way when it almost went beyond its means to assist the farmers.

Mr Chairman, I have learned that the subsidy which the State gives farmers to plan their farms, build camps, put up fences and lay on water, was suspended a while ago. Is it again applicable? Can those farmers who apply for the subsidy get it? Is it being allocated, yes or no?

Certain of these programmes have been reintroduced.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No 68.

Vote agreed to.

Remaining Votes, Schedule, Clauses and Title agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move:

The Currency and Exchange Act of 1933 provides in section 9(1), among other things, for the State President to issue regulations on any matter directly or indireclty related to or influencing or having any connection with currency, banking, or exchange rates.

It was under this Act that exchange control regulations were issued, to which I should like to refer briefly. Regulation 4, for instance, provides for the blocking of funds arising out of infringements of exchange control involving the irregular movement of funds—inwards or outwards—at a harbour of arrival or departure. This regulation has been applied, for example, to the irregular outflow of Kruger rands. Regulations 3(1)A and 2(2)A, again, deal with infringements involving the transfer of foreign exchange from South Africa. There was originally, however, no regulation applying to the irregular purchase or sale of financial rands, and it was for that reason that four pending cases, having to do with contraventions involving financial rand, were withdrawn.

The question of currency infringements, as far as they concern financial rands, fell away on 7 February 1983, when the dual exchange rate system was replaced by a unitary exchange rate.

The financial rand system was, however, reintroduced on 1 September 1985, along with the announcement of the debt standstill. To prevent any irregular use of the financial rand Regulation 14 was issued, which places restrictions on the purchase and sale of financial rand.

The legislation and regulations thus provided for the blocking of funds involved in the movement of currency inwards or outwards, and for a limitation on the purchase or sale of financial rand, but not for the treatment of a profit arising from an illegal transaction.

In a recent contravention by a South African bank, the bank involved was authorised, as a currency dealer, to handle foreign exchange, but had no authority to deal in financial rands. By means of the unauthorised conversion thereof into commercial rands, an irregular profit of some R100 million was made, which—it is alleged—was divided among the several people involved.

In legal circles there is doubt whether section 9(1)a of the Act can be sufficiently widely interpreted to support the issue of new regulations providing for either the attachment and blocking of profits originating in currency contraventions or the forfeiture of blocked funds. For instance, there are now three cases pending against the Minister of Finance, and one of the main arguments being advanced is that the steps taken by the Minister under Regulation 4 should be regarded as ultra vires. Should these parties succeed in their application a whole series of actions could follow for the return of blocked funds and/or goods.

With a view to overcoming this problem, the amending Bill now provides for the issue of regulations that, in the first place, provide for the attachment, disposal and blocking by the Treasury of money or goods that the Minister on reasonable grounds believes to be related to a contravention or suspected contravention of the exchange control regulations.

To protect the rights of the individual the Bill provides that such blocking will not exceed a period of 12 months. After 12 months the Treasury will be obliged to return the money or goods or to declare them forfeited. Forfeiture will take place by way of notice by registered post and publication in the Government Gazette.

The proposed Bill provides that those aggrieved by such forfeiture may within 90 days of such notice institute an action against the Minister for the setting aside of the notice.

A further amendment aims to deal with third parties who have been enriched from dealings of the kind under discussion, without a fair consideration having passed in the course of a commercial transaction, in the same way as with the original person guilty of the contravention. Moreover, recourse may be had to the other assets of a party suspected of contravention, where the blocking and forfeiture are insufficient to recover the total value of the money or goods involved in the contravention.

Finally, the Act will be retroactive to 1 December 1961, so as to place beyond doubt certain actions already taken by the Minister of Finance or his nominee with a view to the protection of foreign exchange.

Mr Chairman, it is actually quite significant that the last Bill to be debated by this House before we adjourn in order to hold an election for the House of Assembly is a Bill that relates to the currency and exchanges of South Africa. It is significant because the fundamental question we are concerned with here is that of confidence. After all, if there were confidence in South Africa there would be no need for this Bill or the regulations it contains. The whole idea is that if the Government were confident that the people of South Africa would keep their money in South Africa and that they intended to invest their money in South Africa, there would be no need to restrict anyone from taking his money out of South Africa since the reality of his confidence in the country would make him keep his money in South Africa.

Similarly, if overseas investors have confidence in South Africa there should be no need for any exchange control regulations. As a matter of fact, the hon the Minister of Finance has often said that one cannot have a mousetrap situation whereby one allowed people to bring their money into the country, but that once the money was in the country, one did not allow them to take the money out.

The reality, of course, is that the reason why exchange control was first introduced in 1961 was that this Government, as a result of its policies, had created a situation in which there was a lack of confidence in the future and economy of South Africa on the part of many people. When exchange control for non-residents was removed, we warned the Government that it was the wrong time to do so. That the Government made a mistake is borne out by the fact that they removed the restriction on non-residents in February 1983 but were forced to reimpose it in September 1985.

That is one of the tests of confidence; and one of the issues on which this election is going to be fought is the issue of confidence as to whether in fact the NP Government of South Africa have a plan for the future of South Africa, whether the economy of South Africa is in good hands, and whether the NP should, in fact, be entrusted with the future of South Africa in the years that he ahead. That is why it is appropriate that we debate this issue of confidence at this very time.

There is no doubt that, as far as this particular issue is concerned, the Government have been found wanting; for never in the history of South Africa have we had a situation in which there has been the level of unrest we have had, the level of inflation we have had, the level of unemployment we have had, and the lack of stability we have had. Never have we had a greater need for exchange control regulations than we have at this moment! If, therefore, one has to decide whether the people of South Africa should have confidence in the Government to administer the country, one must take into account the fact that it can clearly be shown that they have failed and that they do not deserve the confidence of the people of South Africa.

I come now specifically to this particular piece of legislation. The first thing I should like to say about it is that I think we should extend our thanks and pay tribute to those officials who were involved with it. I am referring to the officials from the Department of Finance and the Reserve Bank, as well as the law advisers. I believe that this is a very good example of how there can in fact be co-operation in the working of a standing committee, because this standing committee worked in complete co-operation with those officials and one must pay tribute to them for the work they have put into this Bill.

The second point I should like to make is that we are seeking to amend a statute which has been on the Statute Book since 1933. This Act, Act 9 of 1933, is probably one of the most Draconian pieces of legislation on our Statute Book, and the powers it confers upon the State are enormous. I need only read part of section 9 of the Act to illustrate this. It states:

Subsection (3) reads as follows:

No doubt the hon the State President will be gratified to learn that he is actually the Governor-General !

The powers conferred upon him by this Act are extremely wide; as wide as have been conferred in any other statute we have ever passed. Many of us believe that these powers would certainly be sufficient to do almost anything. As has now been shown, however, it would appear that even these very wide powers are not far-reaching enough.

The problems that have arisen—I think it is necessary to deal with the actual problems—really involve two sets of circumstances, and I am going to ask for certain assurances from the hon the Deputy Minister and from the hon the Minister, whom I see is also here, in regard to how these powers are actually going to be exercised.

Firstly, one institution—I do not intend to mention any names even though they may well be common knowledge—used the commercial rand to buy dollars. It then converted the dollars into financial rands, placed the financial rands into the banking accounts of other banking institutions in South Africa, and then withdrew the money in commercial rands. This is a brief summary of what was an intricate transaction, and it is not intended to be complete, but in the process they obviously made most extraordinary profits due to the difference between the financial rand and the commercial rand at the time. That transaction is, I believe, fairly common knowledge.

Was it legal?

Perhaps it was legal and perhaps it was not. To my mind, it was illegal, and the question that arises is: What happened to the profits that were made as a result of this transaction?

The other type of transaction is one in which an overseas company invests in South Africa in financial rands, perhaps even with the necessary approval, and then lends the money to another company, either in South Africa or in an independent homeland. In one particular case, the allegation is that the company in question actually lent the money to a company in an independent homeland. That company in the homeland then purchased a business abroad using the money that had been lent to it and converting it from commercial rands back into foreign currency. The overseas company was then recompensed because the purchase was made at an inflated price, and by completing this whole cycle, a tremendous profit was made. The money is brought in by means of the financial rands, yielding a certain amount in commercial rands. The commercial rands are then converted back into dollars by lending them to another company. A homeland mechanism is then used in order to get the money overseas, and people have made very substantial sums of money as a result.

The issue that arises here is not only whether this was contrary to the exchange control regulations but also whether approval was given for some of these transactions by the Reserve Bank acting under the authority of the Treasury; and if that approval was given, whether it was given upon the correct facts put before it or upon incorrect facts. We want to know whether the people who engage in these kinds of transactions are going to be allowed to keep the profits made on these transactions. The money that has been made has been made as a result of the two-tier currency system and has been made at the expense of the people of South Africa. Consequently those profits should go back to the Exchequer because they belong to the people of South Africa. The assurance that we want from the hon the Deputy Minister— I hope he will speak with the hon the Minister’s approval—is whether, in respect of all these transactions in which financial rands were been used, approval was given or not so that we can see whether this merry-go-round did take place and, if it did and the country lost money while other people made money as a result, that that money will come back to the people of South Africa.

Regrettably this is one of the problems of having a two-tier system of currency. We think it is—unfortunately—necessary to have a two-tier system of currency but we need to determine for what purpose such a two-tier system of currency should exist. I have on another occasion during this session indicated that to my mind the use to which the financial rand should be put, should be limited. In so far as investment in South Africa is concerned it should be limited to the Stock Exchange and to investments of a job-creating nature. To my mind it should not be allowed for other investments. The moment one opens the door and goes beyond the limits of the Stock Exchange one finds oneself in a grey area where abuse is possible and that should not happen.

In regard to this legislation we must concede right from the beginning that we had certain doubts as to whether we should support it or not. There are some fundamentals involved which we do not really like. Firstly, this legislation is retrospective. It is not only retrospective but also affects litigation which has already commenced. As hon members will see, the amendment which we moved at least attempted to recompense the people who bona fide instituted litigation in the belief that they had the law on their side. Possibly the court could have a discretion based upon moral grounds as it would have in the exercise of a general discretion in regard to costs. That amendment was not accepted. At any rate, to agree to retrospective legislation and to agree to it being retrospective to 1961 is a major step. In view of the situation here where the intention is merely to deal with the forfeiture of money which really belongs to the State, the forfeiture of profits which have been made in these circumstances, we decided that as a special case and as an exception we would accept the concept of retrospectivity albeit very reluctantly.

Order! Hon members should lower their voices. It is very difficult for the speaker to proceed under these conditions. The hon member may proceed.

I am battling on,

Sir.

The second issue is the question of accepting administrative action as opposed to action through the courts. We do not like that. What we did was to mitigate the effect of that by moving amendments which were accepted in terms of which there will be access to the courts. We also accepted the need for administrative action because of the urgency which can arise in respect particularly of having to freeze money. It is so easy today to transmit money by telegraphic and electronic means, so that before one can even go to court or get court orders the money will have left the country and disappeared. Therefore we accept that in these somewhat exceptional circumstances one agrees to administrative action. However, we do it very reluctantly and with the proviso that there is a remedy to go to court afterwards and to set aside the decision. This is a very important principle which has been enshrined in this legislation.

We also wanted there to be a time limit in respect of the freezing of assets. What has now happened is that one can administratively seize the money and there is a time limit for the Government, the authorities or the Reserve Bank, whichever the case may be, to make up their minds in respect of the matter and to investigate it. In the interim there is a right to go to court to have such decision or action set aside if it has been wrongly done. We have also introduced a provision in terms of which innocent third parties are protected so that they can go to court and have their assets released. Finally, when the authorities decide that the money should be taken, there is still a remedy to the aggrieved persons to go to court to obtain the release of the money. That perhaps should set an example in respect of other administrative actions where it is necessary to act promptly and quickly. There should be a remedy to be able to go to court in the end in all such cases. That is what this particular measure does and that is why we believe that it can have our support in these circumstances.

Before I sit down I want to say just two more things. Firstly, this is not only the last Bill that we are going to discuss in this session but also the last occasion on which I can refer to the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance who by his own choice, unlike what will happen to some other hon members, will not come back to this House.

I would like to say to him that I wish him well in his retirement. I would like to thank him for the courtesy which he has shown in the committee and for the manner in which he has handled the committee, often with very difficult and technical problems. I think he acquitted himself well of that task.

Of course, I did not always agree with everything he did. He has always followed me in the financial debates and inevitably he has seemed to think I have made a bad speech. I think one could go back on virtually every time he has replied to me and see that in his view I have never made a good speech. That is his opinion and his job but it does not detract from the fact that I think he has done his job as chairman of the standing committee very well. I therefore wish him well.

I would also like to thank the other hon members of the standing committee who I think have contributed towards producing better legislation. I think if the standing committee system works anywhere it is in that finance committee. It works because there is co-operation among the members and also between the officials and the members of the committee. I, for one, have had great pleasure in serving on that committee.

It therefore gives me pleasure to say that we will support this measure. It also gives me the opportunity of saying goodbye to those hon members in the House who are not coming back, of their own volition, and to those who will not be here because other people will decide whether they should be here or not. [Interjections.] I want to assure hon members that there are going to be more of us on these benches when we come back than there are now.

Mr Speaker, I should like to associate myself with what the hon member for Yeoville said in bidding the hon member for Smithfield farewell in his capacity as Chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance. I want to assure hon members that this is a particularly tough committee to serve on, and I should like to state on record here today that the hon member for Smith-field is someone who has really performed his task with the utmost loyalty. He is someone of whom not only the Free State, but South Africa as a whole, can be proud. We on this side of the House would therefore like to associate ourselves with what the hon member for Yeoville has said. We want to say to the hon member for Smithfield:

Thank you very much, and well done. We shall really miss him. I say this because the hon member for Yeoville can be a difficult man on a committee, and I believe that any chairman has his hands full with an hon member like that.

Notwithstanding the criticism which the hon member expressed here, I want to tell the House that he took the chair when the chairman was absent during the discussion by the committee of this extremely sensitive and delicate Bill. In all fairness, I want to thank him for the way in which he dealt with this legislation. [Interjections.]

On behalf of this side of the House, I should also like to record our gratitude and appreciation toward the officials of the Reserve Bank, as well as the officials of the Department of Finance, for the extremely efficient manner in which they rendered support and assistance in getting this legislation ready for submission to this House. I thank them.

This legislation is extremely delicate, and I believe we shall still read a great deal about it in the newspapers. The hon member for Yeoville referred to the “draconian measures” contained in this measure, but this is nothing new. When one looks back at the history of this particular amendment Bill, one sees that the so-called draconian measures were already contained in the legislation in 1933. Therefore, this is nothing new, but rather it is being reinstated in order to protect the taxpayer’s money.

I believe that every hon member in this House will agree that a taxpayer ought to be given account of his money. One cannot permit those people who like to make money in a dishonest and an illegal manner, to use the taxpayer’s money for that purpose. It is therefore important that this legislation should be of retrospective effect.

The hon member spoke about a lack of confidence in South Africa and in the Government, but I want to assure him that people not only have confidence in the Government, but in the economy and prosperity of South Africa as well. I believe that confidence will be reaffirmed on 6 May.

The hon member also asked whether South Africa’s economy was in good hands. I want to give him the assurance that the South African economy is not just in good hands, but in excellent hands. Suffice it to say, therefore, that this side of the House is pleased to support the amending Bill.

Mr Speaker, if the hon member for Overvaal maintains that there is confidence in the Government, then he is living in a fool’s paradise. There has never been so little confidence in a government both at home and abroad, as there is in this one. [Interjections.] If there had been confidence abroad, the banks would not have called in their loans. As a result of domestic mistrust and a lack of faith in the Government, our economy has collapsed. This has caused the value of the rand—both the commercial rand and the financial ranch—to fall so markedly. Because the value of the financial rand is so low, it has presented an opportunity for people to make money in a dishonest manner.

In earlier years, when the Government enjoyed credibility and the country’s economy was properly and correctly managed, no such opportunity existed. From start to finish, this legislation is a product of the state of affairs into which the NP has plunged the country over the past few years. The amending Bill now represents an attempt to set matters right.

The hon member bade farewell to the chairman of the standing committee. I did so the other day, but I should like to thank him again today, and tell him that I hope he will have a good rest. I also want to thank the hon member for Overvaal for his time. He will not be able to return here, and therefore I should like to tell him that he must have a good rest, too. [Interjections.] I should like to express a word of gratitude to Dr Pretorius and to all those staff members who endured some difficult times in respect of this Bill. The hon member for Yeoville did a great deal towards drafting this legislation in the standing committee, and we are all appreciative of his efforts.

I want to refer to the title of this legislation, namely the Currency and Exchanges Amendment Bill. The Afrikaans translation of the title is: “Wysigingswetsontwerp op Betaal middels en Wisselkoerse”, and if one leaves out the second part of the word “betaalmid dels”, it may be said that the Government will pay (“betaal”) for its maladministration on 6 May. [Interjections.] If one were to leave out the second part of the word “wisselkoerse”, it may be said that there will be a change (“verwisseling”) of government and that South Africa will settle the Government’s hash once and for all on 6 May.

We have no choice but to support this piece of legislation. It has to be passed in order to rectify the existing anomalies. The hon member for Yeoville has gone into all the relevant points in detail, and we agree with him; thus, I do not wish to repeat them. We therefore support the measure.

Mr Speaker, it is with some ambivalence that we will be supporting this Bill. I say this because I personally object to it for two primary reasons. The one reason is that I do not like the concept of exchange control, and the other is that the retrospective action is generally speaking anathema. However, in the existing circumstances I am free to concede that we must support the Bill.

The hon member for Yeoville made the point that confidence is necessary, and this is a very important point. If there were full confidence in the South African economic scene, there would not be the necessity for the exchange control we have at present. I can remember the time when people were wanting to bring money in, and were bringing money in large sums into South Africa. I can remember the Ministers of Finance saying time after time that we could get all the money we wanted. There were no problems at all. What has happened, however, is that the situation has changed, and as a consequence we have had to reinstate the imposition of exchange control.

However, as I said earlier, we have to support this Bill, again for two primary reasons. The one is that exchange control does in fact exist and there are certain laws, and if one does not accept the fact that laws must be obeyed, it just puts the whole concept of law into disrepute. Therefore, in that respect it is clear that we must support this Bill which ensures that these profiteers of exchange control do not enjoy the benefits of their ill-gotten gains.

The second point of course is that in the current situation we in South Africa find ourselves in, the sharp businesses using the financial rand for illegal gain are in fact endangering—and I use the words “in fact” …

In fact? Oh, in fact is that so, you say?

Yes, in fact.

They are in fact endangering the economy of the country. It is already in a somewhat parlous state as we all know, and to allow this to continue unabated on the massive scale that it has would be quite dangerous. [Interjections.]

The Bill primarily ensures that the people who indulge in these illegal practices will not enjoy the fruits of their ill-gotten gains. I feel that this is quite right. I object in principle to exchange control, as I mentioned earlier, and I might tell hon members that I also object to the concept of the two levels of the rand, the financial rand and the commercial rand, because as far as I can see, what happens with this two-tier system is that people from overseas with foreign capital come in and buy up South Africans’ heritage at bargain prices and ensure that South Africans are cut out of certain markets altogether. I also believe this to be very wrong.

Ask Pietie du Plessis. He knows all about it!

Yes, well, that may be so. I am not prepared to comment on that.

However, I do feel that it is undesirable that we should have this situation as a result of the present two-tier system, without people becoming excessive profiteers into the bargain.

One other thing I would like to mention again concerns the exchange control. Britain did not get onto its feet until it removed exchange control. For a long time, under a socialist government, they had an exchange control situation. However, having got rid of that, there was free trade, with money coming in and going out. They initially took a dip but eventually went way up. I believe this can be an illustration, generally, to the public of the world that South Africa has confidence in itself.

This is perhaps where I disagree with the hon member for Yeoville. He felt that it should not have been taken off initially and then reinstated. I believe if we had left it off, we would have found a certain level in spite of the fact that there are certain people who, because of a lack of confidence, are trying to get a certain amount of funk money out of the country.

There is one other point that I should like to raise, and that is in respect of Krugerrands. I do not know whether the hon the Minister of Finance has given the matter thought but, in so far as one can gather, there seem to be a number of countries which have banned the import of Krugerrands. What is now happening is that those Krugerrands are being sold largely inside the country. I know we are not making as many Krugerrands as we used to but, surely, if there is any merit in getting foreign valuta, people should be able to take Krugerrands out of the country and get foreign valuta for them in the countries which have not banned them. I just leave that with the House as a thought.

In conclusion, Sir, I can say that this may well be my swansong in this House. It will either be mine or that of an hon member on the other side of the House, but it will probably be mine—not because he will beat me if I fight him! However, I should like to thank hon members for the courtesies I have always received in this House; I want to assure them that I have thoroughly enjoyed being here. I am sure I have antagonised as many people as anybody else, and I have enjoyed doing that too! Thank you. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, I wish firstly to thank all the members of the standing committee who have supported this Bill. I agree that there are difficulties, especially in the light of the fact that, with retrospective effect, people can be brought before court in regard to what in fact may have happened some time ago. I remember also the Kubus case where one had the same problem. Nobody really wants to make a Bill applicable to something which happened some time ago.

I want to thank the hon member for Yeoville. He made a very important contribution in getting this Bill before the House. During my years on the standing committee I discovered that the hon member for Yeoville could read legal publications in the way that some people read poetry. I simply cannot understand it; he is like a computer working through a Bill and discovering all the mistakes! I sometimes think that we could appoint him as the Government’s only legal adviser!

The hon member referred to a certain case. According to my information this case is under police investigation. After having passed this Bill today, I think it will be possible to apply the principles contained in it to other cases as well.

I discussed the question of job creation on a previous occasion. I mentioned that one of the criteria applied by the Reserve Bank was to allow financial rands to be used in cases where jobs could be created in the country.

As the last speaker in this debate, I also have the right to come along with my advertisement. Hon members discussed the question of confidence.

*What I found so interesting was the conduct displayed here by the hon member for Yeoville, the hon member for Sunnyside and the hon member for Umbilo. I should just like to, take them back a little into history. When the National Party came to power in 1948, the Official Opposition of the day, together with certain newspapers, doomed this country on account of the government it received at that time. We also applied import controls and exchange controls at that time, and the economy flourished.

In the early ‘sixties, just after Sharpeville, we experienced the same situation. On account of Sharpeville, the English Press in this country damned the government of the day to Hades. The opposition parties did the same thing. Despite that, we in South Africa experienced our highest economic growth rate to date in the ‘sixties. This Government is therefore acting perfectly correctly, despite the fashion or the substance of any of the criticisms that are being levelled against it.

And just look at where we are now!

Right! I should now like to say one or two things in connection with the whole concept of confidence. I am doing so in direct reaction to the remarks made here by the hon member for Yeoville and the hon member for Sunnyside. In this regard, I should like to refer to the document concerning the sanctions legislation which the American Senate has adopted against us. What is stated in that document? It is very interesting indeed, Sir. According to that document—the hon member for Sunnyside should like this—the Americans would regain their confidence in South Africa and would reinvest here if we would only release Mandela, unban the ANC, withdraw the Defence Force from our Black townships, talk to the real leaders, and lift the state of emergency. Perhaps I may now quite rightly pose the question to the PFP—and particularly to that hon candidate who is going to stand against me in Waterkloof—as to what their views are in relation to the ANC, for example. After all, we are now discussing the concept of confidence, are we not? If we were to unban the ANC, confidence would ostensibly return. If we were to release Mandela, confidence would allegedly return.

If I recall correctly, Sir, some of the hon members opposite even alleged that we should countenance the Communist Party in order for confidence to return. [Interjections.] Yes, if we were to lift the state of emergency, confidence would allegedly return, Sir. [Interjections.] What I find interesting, Mr Speaker, is that the hon member for Sun nyside apparently agrees with this. I believe we should go and tell the voters about this. [Interjections.] Yes; after all, he did say that there was no confidence in the country. Now the American government has said that if we do all these things—that is to say, the things to which I have just referred—they will come and invest here once again. If we were to do all these things, confidence in us would be restored.

Now you are really talking utter drivel, do you hear me? [Interjections.]

Finally, Mr Speaker, I should just like to say the following. Despite the actions of the American banks against us as a consequence of negative propaganda against South Africa, a large proportion of which naturally originates from within this country itself, I believe that our economy will recover. With due regard to the statistics appearing in the quarterly and annual reports that have come to hand over the past few weeks, I believe that we are entering another boom period.

Oh, please; that is rubbish!

Yes, confidence is on the mend. [Interjections.]

In closing, I should just like to thank those hon members who have participated in this debate for their individual contributions.

Question agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Speaker, I move:

Mr Speaker, while we will support the motion, we do not want to do so, however, without making one or two comments. One comment in particular, I believe, ought to be made. That is that I believe that all hon members are entitled to have a definitive statement from the hon the Leader of the House in relation to when Parliament is going to be prorogued. There was an indication that this was going to happen on 25 February. I now understand that there could be a delay, and I believe that the obligation rests fairly and squarely on the shoulders of the hon the Leader of the House who has just moved this motion.

You see, Mr Speaker, in everything relating to the coming election the hon the State President has been playing ducks and drakes with the people of South Africa. [Interjections.] Yes, indeed, Mr Speaker, the hon the State President has been playing around. He has no fixed dates, and he keeps on delaying. On 1 January, when he first made the announcement, he said he would announce the date later on. Then there was an indication that Parliament would be prorogued on 25 February. I understand from the hon Whips of my party that the hon the Leader of the House can no longer give an assurance that Parliament will be prorogued on 25 February, and that he wants to go and discuss this with the hon the State President.

Mr Speaker, I want to state clearly that I believe that in respect of elections for this House, as opposed to a general election in relation to all three Houses of Parliament, the prerogative rests with the hon the Leader of the House in his capacity as Chairman of the Ministers’ Council. The Constitution makes it quite clear that elections for a particular House are a matter of own affairs in terms of Schedule 1 of the Constitution. In that respect the hon the State President is obliged to act on the advice of the Ministers’ Council. When it comes to general affairs, he acts in consultation with the Ministers’ Council, but when it comes to own affairs the Constitution is quite clear—section 16— that he has to act on the advice of the Ministers’ Council. I demand that the Ministers’ Council now advise the hon the State President. Instead of the hon the Minister who is supposed to represent this House going cap in hand to the hon the State President, I believe that he has an obligation to represent this House to the executive authority and say: Get on with it on the date that we want and not on the date that you want. I do not believe that the prerogative for setting a date for an election for this House rests with the State President. It rests with the Ministers’ Council advising the State President as to what action he should take.

We want the hon the Minister to give us an assurance that he will adhere to that date which he indicated earlier, viz. Wednesday 25th. He knows that there are important procedures relating to the general election which flow from this, and we would like an answer from him.

Secondly, Mr Speaker, as this will be our last debate this session, I believe it is appropriate for me from the side of the Opposition to thank the office-bearers of Parliament and particularly the parliamentary personnel for the tremendous service, the quality, the efficiency and helpfulness of the service that they have rendered under the leadership of the Secretary to Parliament. I would like to thank the team that we have from the Secretary right down to the humble messengers in this building.

Hear, hear!

They have rendered a tremen dous service of an impartial kind to the members of this House on both sides.

Finally, there will be a number of old faces missing when this House meets again on 18 May. A number of people will be absent because of a voluntary decision that they have taken. A number of other people will be absent because of the merciless decision of the ballot-box. May I say to those who are leaving, voluntarily or not, from a personal point of view: May it go well with you. For those who are our political opponents: May your political fortunes go from bad to worse. We on this side of the House will certainly come back after the general election, refreshed and invigorated. If we are not sitting on that side of the House then we will have started a process which—sooner than those hon members realise—will result in the NP no longer being in power in South Africa.

Hear, hear!

Mr Speaker, let me deal firstly with the question of the prorogation of Parliament. I want to make it clear to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition that there must be a misunderstanding. I do not recollect—and I have checked with the Whips on my side—at any stage giving any definite date for prorogation. I did mention the 25th as the latest possible date which we foresaw a few weeks ago for the adjournment of Parliament.

*As far as prorogation is concerned, it is not only the House of Assembly which is being prorogued. It is Parliament which is being prorogued, and I am not the leader of Parliament. It is therefore not correct to say that it is my prerogative and that of the Ministers’ Council. It is the prerogative of the hon the State President. The whole of Parliament is being prorogued and therefore the hon the State President will decide upon the date of prorogation.

What is the secret?

There is no secret involved! Prorogation must occur before 7 March in terms of the country’s laws. The hon the State President has just walked in, and he will be glad to know that you would rather not see him proroguing it on 6 March, but at an earlier date. He probably will consider it, and I shall convey to him the arguments which have been put to me in a private conversation. There is absolutely no …

All we want is a fixed date.

There is no fixed basis. I undertake to clarify the date with the hon the State President and to convey it to their Whips so that they are able to know when they can start signing postal votes. We do not want to hide it from them. We are all going to start signing postal votes at the same time. After all, we know that that is what it is all about.

I should like to associate myself with what the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said and extend a sincere word of thanks on behalf of the House of Assembly and on our behalf on this side of the House to the Officers of Parliament and to you as well, Mr Speaker, and to all of those who help you to maintain order in this House. We want to thank the officers for their excellent service, and you for the good guidance and firm treatment we have received from the Chair.

It is as the hon Leader of the Official Opposition said: Many of the faces here, many of our colleagues here, will not be seen again here when we convene shortly after the election. I want to extend the best wishes of the NP to everyone who will not be returning.

Every hon member of this House, whether he has been here for a short or a long period, becomes part of the history of the Republic of South Africa. Every hon member in the House makes a contribution in one way or another to the development of South Africa. History evaluates our own contributions, and the contributions of those of us who are standing again will be re-evaluated by the electorate.

To those who are retiring I want to say that the contribution of each one of them was worthwhile. Whether he was important or not, whether he was in the front benches or in a position of leadership or not, everyone pulled his weight in an effort to find a meaningful solution to the complicated challenges we are struggling with in this country. May all go well with each one of them personally and with their families.

In the coming election the NP will state its case frankly and clearly to the electorate. It is with amusement that we take cognisance of the various speeches, and of a remark the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has just made, from which it is clearly apparent that he has already given up any hope of coming back to this House in any decision-making capacity after 6 May. They have already adjusted their sights further into the future.

I believe that we shall come back having achieved a resounding victory, and cnnvey to the world at large and to everyone in South Africa a clear message that the electorate is choosing the NP’s well-balanced course. [Interjections.]

Order! Unfortunately this is the last day of this session of the House of Assembly and it is for all of us, in one way or another, an emotional occasion.

†I wish all hon members a safe journey home, and those who are involved as candidates in the election I wish a pleasant election campaign.

*I trust that all of us will as candidates maintain towards one another in the election the worthy traditions of the House of Assembly.

Question agreed to.