Order! Before calling for notices of motion, I wish to mention why the Appropriation Bill (House of Assembly) was not on members’ benches after the Minister had delivered his Budget Speech.

Appropriation Bills are not supplied to members and the public in advance because they often contain figures which the Minister only wishes to disclose in his Budget Speech.

Although the Bill was available, service officers of the House of Assembly have instructions not to distribute papers in the Chamber while the Minister is delivering his Budget Speech, as this may be distracting to the Minister as well as to members.

Standing Order No 53, however, provides that the Secretary shall supply printed copies of a Bill to members when a day has been appointed for the Second Reading.

This matter will be investigated in order to find a satisfactory solution to this anomalous position.

as Chairman, presented the Second Report of the Standing Select Committee on Provincial Affairs: Natal, dated 11 June 1987, as follows:

as Chairman, presented the First Report of the Standing Select Committee on Finance, dated 12 June 1987, as follows:

1. 1. In terms of Rule 43 the Standing Committee on Finance deliberated on the Appropriation Bill on seven days and heard evidence on the general policy motivating the proposals of the Minister of Finance in respect of proposed expenditure, revenue to be levied and loans to be raised.
2. 2. Officials of the following institutions gave oral evidence before the Committee: Department of Finance; South African Reserve Bank; Inland Revenue; Customs and Excise; Central Economic Advisory Service; Department of Home Affairs; Department of Foreign Affairs; Department of Manpower; South African Defence Force; Bureau for Information; Commission for Administration; Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing; Department of Trade and Industry; Department of National Health and Population Development; Department of Education and Training; Department of Development Aid; Department of Development Planning; Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs; Department of Transport; South African Police; Department of Water Affairs.
3. 3. Several Ministers attended the discussions together with their departments and furnished important information to the Committee, which is much appreciated.
4. 4. Explanatory memorandums were submitted by the various departments, which members of the Committee were able to use most profitably.
5. 5. The Committee received written submissions from various institutions and the public and heard oral evidence from the Association of Chambers of Commerce of South Africa, the Association of Building Societies of South Africa and the South African Federated Chambers of Industries.
6. 6. The Committee makes no recommendations on matters of a political nature, but a few matters do deserve mention:
   1. 6.1 The Committee takes note of the decrease in the Budget in respect of employment creation and the combating of unemployment. Measures to bring about sustained growth remain a high priority.
   2. 6.2 The evidence discloses that further measures may have to be taken to achieve the target of a 3% growth in the GDP.
   3. 6.3 The Committee takes note of the increase in the Budget in respect of education.
   4. 6.4 The Committee notes with concern the extent to which tax evasion is still taking place, and welcomes the measures to combat this. The expansion of the investigating staff must therefore enjoy further attention.
   5. 6.5 The Committee takes note of the savings bonds for senior citizens and of the evidence of the Association of Building Societies in this connection. The Committee is grateful for the opportunity which senior citizens have to invest at a high interest rate, but recommends that the scheme should be such that it is not open to abuse and does not adversely affect other economic objectives
   6. 6.6 The Committee notes with concern the housing shortage and supports the advancement of housing in general.
   7. 6.7 The Committee takes note of the attempts made to improve South Africa’s image abroad, but further attempts will be appreciated.
   8. 6.8 The Committee notes that the Margo Report has been completed, and looks forward to the Report being tabled as soon as possible.
   9. 6.9 The Committee is concerned about the shortage of planning for State water schemes in historical country areas such as Zoar and Mier, and is of the opinion that it should enjoy further attention.
   10. 6.10 The Committee expresses its concern at the consistently high rate of inflation.
   11. 6.11 The Committee recommends that further steps be taken for the modernization of safety equipment at airports.
   12. 6.12 The Committee draws attention to the evidence given before it in relation to the disparity in pensions for disabled ex-servicemen based upon educational qualifications.
   13. 6.13 The Committee recommends that serious consideration be given to the issues of privatization and deregulation.

Mr Chairman, allow me to begin by conveying my appreciation to the CP’s former chief spokesman on Finance, Oom Jan van Zyl, who did not return to this House. He served the Sunnyside constituency for many years as a member of the House of Assembly. He was a worthy member and one of the most hardworking MPs I have known. We are grateful to be able to say that he is continuing to devote all his energy to the development of the CP.

I also want to express our appreciation to Dr Jooste, who will be retiring as Director General, for his distinguished service to South Africa, particularly to the Transvaal where he was the Director of Education. He has a distinguished career of service behind him, and we wish him everything of the best in his future career.

In view of what you have just said, Mr Chairman, the events yesterday reminded me of a rugby captain who ran onto the field with his team having spelt out beforehand, to his own team and his opponents, the tactics he was going to follow and how he was going to pass the ball around the field. He decided to kick off and did so, but then one of his opponents drew the referee’s attention to the fact that there was no ball on the field. [Interjections.] Today the ball is on the field and the match can begin.

I think the hon the Minister, as the new Minister of the Budget, finds himself in much the same position as a scrumhalf. He has to handle the good balls and the bad balls he gets from the scrum or line-out as they come to him, without worrying too much about how they are passed to him.

Order! I notice that the hon members from the Western Province object when the hon member refers to balls. [Interjections.]

When it comes to the Budget, and, in the case of own affairs, the Administration: House of Assembly, the hon the Minister cannot fall back upon his own resources, but is completely dependent upon the will and the decisions of general affairs. I therefore move as an amendment:

1. (1) the Government refuses and/or fails to make known the content of the formula according to which statutory allocations have to be made to the various administrations in terms of section 84 (a) of the Constitution;
2. (2) the appropriation for White education, health services and welfare is reduced in real terms by the budget; and
3. (3) the budget once again demonstrates that under the new dispensation justice is not done to the right of self-determination of the Whites.”.

Last year the hon the Leader of the House, when he was responsible for the Budget, said the following during the debate (Hansard: House of Assembly, 24 March 1986, col 2343):

He continued:

Now I should like to refer briefly to the provisions of the Constitution. Section 84 of the Constitution provides:

1. (a) the amounts calculated in accordance with a formula prescribed by any general law; …

When, however, we look at the Budget Speech the hon the Minister of Finance delivered recently, we see that he said:

The hon the Minister of the Budget said yesterday:

I want to argue that that is not, in fact, the case. Although the respective hon Ministers create the impression that this is being done in terms of section 84 (a), it is not, because the Constitution expressly provides that the formula referred to in section 84 (a) must be accepted by means of a general law. There is no such general law yet, and so at most the Government can come and tell us that they followed certain guidelines or reached agreements with the other Ministers’ Councils. The argument that the appropriations for the various administrations are made according to a fixed formula, however, simply does not hold water. We cannot but deduce, therefore, that the present Budget and the allocation that the Administration: House of Assembly received from the hon the Minister of Finance in his Main Budget, was done arbitrarily and not determined according to a basic formula.

I want to argue further that, in spite of the provision in section 84 (a) of the Constitution, it would be humanly impossible to embody such a fixed formula in legislation, considering the situation in which South Africa finds itself. That is the reason. In spite of the fact that the hon the Leader of the House assured us last year that those formulae would soon be embodied in legislation, I want to risk saying that we shall wait a long time, perhaps until eternity, for that legislation to which the hon the Minister referred.

We must see whether the current Budget bears out the assertion that White own affairs are coming into their own. The hon the Minister said in his Budget Speech that the current appropriation represented an increase of 125% after a period of two years. That may be so, but one must also take into account that since April 1986 White education has also fallen under this administration. A fair comparison can only be drawn, therefore, between the expenditure during the previous financial year and the appropriation for this year. One finds then that, in real terms, there has been a decrease and not an increase, because the nominal increase in this year’s Budget for White own affairs is only about 8%. In real terms this means that there has, in fact, been a decrease and no increase. To create publicly the impression that there has been a drastic increase in expenditure on White own affairs, simply will not do, because it is not true—the opposite is true.

We cannot but conclude, therefore, that White own affairs is becoming less and less important to the present Government. [Interjections.] What bothers us is the fact that the increase for White education in terms of this appropriation amounts to only 8,8%. When one considers the appropriation in respect of pre-primary, primary and secondary education in particular, one finds that in nominal terms the increase is only about 2% or 2,5%, and in real terms that reflects a drastic decrease.

Do you have any say in that, Piet?

We now want to know from the Government why there has been such a decrease in real terms.

When one takes a closer look at the Budget, one sees that in nominal terms the appropriation in respect of health services and welfare is slightly higher—it is 12,3%—but is still far below the rate of inflation. In respect of local government, housing and works the nominal increase amounts to only 5,3%. That is why it simply will not do to try to argue now that there has been an increase, because the opposite is true.

I want to refer briefly to agriculture. It is true that with the supplementary appropriation, there has been an increase in the amount allocated to agriculture. We shall come back to that later on in the debate. Allow me to say, however, that we have been issuing warnings for more than three years that far-reaching measures must be introduced to rescue the agricultural industry. We find it strange that, even when this printed Budget was drawn up, no provision had yet been made for any drastic increase in the appropriation for agriculture. This additional appropriation of R400 million has come only now, almost as an afterthought, now that we are experiencing a crisis. We shall leave it at that for now.

The impression has been created that the new dispensation guarantees the Whites’ so-called right to self-determination in this country. We cannot but assert, however, that the whole dispensation in its present form has become a farce. To contend that justice will be done to the right to self-determination of the Whites in South Africa merely by means of the administration of White education, health services, welfare and a few other little items such as a portion of agriculture, and to declare that this is the answer to everything is simply not true, because the fact remains that the Administration: House of Assembly has a minimal source of income, and the House of Assembly has no power to levy taxes in order to generate funds that can be used for White own affairs. It is left completely in the hands of the so-called “joint decision-making”. The Whites, therefore, have to negotiate and bargain for something that is rightfully theirs.

Apparently, the initial idea was that a certain formula would be found to give effect to this, but I want to repeat that after two years this Government has still not succeeded in discovering that formula; if it has, it is refusing or neglecting to make it known. We would have thought that the Government would have been honest with this House, with the other Houses, and with the Whites of South Africa, and that they would have told us candidly according to which formula the allocations were made.

To maintain that the specific component of agriculture that has been allocated to own affairs is, in fact, so-called own affairs, simply does not hold water. It is a totally artificial division of agriculture between so-called own affairs and so-called general affairs. [Interjections.] I can draw no other conclusion than that this component of agriculture has been allocated to the Administration: House of Assembly for only one reason, viz to give the White voters the impression that the scope of White own affairs is greater, financially speaking, than it really is. That is totally artificial. It is not without reason that, whereas we had a Minister of Agriculture for general affairs and a Minister of Agriculture for own affairs in the past, we have only one Minister for both portfolios today, because it is one and the same thing.

They have been trying to get this Constitution off the ground for two years now. We are not convinced; on the contrary, we are convinced of the opposite—this new dispensation simply does not work. [Interjections.] The hon member says we do not want it to work. We are not the Government in power.

Not yet.

Not yet. I can assure the hon member that if the CP were to come into power, we would get rid of this monstrosity, this facade that purports to be protecting White rights while in reality it is doing nothing but chaining the Whites to the two other population groups. [Interjections.] That is precisely what it is, and that is why I am warning the Government they can no longer pull the wool over the White voters’ eyes, no matter how hard they may try to do so. [Interjections.] The proof of that is in the figures for this Budget.

I want to repeat that: The proof of that is in the figures for this Budget. In real terms the expenditure on Whites has been decreased, with the exception of the appropriation for agriculture. That is why we shall go and tell the voters that the Government no longer regards White self-determination, education and welfare as being of increasing importance; on the contrary, they regard all this as being of decreasing importance.

You can’t be serious!

Of course I am serious.

Do you believe yourself?

Sakkie, no one believes you. [Interjections.]

We are dealing with a deliberate redistribution of wealth in our country.

That is a communistic principle.

Allocations are not being made on merit, but according to numbers. [Interjections.] If allocations were made on merit, we would have had a completely different pattern in South Africa.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Barberton referred here to the hon members from the Western Province who felt a little uncomfortable when “balls” were mentioned. The hon member for Barberton and his leader, who was also a good scrumhalf at one stage, remind me of a player who has an open try line, but who does not go and score the try because he is afraid of being tackled.

Then he kicks the ball away.

Then he kicks the ball away. [Interjections.]

It is very easy to speak in idioms, as the hon member for Barberton has just done.

I should like to congratulate him on his appointment as the CP’s chief spokesman on finance. I want to express the hope that we shall be getting more intelligent contributions from that hon member than we got from his predecessor in the past. However, I want to congratulate him sincerely and wish him everything of the best.

The hon member said that when the CP came to power they would get rid of this “facade of self-determination” in the form of own affairs. The hon member said it was nothing but a deliberate redistribution of wealth, and not a redistribution according to merit. By this he was implying that other peoples are getting too much, and the Whites too little. His problem arises out of the fact that the Whites pay for others, too, and that the House of Assembly should really be able to impose taxes so that only taxes from Whites can be used for White affairs.

The hon member also said that the Own Affairs Budget was not worth much because the other two Houses have control over it; that we are subordinate to them, as it were. However, the hon member did not tell us what portion of the State’s tax revenue is obtained from the Whites, and is therefore paid by the Whites. Nor did the hon member tell us what percentage of White social services was paid from White taxes. The hon member referred to education. He referred to the increase of 8,8%, which in real terms is an increase of only 3% if one takes inflation into account. What the hon member did not do, was to tell us what the position was with regard to the number of pupils. The hon member did not tell this House that the number of pupils in White Government schools, with the exception of special education, has decreased by 11 500 over the past two years.

They have no future …

The hon member did not mention that.

It is no use raising this kind of argument and putting forward incomplete facts. Let us look at the taxes of Whites. The taxes of Whites have increased by 13,5% from 1980 to 1985— unfortunately I do not have the ensuing figures—but the expenditure on White social services over the same period increased by almost 18%.

Now the hon member says that in this Budget the right of self-determination of the Whites is being thrown away altogether. This is simply not the whole picture, nor is it true.

Let us look at the relief measures in respect of agriculture, to which the hon member referred. This is very interesting. If we look at aid during the period 1983-84 up to the present Budget, we see that it shows an increase of 228%. The R745 million, of which R590 million is being provided in this Budget, represents 5,3% of the gross production value of the agricultural industry in respect of aid.

Over the past few years this aid has never amounted to less than 4% of the gross production value of the agricultural industry. It is very difficult to say whether or not this is enough, since one does not have a yardstick with which to measure to determine whether it is enough. Let me tell the hon member at the outset that I do not wish to plead today that even this is enough. If one looks at the USA, however—I must also concede that it is very difficult to compare these figures, since they define aid differently—one sees that the USA’s aid by way of subsidies and so on to their agricultural industry also amounts to only approximately 4,6%. This is the case with the powerful USA. An amount of $8 700 million is the aid the Federal Government of the USA gives to their agricultural industry.

When we look at these data I think we should leave emotion out of it. We must be realistic. If we are realistic, we must admit that the hon the Minister of Finance has certain priorities, and that aid to the agricultural industry and other industries can only be allocated in relation to the priorities of the country as a whole.

We must also be realistic by admitting that it is not possible for the Treasury to carry the agricultural industry’s total risk. That is not possible. I am a farmer myself, and my pride as a private entrepeneur in the agricultural industry would be very hurt the day the State is called upon to carry the agricultural industry’s total risk.

I believe that the provision made for the agricultural industry in this Budget, is the very best the Government was able to make under the present circumstances. We cannot think idealistically in this country. That would be nice, but I believe we should be realistic. We must admit that we can strive for ideals but we can only do those things in this country that are attainable on the basis of physical practicability and economic affordability. The aid allocated to the agricultural industry is, in my opinion, the best that was possible as far as economic affordability is concerned. I am sure the hon member for Barberton will concede the reasonableness of this argument. He is a farmer himself, and I think he will realise that.

As I have already said, the hon member referred to education. The number of White school-going children in Government schools has decreased by 7 200 alone over the past year. [Interjections.] We must also admit— the hon the Minister will have more to say about that—that the per capita expenditure on infrastructure, and the infrastructure, as such differ considerably amongst the four races in South Africa. The difference is considerable. As the hon member maintains that we should make our allocations on the basis of merit rather than numbers, I agree with him that this is an ideal to strive for, but how do we achieve that ideal? [Interjections.]

You will never achieve it. [Interjections.]

The hon member says we will not achieve it, but the Government has set a goal for itself. How does one achieve that ideal? One can only achieve that ideal if one makes more people liable for tax, and one can only make a person liable for tax if one increases his income. [Interjections.] Furthermore, one can only increase his income if one also increases his productivity. [Interjections.] How does one increase a person’s productivity if one cannot train him? One has to train him in order to increase his productivity so that he can earn a higher income and can pay more.

There is another factor related to this. I do not know the precise figure, but we spend in the vicinity of R11 billion to R1,5 billion on Black education. I want to tell the hon member that this expenditure would have been insufficient to a large degree if the Government had not at the same time committed itself to a programme of social upliftment, because one cannot train people in a school if they come from a social environment on which one is unable to base a proper system of education. [Interjections.]

Now the hon member comes and talks about allocations according to merit. This Government is committed to increasing people’s earnings. In this regard the Whites are not the only people contributing. To the extent to which they do contribute, it is justified because it is in our own interests.

I wish to conclude with a final thought. The hon member said that they would break down the facade of self-determination. The hon member has one basic problem, and that is that he still thinks we can solve South Africa’s problems on the basis of the ideal of Europe where the Italians in Italy, the Germans in Germany and the French in France had international borders around them. We have tried to emulate that ideal in South Africa’s circumstances, and we have succeeded in part, with four independent states around which we were able to draw international boarders. We could even go a little further by establishing six self-governing states in relatively fixed geographic areas. However, the people living outside those areas cannot obtain political participation in terms of the ideal the hon member for Barberton wants to present to us. That solution must be achieved through negotiation.

Let us look at leadership and the leader of that hon member’s party. If we look at the recent election, I do not think we can have much confidence in the leadership and the hon members of that party. Leadership is not based on hope, dreams and good intentions. Leadership is based on the ability to turn that hope, those dreams and good intentions into reality through negotiation. We will not achieve lasting stability in this country unless we succeed in frustrating the aims of violent radicals and terrorists by way of the opposite attraction of valid social, economic and political reform …

Integration.

… which can only be brought about through a process of open, honest and genuine negotiation. This is what the Government is doing.

I take pleasure in supporting this Bill.

Mr Chairman, may I in the first instance move the following further amendment:

At the outset I want to convey my congratulations to the hon member for Barberton. He is now the official spokesman on finance for the Official Opposition. I would like to convey to him my personal congratulations. He is a very formidable and able debater. I hope, however, he will not hold his office for long. As far as I am concerned, the debate with him will be on principle, and not on personality, because I have respect for him as a person.

Our association goes back many years to the Transvaal Provincial Council. I hope that I will be able to conduct a fruitful debate with him; we will certainly not indulge in personalities. I therefore certainly wish him well in his job for as long as he has it, if I may use that term.

The second point I wish to make is that nothing shows more clearly the difference between the approach of the PFP and the CP to the problems of South Africa than the two amendments that we and the Official Opposition have moved. I wish the rules would permit that when one moves this kind of amendment, one could vote separately on it instead of the question having to be put at the end of the debate that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the motion and we then have to vote together with the Official Opposition. I think they would also prefer not to vote with us. [Interjections.] We should enable the different views to be expressed separately by way of a vote through a change in the rules.

The real difference between the two parties is illustrated fundamentally in the two amendments. On the one hand the CP complains that the Budget provides less money in real terms for the services of the White community, and their whole complaint is based on that major issue. Our approach on the other hand is that whereas we believe that one has to increase the economic cake of South Africa in order to make more money available for everyone in order to remove discrimination from our system, if it comes to the push the matter must be put clearly and openly to the electorate of South Africa. They must be asked openly whether they are prepared to make any sacrifices to ensure their future.

I want to appeal to the Government that they should come completely clean with the people of South Africa and tell them that if they have to pay a premium for their safety and security in South Africa, they must pay that premium. I think that if one tells the Whites of South Africa that they have to make sacrifices to ensure their future, they will be prepared to do so. However, one should come out and state it openly.

The Huntington technique of reform by stealth is one by means of which the Government loses in both directions. I must say that I am disappointed that the Government tries to convey the idea that the Budget for White own affairs has increased by 125% over the past two years when it is, in fact, merely a transfer of functions. The radio broadcast to the world this morning that there had been an increase of 125% over the past two years and that it was such a marvellous thing. Meanwhile, however, it is just a rearrangement of the chairs.

One cannot do that because one creates the impression among the underprivileged people of South Africa that the Whites are doing much better than they did before, whereas among a certain section of the White population one finds the approach—the CP adopts this approach—that the Whites are not getting a square deal. The result is that the Huntington approach gets the Government into trouble in every possible direction.

I appeal to the hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare and to the Government as a whole that they should tell the people of South Africa that they will not be able to solve the country’s problems without sacrifices. They must tell them that they will not be able to ensure the future of the country without paying a premium. If the economy cannot grow as fast as one wants it to grow, and if the cake does not get as big as one wants it to get, then we should pay the premium and be prepared to make the sacrifices.

I want to put it to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council that he will have to adopt certain priorities with regard to the amount of money that will become available for the administration of White own affairs. I would like him to tell us how he sees the priorities for himself in this department. How does he see White own affairs priorities?

As I see it, we have to deal with three matters and they lie within the purview of this system. Whether we like the system or not, it is in operation. The first is the education of our children; the second is the health of our people; and the third is to help the underprivileged, whether they be aged or incapacitated.

We have to deal with these matters. We have to see that the funds are available to ensure that those things are preserved. If we do not have a system of priorities, we are going to find that we are “playing ad hoc” in respect of various activities, and that we do not have particular goals ahead of us.

I should like the hon the Minister of Education and Culture in this House to tell us whether or not he is satisfied that he has the funds he needs. Is he satisfied that he is able to meet the obligations which are required?

I shall do that. I shall answer that question.

That is what I want him to tell us. I know and he knows and everyone else knows that we did not have enough money last year. This year we are not getting more money to deal with the inflationary situation; in fact, we are below the level of any kind of real increase.

In those circumstances, when one has a limited amount of money, priorities become important. The hon the Minister has my support in getting money, because to all of us, one of the most important priorities is to ensure that the education of our children is improved upon.

When we look at the issues relating to this particular House, I think it is correct to say— as the hon member for Barberton did—that there are no meaningful sources of independent revenue for this House. That is a reality, and it means that those who exercise political power in South Africa will decide how the economic cake of the Government is cut. They will decide how big the slices will be. While there are negotiations, the question that has to be asked is whether there is real consensus among the various administrations in regard to the apportionment of the money. In the final analysis, is it not correct that those who have the political power finally make the decision after discussion, and even after negotiation, so that it is not really a case of consensus? I ask whether there is consensus among the three Houses, but add that it is not possible to get consensus among all the race groups in South Africa, because as far as the Blacks are concerned, there is no one with whom to get consensus. Consequently it is not possible to achieve that kind of situation.

The true picture as I see it, is that one can talk about sharing power and about obtaining consensus in respect of the division of the economic cake, only if the parties to the negotiations operate from equal political bases so that they have equal bargaining power in trying to achieve consensus. If they do not have equal bargaining power, there is no sharing of power, and the person who has the real power makes the decision. The challenge to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is to tell us precisely what he means by “sharing of power”. What does this really mean? Does it mean operating from equal power bases, or does it mean a perpetuation of the power of one group who will, in the end, be able to make the decision if there is no consensus? To my mind, that question is fundamental to the whole issue.

There is no doubt that the intention of our Constitution was to have a formula in regard to the apportionment among the three administrations. It is also true beyond question that it was never intended—as a matter of fact, the contrary was expressed—that it would take so long to arrive at a formula. Lastly, it was never intended that the formula would be kept secret; on the contrary, it was said that it would be contained in legislation. What, therefore, is the reason for the secrecy? I do not agree with the hon member for Barberton who said the formula had not been agreed upon, because I take what people say in this House at face value, as being true. I am obliged to do so, Mr Chairman; you will force me to do so. The hon the Minister of Finance stated specifically, and I quote:

*That is a fact, and I believe the hon the Minister said exactly that in this debate. If formulas do, in fact, exist, I want to know from the hon the Minister why they are being kept secret? Why are they being kept secret and why must they remain so? It is very important for us to know why they are being kept secret because I think there is no reason why they should be kept secret.

†On the contrary, it is important that we should know what the formulas is so that we can debate them. The formulas are not only to be decided upon by the three Ministers’ Councils; they also concern the three legislative bodies and all the people of South Africa. They may not agree with those formulas and may be able to convince the Ministers’ Councils that they were wrong in what they agreed to. Therefore, I make the appeal that these formulas should be made public as soon as possible.

In the absence of this, I have to rely on the indications of the authorities and on assumptions of possibilities and probabilities in order to determine what those formulas are. I should like to assume—I want the hon the Minister to correct me if I am wrong—that the formulas are based upon the population figures of the various groups. If the total allocation is based on population figures then the question that arises—which I want to put to the hon the Minister—is whether it is intended to reach parity. I assume that the answer is yes in respect of social services. The ensuing question is: Within what period is it intended to reach parity and satisfy the aspirations of the various groups in South Africa? The only real indication that there is at the moment is in respect of education where it is being said that the intention is to reach parity within 10 years. There are no indications with regard to other matters, however. One has to rely on inferences but one can also rely on the fact that it has been said that there is a five-year plan on the part of the Government.

When one looks at the figures in this own affairs Budget as well as those in the general affairs Budget one can see what the projected real growth is for the individual services but one has to look at that against the background of the capacity of the economy to see when parity will be achieved.

That brings us to the crucial question, viz: At what standards will parity be achieved? There, again, we need to get an answer. We believe that the economic cake must grow so that one can achieve parity without a lowering of standards. However, if we find ourselves in a situation where the economic cake cannot grow, then the question must be, as I indicated initially, whether the White people of South Africa are prepared to make sacrifices for parity to be achieved. Here again, the Government owes us an answer. The CP has made its position clear. They do not want to sacrifice White standards at any price. That is their stand and we know exactly where we stand with them. We want to know where we stand with the Government, however. The reality is that according to the present growth patterns there is no way that parity can be achieved in all social services within a reasonable period or within the period which the underprivileged groups in South Africa have in mind for their aspirations to be met.

We do have a choice. Either we do something to make the economy grow or we must be prepared to make sacrifices—or perhaps we should do both. The challenge to the Government is to tell the people of South Africa what is to be done. Strange as it may seem, I have enough confidence in the people of South Africa to think that, if necessary, they will be prepared to make sacrifices. It is a political fact that people are prepared to make sacrifices when they have to, and history shows it.

Let me give the example of Great Britain. That country is very much in the news today in a manner which certainly pleases many of us in this House, and although the election result does not directly concern us it certainly does indirectly.

When Britain has been in trouble, its leadership has taken the people of Britain into their confidence, and Churchill did, saying: “Look, I am not offering you anything but blood, sweat and tears, but let us get through this and let us win”. That is exactly the kind of spirit I believe the South African people will respond to. I make that appeal to the hon the Minister and I hope that he will respond positively in that regard.

I think there is one other aspect which really needs some attention. This arises particularly out of the extension of the state of emergency. What needs to be achieved in South Africa is a balance among the various reasons for the need for stability—not only in order to ensure individual safety, but also in order to have a climate of confidence to enable the economy to prosper. The individual has a desire to live in a society in which on the one hand he is safe but in which, on the other hand, he has normal rights of freedom which include access to the courts and in which the executive is not vested with abnormal powers. I think those two conflicting interests exist in almost every individual. One wants to be safe on the one hand and one also wants to have a climate of confidence in order to invest and to enable one’s business to progress. One also has a desire for freedom and the desire to live in a normal society.

The caution that must be given to anyone who is vested with the powers to declare an emergency, is that it must not be regarded as too easy to have such powers. If that is the case, such powers eventually become part of the normal enforcement of law and order. They must not become a routine and part of our lives. They must also not become entrenched in the procedures of this society. While on the one hand there may be a feeling of greater security on the part of business with the security forces clothed with extraordinary and powerful authorities and powers, on the other hand there would be greater confidence in the future if the authorities themselves felt comfortable enough to do without the powers which the state of emergency gives them.

I really feel strongly about the fact if only there would be a general abandonment of violence and a willingness on the part of people in South Africa to talk without preconditions, South Africans might find themselves closer to each other and—much more easily than they believe—able to find each other. If only people of moderate beliefs in South Africa would cease to look for differences which keep them apart, the field would not be made easy for the battle between the extremists in which most South Africans would prefer not to back either side. The tragedy is that people are not talking to each other. Moderate people are finding reasons to divide and be apart from each other, and eventually the field is going to be left to be contested by these extremists. As I have said, most of us do not want to be on either side in this conflict in which the consequences for South Africa can be very serious.

When we therefore again find ourselves in the situation where the state of emergency is being continued, the appeal that we make in these circumstances is that that state of emergency should not become part of our lives. We should make sure that at the earliest opportunity we return to normality and to the ordinary processes of law. We also appeal to the moderate people of South Africa— whether they be Black, Coloured, Indian or White—to find each other at the earliest possible opportunity.

Mr Chairman, I take pleasure in speaking after the hon member for Yeoville. I noticed how timid his performance was here today. It matched the performances of other hon members of that party. One can understand this after the result of the recent election.

I do just want to make one remark about what he had to say in his speech. He maintains that with the increase of almost 100% this side of the House wants to mislead the country and its voters in respect of the importance of own affairs in the whole Government set-up. It is a fact, however, that a transfer of functions to own affairs is gradually taking place. These functions also play a major role and are important in the lives of the people of this country. However, he was arguing here from the point of view of the policies of his party over many years. They must accept that it is due to those standpoints that they are where they are now after the election. They are no longer the Official Opposition. Because this is the case, the hon member for Yeoville will forgive me for preferring to concentrate on the present Official Opposition in the House of Assembly.

Turning to the CP, the first question I, and I think many other voters in this country, ask, is what mandate they have to implement precisely what policy. What are their terms of reference and what policy are they to carry out? They would probably reply that this is to be found in their programme of principles. I would like to believe that. If that were the case, I would be able to have a meaningful debate with them. I would be able to pit argument against argument and we would be able to find one another or decide that we cannot agree on certain points. What is the situation, however? On the basis of what policies were those hon members able to take their places here in the House of Assembly?

In a recent article in The Argus I read the following:

The following section is very significant:

Hon members must take note of the words “in its first election”!

I would not really like to rub salt in their wounds, but I must go on with this quotation. Mr Eugène Terre’Blanche then addresses the CP directly and says:

One could almost agree with him. He goes further, and this is really what I want to dwell on:

Are you speaking on behalf of the Broederbond?

I am speaking on behalf of the NP. [Interjections.] Hon members must not start shouting “ouch” so soon. They must wait a little longer.

One would expect guidance from that party in respect of this crucial constitutional matter, and we have indeed had guidance from them concerning what the CP thinks of the “Boerestaat” today. We have had guidance, and I want to give them credit for that. Hon members can be a little friendlier towards me at his stage if they wish. I am giving them credit now, after all. From whom did the guidance come? It came from one of our colleagues, the hon member for Randfontein, whom I regret is unable to be here today. I hope he will recover soon.

The hon member gave guidance in this regard. This statement was made in public. What did the hon member for Randfontein say? He said:

He then emphasised this by saying:

An hon member from that side of the House took the lead “emphatically and with conviction” concerning an AWB standpoint regarding a “Boerestaat”. [Interjections.] This reaction shows that I am doing reasonably well again. [Interjections.]

Now the hon member has given guidance in respect of this matter. I am speaking to hon members sitting in the CP benches now. On the basis of what policy were they elected? I could take my constituency as an example. Mr Eugène Terre’Blanche held a number of meetings there. [Interjections.] I must say he was more successful than the CP candidate. Hon members can bear witness to this in respect of their own constituencies.

Order! Too many interjections are being made. The hon member for Fauresmith may proceed.

As I was saying, Sir, hon members can bear witness to that in respect of their own constituencies. Mr Eugène Terre’Blanche was able to speak in many places with much greater success than was possible for hon members of the CP.

If that is true, surely I am justified in asking what policy is being represented here by the hon members of the CP. Then one would think that as in the case of the HNP, who are no longer with us today, there would be significant agreement between policy standpoints of the CP and those of the AWB. On the basis of such an argument one could say that such an alliance could justifiably come into being. Surely that is not the case. After all, it is being said that we should strive to have a meaningful debate with one another. We on the NP side cannot have a meaningful debate with hon members of the CP if we do not know what policy standpoints hon members truly represent. I just want to mention two examples of complete difference in policy standpoints between the CP and the AWB. Under point 10 in their programme of principles the CP says:

What does the AWB say? On page 44 of its programme of principles the AWB says:

A dictatorship! The CP says they reject any tendency towards a dictatorship, but it is possible that the greater percentage of supporters who brought the CP to Parliament, say they accept a dictatorship which could grow out of the AWB. [Interjections.] This points to a fundamental difference in policy between these two groups which are represented by one party. The CP will have to adopt a standpoint on these matters, as the hon member for Randfontein adopted a standpoint on other aspects at one stage. I appreciate such strong leadership.

Another difference in policy is their standpoints regarding the Indians. What is the policy standpoint of the CP? They say:

That is their standpoint. What is the AWB’s standpoint? The hon members will have to express an opinion on this. The AWB says:

The CP’s standpoint on this, however, is full self-determination, and these hon members, as members of the CP, will have to express a very clear opinion on these matters.

I am sorry to see that the hon member for Ermelo is not in the House at present. He was here a moment ago, but perhaps he was hurt a little too much. [Interjections.] In a previous debate the hon member for Ermelo identified himself very dramatically and said that he is not, and has never been, a member of the AWB. That was shortly after his leader had said that as far as he was concerned, the AWB was an acceptable organisation—a mere cultural organisation. A cultural organisation with a programme of principles which expresses opinions on all aspects of politics?

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

I am very much inclined to say yes, although my time is limited.

Does the hon member agree with the standpoint of the hon the Deputy Minister that the NP would also negotiate with radicals?

Mr Chairman, it is very clear to me that the hon member is seeking a little light in the political gloom in which he finds himself.

Answer the question!

Yes, I am going to answer. The definition of a radical could differ completely depending on the CP’s standpoint and my standpoint. The only precondition we set is that we will negotiate with a person if he finally rejects violence.

Even if he is a communist?

The hon member knows just as well as I do that communism is prohibited as a policy for a political party in our country, and he must not ask unnecessary questions. I realise that the hon member is trying to distract me from the train of thought I was pursuing.

Contrary to the guidance his party leader gave him, the hon member for Ermelo by implication expressed himself strongly against membership of the AWB. I have no doubt that that is the case, but my question is: What about the hon member for Bethal? I see the hon member is in the House. Is he a member of the AWB?

Here comes the bogeyman.

No, that is not an answer.

Are you or are you not?

Is the hon member a member of the AWB or not?

He is a member of the national executive.

I do not know whether the hon member is a member of the national executive, but I suspect that there are other members of the national executive of the AWB in that party.

The question of whether or not hon members on that side of the House are members of the AWB, would not worry me if the policy standpoints of the CP and those of the AWB did not differ so radically. The hon members will therefore understand why I am asking them to adopt a standpoint in respect of the policies of the AWB so that we can enter a meaningful debate with them.

I have already said that I am sorry that the hon member for Randfontein is not here today. It seems to me that the hon member is going to create the opportunity for us to debate really meaningfully with one another in this House. I should like to refer to a few remarks he made in his speech:

The hon member then referred to a previous statement he had made:

Thirteen partitioned areas! The joint interests of these 13 areas will be looked after in a state conference. In the past number of years I have been privileged to sit in this House, I have never heard one of the members of the CW, or rather the CP …

The CWB!

One could just as well say the CWB. I have never heard one of the members of the CP trying to address the problem of dealing with matters of common interest. No, the hon members do not address the problem of dealing with matters of common interest. However, this hon member had the courage of his convictions and he addressed this matter. He said:

This really looks to me like an hon member who has begun to see the light. Why have we had to wait until now to get any kind of idea from the Official Opposition?

No leadership.

My benchmate says there is no leadership. Is this perhaps the case? Here are clear signs of an hon member who has in the first instance declared himself willing to express himself fully opposed to standpoints of the AWB. We expect this from his leader as well, and from every hon member of the CP, so that we can debate these matters with them.

Finally, I just want to say that the hon member for Randfontein tried to show us how the CP’s policy of partition would eventually work. He then used the following example, which I find striking. He said that we should look at the pattern in Israel. Israel consists of 3,5 million people and is surrounded by more than 100 million Arabs.

Is that Connie again?

That is Connie again.

He said that Israel had nevertheless withstood the test of time all these years because it has its own state in which only its own people have citizenship and the franchise. Now I assume—I think I am justified in doing so—that the hon member wants to use Israel as an example for his White state in South Africa.

What are the facts as far as Israel is concerned, however? Israel has 3,67 million people, of whom 15% are Arabs. Those 15% Arabs …

Do they also have power-sharing?

They do indeed also have power-sharing. Now one of the CP’s leaders is using Israel as an example. Does that hon member now want to tell me, as strongly as he has expressed himself opposed to power-sharing until now, that he is prepared to accept power-sharing with people of colour in one of his 13 states, the so-called White state?

The Arabs do not have power-sharing.

But Connie says they do.

Can that hon member really be so ignorant as to make such a remark? The 15% Arabs have equal voting rights with the Jews in Israel. [Interjections.]

That is not true.

It is not at all difficult to confirm that. The hon member need only pick up a telephone to verify that fact. [Interjections.] I therefore infer from what the hon member for Randfontein said in his speech that although he does not say so in so many words, he realises the necessity for joint decision making on matters of common interest. [Interjections.] No, he realises it. Must I quote the hon member for Randfontein again for that hon member’s benefit? He said that there would be a state conference which would in fact discuss matters of common interest to the states on the subcontinent.

They are independent states.

Surely that is nothing but the final, ultimate joint decision making on matters affecting them jointly. [Interjections.]

It only applies to independent states.

Order! This continuous stream of interjections must cease now. I suspect an hon member of the CP is going to have a turn to speak now, and I am sure he will then be able to deal with whatever aspects he wants to deal with.

Mr Chairman, I think I should end my contribution right here, since I should like to hear the reaction from the CP to precisely what the hon member for Randfontein said, as well as what each individual member’s standpoint is on the AWB.

Mr Chairman, an interesting spectacle involving the hon member for Fauresmith, who is not going to return to this House, has just taken place here. [Interjections.] The hon member stood there with the CP’s programme of principles, constitution and policy in his hands, and he was unable to launch a single argument or attack on that programme of principles. He is powerless to fight the CP’s policy and programme of principles, because it overwhelms him completely. That is our policy and our programme of principles, which was approved by all our congresses, and that, and nothing else, is what the CP accepts responsibility for. We are going to govern the country according to this policy and this programme of principles when we come into power. [Interjections.] This is what led to our becoming the Official Opposition. [Interjections.]

The fact that that hon member could not attack the CP’s policy proves that they are powerless against it. What did he do then? He looked for something else to attack. He said that he differed with the AWB, and nearly got mixed up with the KWV as well. [Interjections.] He wanted to link the CP to something else, to attack something else in that way. He was not referring to us. We are the CP, and the hon member had the CP’s policy in his hands, and that is what we are responsible for. It is very clear to me that the Government is rather perturbed about the AWB, but it seems they are too afraid to attack the AWB. They want us to do it for them, but we will not. [Interjections.] They must do that kind of thing themselves.

In the President’s Council, the NP is already negotiating with the UDF, the UDF that necklaces people, the UDF that sends out circulars in the Eastern Cape saying that people have to pay tax. They collect a sum of money for each child every month under the threat that the comrades will visit these people. If they do not give them their money, they will be tried in the people’s court, and will receive the normal treatment, the necklace. The NP is negotiating with them. The NP is negotiating with the UDF, while they want to associate us with the AWB, and say that we should oppose the AWB. I tell the NP that instead of negotiating with the UDF, they should oppose and eradicate that organisation. The NP must eradicate the UDF, but they want to hide behind their own inability and weakness in acting against the revolutionaries, the agitators and the murderers in South Africa; yet they say we must fight the AWB. We shall not fight the AWB. We shall fight the NP, the UDF, the ANC and the communists, and we shall eradicate them. [Interjections.]

You have been destroyed, Flippie. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister of the Budget, like his predecessors—he is the umpteenth one; there is no greater turnover in South Africa than in the post of the Minister of the Budget, because on average they do not last even a year before a new one takes over—and like the hon member for Fauresmith, tried to make a case for the extension of own affairs, saying that own affairs is becoming a factor, whereas precisely the opposite is true.

I want to agree with previous hon speakers who said it was completely misleading of the hon the Minister to say that own affairs had grown by 125% during the past two years. Own affairs has not grown as a result of functions which were transferred from general affairs to own affairs, however. Own affairs has grown because education and other matters were transferred from the provinces where they were own affairs in any case. It was an ordinary transfer. Nor did own affairs grow because the present functions of own affairs increased in scope; on the contrary, they diminished, as the hon CP spokesman on finance said. The fact is that there has been no improvement with reference to own affairs. There is no division of tax sources between own affairs and general affairs. This was not the case in the beginning, and it is not the case now. There is no division between general and own affairs in the functions that determine policy. This was the case and still is.

It is true that there is only one body that has the authority to levy taxes, and that is the Minister who has control over general affairs. It is also true that the Budget of this Minister has to be agreed to by general affairs as well as by the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates. If it is not agreed to, we have no budget in respect of own affairs. Yet the hon the Minister still says it is own affairs. It is not own affairs. The hon the Minister’s only function is that he is co-responsible for own affairs. The hon the Minister does not have full responsibility in respect of own affairs in its own right. What is more, own affairs is extremely small. It is a fact that in his Budget the hon the Minister of Finance budgeted 83,5% of the total Budget only for general affairs. The rest was for own affairs and the Administration: House of Assembly received only 9,76%. The important aspect, however, is that the Budget for general affairs is growing much faster than the Budget for own affairs.

The Budget for general affairs increased by 16% over the revised Budget of last year, whereas the Budget for own affairs increased by 8%. As my hon colleague said, Sir, less is being spent on own affairs in real terms now than was the case last year.

Another very important phenomenon is that the revenue the State receives by means of personal income tax, of which the Whites contribute more than 80%, has increased by 24%, whereas the allocation for White own affairs has increased by only 8%. The old milch cow had to pay 24% more, therefore, but the Budget the milch cow receives has increased by only 8%.

The hon member for Yeoville said sacrifices had to be made. We are prepared to make sacrifices to create a dispensation in South Africa, but we are not prepared to make sacrifices to establish a greater degree of integration and socialism, under the illusion that this would provide a solution to South Africa’s problems. That is the Government’s standpoint.

That is why I want to say we are already experiencing a lowering of standards in South Africa. The budget for White education has increased by 8,7% and the budget for Black education by 40%. There are only two choices. Either the Government must decide to maintain the standard of White education, and try to raise the standard of the other developing groups to that of the Whites, or it must lower the Whites’ standard to adapt to that of the others.

What has happened? If the Government were to decide to maintain the standard of White education and improve that of the others, it would need half of the general budget only for education in the near future. In all other respects the standards would simply have to be lowered. Alternatively the Government will have to decide to lower the Whites’ standard. It is obvious that that is what the Government has decided to do.

That is why the Government is slowing down the growth of own affairs in real terms. This is not a strange phenomenon. In fact, I want to tell the Government it has no other choice. It has only one way out, and that is to lower the standard of the Whites, because it has been proved repeatedly in the Western World that when one combines developing and underdeveloped communities in a common political structure, the developing community is not raised to the level of the developed one, and in fact the reverse takes place. This happens because the lowest common denominator becomes the new norm. That is in fact what happens. That is why we say the Government must make known to us the formula on the basis of which it wants to make those allocations, so that we can assess the course it has chosen, and can prove it has chosen the course of lowering standards.

I want to mention one example in this connection. I received a letter from someone in Oudtshoorn, which has two teachers’ training colleges—one for Whites and one for Coloureds. This person wrote that the bursaries at the training college for Coloureds had been increased from R2 400 to R2 800 for students in all years of study. In the case of the Whites, the bursaries for students in their first year were increased from R2 400 to R2 800, but students in their second and third years received no increase. [Interjections.] Therefore, the Government is already lowering the standards.

We heard that the Minister of the Budget and Welfare had made a very important admission. He said they had appointed ministerial representatives—so-called political commissioners, or simply PCs—to bring the government of own affairs closer to the people. That is a terrible admission. They are saying that the people’s own affairs government has gone astray; the people no longer know where they are. It has been lost to the people. They have now had to appoint political commissioners to get the government back to the people. [Interjections.]

I want to say that that own affairs government was with the people when they still elected their own representatives to the provincial councils. Those representatives filled executive positions, and took care of those matters themselves. The government was not lost to the people then. The people knew exactly where the government was.

Now they are appointing these political commissioners because the government has gone astray. I put it to you that the government is going to disappear from the scene completely and finally.

Let us see what the situation is at the moment. At present we have five Ministers who are elected by the voters, but we have six political commissioners. More political commissioners are appointed than Ministers. [Interjections.] We warned those hon members …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is an hon member entitled to refer to someone who makes up part of the executive authority of an executive body as a “commissioner” in this House?

He is a comrade.

Order! This is a very involved and difficult question which has arisen for the first time. I shall have to give a further ruling on this later. My instinct tells me, however, that the hon member should not do so. I therefore request him not to do so.

Mr Chairman, may I refer to them as PCs?

I think the hon member should rather refer to them as ministerial representatives.

Or comrades, Ferdie!

We cautioned this Government when it proposed the constitutional dispensation. The Government said it was moving away from the Westminster system, but what is happening? The least satisfactory aspects of the Westminster system are being implemented to an increasing extent. When the king could no longer rule and did not have the people’s support, he appointed people to help him govern. That is how a government goes astray. That is what is happening to this Government; it is no longer reaching the people.

I want to make a prediction today—I want to put it on record—that own affairs is going to disappear, because the Government is scaling it down and undermining it. The Government has no choice in this connection. History has taught us that it is a world-wide phenomenon that the highest level of government becomes more and more powerful whereas the subordinate bodies’ powers are scaled down. The Ministers’ Council is subordinate to the general Cabinet and the general Government. That world-wide phenomenon is increasingly taking root in South Africa. The Ministers’ Council is subordinate, cannot make policy, and has no own source of revenue—the policy and funds have to come from the general Government. That is why own affairs are being scaled down and are going to be scaled down to an ever-increasing extent.

Well done, Ferdie!

Before the referendum and before the recent election, the NP promised that they stood for an own community life; own residential areas and own schools. We were told that the Group Areas Act was a general law, and that the declaration of group areas was a general affair, whereas the community life within the group area was an own affair.

I now want to tell hon members what my experience in this connection has been. In Zeerust in my constituency, a Coloured family moved into a house in the White residential area for the first time in November 1985. Complaints were made by everyone who could possibly complain to all possible bodies. The matter was quickly brought to the attention of the Government.

What was the reaction of the Government? The complaints were made in November 1985. In reply to a question I put to the hon the Minister of Law and Order in this House six months later, in April-May 1986, he said he had opened a dossier. It had taken him six months to open a dossier.

In the meantime more Coloured families have moved into the White residential area in Zeerust. Towards October 1986 I received a letter from the hon the Minister in which he said the Attorney General had refused to prosecute, after almost a year.

The residents of that town decided that the Government was not going to help them; they had to help themselves. They addressed a request to the Attorney General of the Transvaal to issue a certificate, nolle prosequi, in which he said he refused to prosecute so that they themselves could take action in terms of the Group Areas Act. That request was addressed to the Attorney General in January. It is June 1987 now, and the Attorney General has not issued the certificate yet.

I now ask the Government: Is there something you owe one of those people which is preventing the matter from being expedited so that the people can take action themselves?

The climax came in Bloemfontein, however. A flat in Andries Pretorius Street was being prepared for Indians to move into. Then what happened in the election? While that flat was being prepared for the Indians, the NP put up a poster which said: “We stand for own residential areas and own schools”. [Interjections.] Now I ask the Ministers’ Council and the hon the Minister of Local Government who is sitting here: Are you going to persuade your colleagues to take action in those cases? Where will the children of the people living there go to school? Is the hon the Minister going to take action, or is he going to permit the schools in Bloemfontein and Zeerust and all the other places to be thrown open, just as the University of Bloemfontein was thrown open, against the will of the majority of students at that university? What is he going to do?

That is why I say that in terms of the CP’s policy, own affairs will be own affairs and all affairs will be own affairs. [Interjections.] My reply to the hon member for Fauresmith is that general affairs should be dealt with by sovereignly independent states on an interstate basis where no one can be forced by anyone else into a decision he does not want to take. The CP’s policy will ensure that the Whites’ standards are maintained and this will ensure that the other population groups’ standards are raised to the level of the Whites’ standards. I want to state very clearly and unambiguously that if the standards of the other population groups can equal those of the Whites and even surpass them, the CP will congratulate them sincerely and be grateful that it has happened, because we grant them that. [Interjections.]

Provision was made in the Supplementary Budget for R400 million for agriculture. In three debates last year we warned the hon the Ministers that there would be trouble. We have said so in private motions during the past few years as well. Even before there was a drought, the economists told the Government the situation was wrong. What is happening now? As an afterthought we are getting R400 million in the Supplementary Budget. The Government did not plan this initially; it was an afterthought.

I want to tell the Government that it is not in earnest about agriculture. The hon the Minister visited Lichtenburg at the beginning of the year, and he heard about some of the problems then. Despite all the requests and warnings, they have still done nothing, apart from waiting for things to overtake us.

They are unstoppable, however, when it comes to increasing the salaries of politicians and introducing secretarial services for the MPs. They are unstoppable; nothing can stop them.

Are you going to accept yours?

I want to know from the Government what voters asked them to do that.

Are you going to accept your allowance for secretarial services?

This means that R1,23 million per annum goes to NP members of Parliament, who know that without it they cannot return to Parliament. The Government can push as much money into it as they want to, but they will not be able to return, because we are going to take over.

Are you going to take it?

Of course we are going to take it. After all, we shall not give the Government that advantage. [Interjections.] Nevertheless our clear standpoint is that the Government should not do it; and they know that that is our standpoint. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I want to point out to you that once again there was a chorus of interjections on that side of the House when the hon member for Lichtenburg was addressing the House. With all due respect, when that happens on our side of the House, we are called to order. We request you …

Order! The hon member must resume his seat. I am not prepared to accept that reflection under a point of order.

Mr Chairman, the debate on the affairs of the Ministers’ Council of the House of Assembly is going very much as predicted. On the one hand the Official Opposition cannot take over from this side of the House the policy of the right of self-determination of the Whites and therefore they have to criticise it as much as they can. On the other hand the word “self-determination” does not exist in the vocabulary of the hon members of the PFP. I shall come back to the hon member for Lichtenburg and the policy he wants us to discuss. I willingly accept the invitation.

Before coming to that I should like to take a brief look at the political ideologies in this House after the election. In saying a few words about this I should like to refer to a standard work on the subject, namely Political Ideologies. Their origins and impact by Prof Baradat of New York. It is a standard work in political science. This professor divides the political spectrums in the worlds into the far left and the far right and states:

†Then we have the liberal, the moderate, the conservative and the reactionary.

Let me start with the liberal. We have the PFP. What does Prof Baradat say about the liberal? He says:

This is the writer’s approach on page 11 of his book from which I have quoted. I do not have to tell hon members about the internal squabbling among hon members on the opposite side of the House. Three of them left last year, and the last of them, the former member for Bryanston, referred to the internal squabbling that had taken place. According to the professor, this is why leftist movements “tend not to last long”.

*I think that we are already seeing this in the decline in the number of seats held by the PFP. The interesting point emerges when we consider the other side of the spectrum, the opposite of the radicals. Prof Baradat has this to say:

What he is really saying here is that the frustration and the behaviour of the extreme left-wing radical is as bad as that of the right-wing reactionary. He puts the right-wing reactionary and the ANC, two extra-parliamentary bodies with intra-parliamentary sympathy, in the same bracket, as displaying the same degree of frustration and the same possibility of resorting to violence. The ANC has sympathy with the PFP and the AWB has sympathy with the CP. [Interjections.]

Order! Is the hon the Minister prepared to answer a question?

When I have made a little progress, Mr Chairman.

I hope you do!

I shall be getting to the hon member for Lichtenburg in a moment—he should be patient.

When we come to the Conservatives, there is an astonishing definition:

[Interjections.] “Through the use of reason.” There is a pessimism in the use of logic. [Interjections.]

I now come to point 2.3.4 in the CP’s Programme of Principles and Policy:

Pessimism in regard to logic.

We are optimistic, because we want to achieve that.

What is the logic? The logic is very simple. In the urban areas of White South Africa, there are 6,1 million Black people. In the non-urban areas of South Africa there are 4,2 million Black people. This gives us a total of 10,3 million. Those are the facts. Those 10,4 million will therefore have to be removed. However, there are 6,2 million Black people in the work situation, of which 3,6 million are in the PWV area alone. They will have to get out, because there are only five million Whites. Section 2.3.4 of their programme of principles reads:

That is pessimism instead of logic. How can one, logically speaking, suddenly withdraw 3,6 million workers from the economy and place them, jobless, in the self-governing states? According to the CP, however, they must leave. There are 4,2 million Black people in the non-urban areas. How do we effect partition in regard to those Black farmworkers? That is pessimism instead of logic.

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

Mr Chairman, the hon member may ask his question when I have finished and still have time.

†The problem of the PFP is their internal squabbling and the extra-parliamentary ANC which enjoys sympathy there. The problem of the CP is the extra-parliamentary AWB which enjoys sympathy there. Their problem is also a pessimistic attitude towards reason.

*Accordingly both of them have an albatross around their necks, but they will have to face the facts.

In the time that the Ministers’ Council of the House of Assembly has been in existence, tremendous progress has been made. The people are already being governed by the people in regard to those things that are important to the people. However, the CP cannot admit this because this party has arrogated to itself the exclusive right to speak about the people. However, who governs the people? Among others, my colleague sitting next to me who is in charge of the schools. I want to say to the hon member for Lichtenburg that one cannot adopt that attitude towards the facts. If he says that an increase of 40% has been announced for Black education and only 8% for White education, then he must surely also mention whether the point of departure was the same. That hon member was himself a deputy Minister in charge of Black education. He knows full well what the situation is, but he is a clever parliamentarian and he knows that if he says that it may be interpreted in a different way outside. This matter must be rectified because the points of departure were very far apart. He knows that.

The hon member also referred to the R400 million for agriculture. In passing, while the hon member for Barberton is not present at the moment, I want to congratulate him on his appointment as official CP spokesman on finance, because my time has almost expired. Neither he nor the hon member for Lichtenburg expressed a word of thanks for the R400 million towards the re-establishment of our White farmers—our nation’s people. The hon member for Barberton omitted to mention that, in order to make the Budget look bad. He did not want to mention it because then the country would know that this Ministers’ Council looks after the White farmers. The hon member for Lichtenburg says that he has been asking for this for years. Now that it has been granted, the hon member should at least say thank you.

It could have been prevented.

This is a very fine and important step that could mean a tremendous amount for our country’s farmers. Prof Baradat says that those moderates, those members on this side of the House, are in favour of evolutionary change.

Where does he say that?

He says it on page 18. [Interjections.] That is why I say that this side of the House insists that the Ministers’ Council of the House of Assembly is one of the most important pillars yet developed in this country in the constitutional sphere. For the first time the people is governing the people in regard to what is important—its education, its medicine and its local authorities. This is a pain in the neck for the CP because they would have liked to do it themselves and now the NP has already done it and is deriving political advantage from having done so. That is why the NP is sitting here and why the CP is such a small group. This side of the House will therefore continue to develop these affairs in the Ministers’ Council while at the same time not neglecting to strive towards peace, prosperity and constitutional development. As the hon member for Randfontein said, there must be consultation. The hon member for Fauresmith quoted this from the Hansard from the hon member for Randfontein and I agree with what was said. Therefore the NP will look after own affairs while not neglecting other things.

Mr Chairman, it is a great privilege and an honour to take part in a debate in this House for the first time. I regard it as a particular privilege to speak after the hon the Minister who has just resumed his seat. I think he is the Minister who gave me the best advice in this whole House. He told me that here one should pray for grace and for wisdom every day.

I realise only too well that it is a great privilege to be here, but I also realise that every privilege is attended by a responsibility. The privilege of being able to represent a constituency also entails great responsibility. To begin with, therefore, I want to thank my predecessor in the House for the responsible and dignified way in which he represented Kimberley North here.

Hear, hear!

I feel small and unworthy of doing justice to the great responsibility. I accepted the responsibility, however, with the knowledge that one receives grace, insight and wisdom from the same source. That is why my prayer for myself and for all the other hon members in this House will be the words we so often see on wallscrolls. My daily prayer will be: Lord, grant me the mercy to accept what I cannot change, but also give me the courage to change what can be changed. Most of all, give me the wisdom to be able to distinguish between what can be changed and what cannot.

I shall try to serve all the voters of Kimberley North in this light. It is a constituency with a great variety of interests. Kimberley, the diamond city, is in the south. Diamonds are a product that is being phased out quite quickly. I foresee that in years to come the importance of the diamonds under the ground will be replaced by the diamonds above ground, viz the human material in Kimberley.

In this connection I am referring specifically to the young people. I see Kimberley as the future educational centre of the Northern Cape. When we consider that more than 800 students from Kimberley and Vaalharts are studying at the University of the Orange Free State, it is a good thing that this university’s interests are being extended to an increasing extent in Kimberley.

It gives one great pleasure to be able to see the high priority given to the education and training of all our young people by the Government, as is confirmed by the amounts allocated for this purpose in the Budget. In connection with history I once read that he who forgets his past has no right to a future. I want to add that they who neglect the education of their young people will have no future either.

I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to pay tribute to teachers. They are the people who made much more of our schools than mere so-called repositories of knowledge. They made real educational institutions of our schools. I should like to dwell on this for a while longer, but shall confine myself to giving my full support to the amount budgeted for the important Education Vote.

When I go further north in my constituency, I pass through an area, in the words of one of the school songs from that area, “langs die ghaapse heuwelrye” in the Harts River Valley. There we find the largest irrigation scheme in South Africa, the Vaalharts Irrigation Scheme. It is an ambitious undertaking, which was begun in 1933, when things were very bleak and there was terrible poverty, and when many Whites worked, digging irrigation canals with pickaxes and spades for the princely sum of half a crown a day. The scheduled land in this irrigation scheme covers approximately 28 320 ha. The scheme depends on the overutilised Vaal River system for its water. It is subdivided into 1282 farms, which average 25 ha in size, with approximately 600 active farmers, who supply approximately 30 000 Blacks from one of our neighbouring states with job opportunities. It is an area which is served by two towns in particular, Jan Kempdorp and Hartswater. This area is dependent on a low scheduling of water—only 7 700 cubic metres per hectare.

At the Vaalharts twenty-first anniversary festival, former Minister P K le Roux said in his speech, and I quote:

It is precisely because of a lack of this important life-blood that that area is involved in a struggle for survival. The drought, which is thought by many to be the worst in 200 years, and has necessitated water restrictions, has plunged this area into a struggle for survival. For the past five years the people there have had to be satisfied with an average of only 50% of the normal water quota—a situation which has meant that Vaalharts’ average gross income of R58 million per annum during the previous five years has decreased to an average of only R33 million during the past five years. This means a loss of revenue of approximately R25 million per annum, or a loss of R40 000 per farmer per annum.

On behalf of the farmers of South Africa, I want to thank the Government for emergency aid schemes which are directed at keeping our farmers on their land. I want to express a special word of thanks for the extra R400 million. An irrigation scheme must receive less than 50% of its water quota, however, before it qualifies for a subsidy in terms of the sliding scale. Subsequently I should like to address the following two requests to the hon the Minister. I should like him to speak to his colleagues entrusted with financial assistance and Water Affairs about the following two requests. The first is that an intensive enquiry should be made into the above-mentioned sliding scale with a view to possible adjustments in order to help the irrigation farmers of Vaalharts in their struggle for survival. The second request is that an enquiry be made into the withdrawal of possible marginal land with a view to increasing the scheduling of 7 700 cubic metres of water per hectare.

I want to conclude in the same way in which I began, by referring to the clever, but not always popular, philosopher. His adversaries decided that they would get at him. They decided to take a canary, hold it behind their backs and then ask the philosopher what they were holding. If he answered correctly, they would ask him whether the canary was alive or dead. If he answered that the canary was alive, they would smother it and show it to him. If, however, he said the bird was dead, they would show him the live canary. They did this. The philosopher answered the first question correctly, and when they asked him whether the canary was alive or dead, he thought for a moment. Then he replied that they held the answer to that question in their own hands.

I believe the future of South Africa is in the hands of hon members of Parliament and hon members of this House. For that reason I want to thank the voters of Kimberley North for giving me the opportunity of being a tiny cog in this machine of the future. I should like to support the Appropriation Bill.

Mr Chairman, it is my pleasure to congratulate the hon member for Kimberley North on his interesting and informative maiden speech. It was not too long ago that I had a similar experience and this is in fact only the second time that I will be addressing the House. The feeling of privilege and responsibility that one has when addressing this House for the first time is something that one can treasure. I want to wish the hon member a happy and rewarding experience in his new capacity as a member of Parliament.

The estimates that we are discussing today provide for the needs of the White citizens of our country for the forthcoming year. We are talking about the needs of approximately 18% of the inhabitants of this country. I wish to support the hon member for Yeoville’s amendment for two reasons. Firstly, the Bill represents a political direction to which I am totally opposed and which is unacceptable to the majority of South Africans. Secondly, it increases the cost burden of our already beleagured economy in pursuit of a political ideology which is doomed to fail.

This Budget represents a further step in the firming up process of new-styled apartheid, namely the artificial distinction between general and own affairs, based purely on the concept of race. As such I believe it is an exercise in futility bearing no relevance to the realities of our country of today.

A budget represents the quantifying in money terms of a plan or a set of proposed objectives. It is judged against that plan and against other objective criteria. It represents a step—namely one year—along a path towards a desired objective.

These estimates represent the further entrenching of apartheid. Common sense tells me that the furtherance of apartheid spells disaster for our country. It focuses attention on differences between communities and therefore cannot be viewed in isolation. An examination of the figures immediately prompts one to make comparisons. One asks oneself how they compare with the estimates for the other two Houses; how the proposed expenditure relates to that provided for the disenfranchised majority, the Blacks; and what impact they will have on the total economy of our country.

The debate that we have heard today reflects that sort of issue. Today issues in our country are becoming ever more interrelated, and attempts to concentrate on the interests of one group become meaningless. One has only to study the impact on South Africa as a nation. We are all interdependent, and this process is therefore farcical and reminiscent of Nero fiddling while Rome burns.

It must be evident to all hon members that there are grave disparities among the communities in our country, differences in education, housing, medical facilities, economic opportunity and so on. We have to focus our attention on these differences and redress them as quickly as possible.

We on this side of the House believe that it is these differences, coupled with the issue of political power, that are the main causes of unrest in our country, and not the outside influences as so fervently believed by the Government. If we are genuinely seeking peace, we have to know how these disparities are going to be redressed. Issues such as equality of education, equality of social benefits and, above all, equality of opportunity have to be addressed. There is no way, when examining this Budget and the Appropriation Bill presented by the hon the Minister of Finance, that one can assess and answer these questions.

We are told that formulas that provide the basis for distributing funds among the three Houses, have been devised and agreed upon, but we have no idea on what basis they have been devised. Similarly, a five-year plan of priorities has been approved at Cabinet level, but again we do not know the details of those priorities. I ask whether this plan deals with the correction of the imbalances; if so, by when, at what standard and at what cost? These are critical questions that need to be answered.

I wish to quote from a book by Clem Sunter entitled The World and South Africa in the 1990’s which I believe makes my point very clearly. He recalls a quote by Dr Hendrik Verwoerd, who stated:

Sunter goes on to state:

That is why the present situation is untenable. We are excavating a complicated network of tunnels whereas it is now far too late and too costly. Change has to come in a different form. I believe this analogy very aptly describes what we are trying to do today. This Budget represents one of that network of tunnels. Where it is leading is influenced by the direction of the other tunnels. This tunnel vision needs to be replaced by a broader perspective.

Developments are taking place in the economic sector of this country, developments which I believe will ultimately be the undoing of the present constitutional dispensation. Apartheid will have to go as it will be overtaken by the demands of an increasingly integrated and complex economy. Hon members will be well-acquainted with the fact that the projected growth rate for next year is by no means sufficient to absorb the estimated increase of the approximately 300 000 persons coming onto the market. Unemployment will therefore increase and this represents a challenge of immense proportions to us all. The hon the Minister of Finance stated in his Budget Speech that employment creation belonged primarily in the private sector. Therefore, stimulation of our economy is vital, together with a system of government that supports small entrepreneurs and gives them this freedom to flourish.

These circumstances have forced business to adapt to a new order. Industrial relations, for so long neglected, are now absorbing more and more of management time. The future in business is being negotiated between management and workers’ representatives; it is no longer imposed by one side. In other words, through force of circumstances, power sharing now exists in the economic sector. It is the working environment that provides the opportunity for people to work together and to learn to understand one another.

I believe these developments beg a fundamental question which needs to be answered. All South Africa’s people are economically interdependent and economic prosperity depends upon working together for the common good. By working together, cultural barriers are being and will continue to be broken down.

If we accept that interdependence and appreciate the dire necessity to create jobs through a stimulated economy, why do we persist in keeping people apart in virtually every other sphere of life? This is precisely what this Budget is all about—the propagation of imposed apartheid. It represents an attempt to achieve the impossible with, in many cases, farcical if not sad results. I defy the hon the Minister to show how medical services and hospitalisation can be segregated effectively. The same applies to the enforced segregation of education. Incidents such as those at Menlo Park and Rhenish School merely highlight the folly of this policy.

The youth of South Africa will have to work together to achieve economic viability. Why force them apart in the formative period of their lives? Cultural differences can and must be respected, of course, but not through forcibly imposed separation. Yet, this Budget provides for White education at school, technicon and university levels. Even handicapped children are socially separated, as are the administrations of recreational bodies and a national fitness scheme.

Our economic survival dictates one direction, but this Budget represents a misguided attempt to go in the opposite direction. Not only does this not make practical sense, but there is also ample evidence that it represents a political philosophy rejected by the vast majority of South Africa’s peoples. There is no doubt that the growth in unrest and civil disobedience was triggered by the introduction of the tricameral parliamentary system. The entrenchment of apartheid in the new Constitution is unacceptable to the majority of South Africans as is the exclusion of Black South Africans from the central governing process.

The second reason why I support the hon member for Yeoville’s amendment is because of the punitive costs inherent in this system. Various attempts have been made to measure the economic costs of apartheid. I stress “economic costs”, because the costs in human misery and deprivation are immeasurable. I am aware that conclusions reached by Prof Michael Savage in his inaugural address in 1986, entitled “The Cost of Apartheid”, have previously been discussed in this House. I shall therefore not repeat the details, but I believe the main conclusion is worth repeating. After a detailed analysis of the national Budget for 1985-86, and based on conservative estimates, he said:

This equates to the total amount raised by GST. Looked at in another way, it represents the major portion of the inflation rate with which this country is inflicted.

A small portion of this additional expense is represented by the six ministerial representatives provided for in these estimates. It is interesting to note that many of the functions they will perform were previously undertaken by elected members of the now disbanded provincial councils. The stated reason for their appointment is to bring government closer to the people. I believe that by disbanding the provinical councils we did precisely the opposite.

The total amount requested in this Bill represents an increase of 125% over the past two financial years. The hon the Minister cites this as an indication of the considerable expansion of the activities of the administration over such a short period. The question left unanswered is whether this represents greater or lesser efficiency after allowing for inflation.

Mr Speaker, in pursuing this policy of own affairs we are following a course which is unsound in practical terms, politically unacceptable to the majority of South Africans, and economically suicidal. I therefore have pleasure in supporting the amendment moved by the hon member for Yeoville.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Pinelands in his speech referred to the so-called disparity and the different formulae that are applied. He will pardon me if I do not follow him, because I am sure that the hon the Minister will deal with all those aspects in full.

*I want to refer to the CP speakers who took part in the debate earlier today and pointed out to us what sacrifices would have to be made when their policy was implemented. I come from Natal and I listened with great apprehension to what the CP speakers had to say. I want to know what sacrifices we shall have to make in Natal in terms of the CP’s partition policy.

In a television debate during an election campaign, the hon leader of the CP raised the important point that not many people would be moved when the CP came into power. If I understood him correctly, 34% additional Blacks will be accommodated in the Black states by means of consolidation or by shifting boundaries without moving people. This statement causes the inhabitants of Natal great anxiety, because there are only 11% of the Natal population are Whites. If shifting boundaries is to be applied successfully, it will be most successful in Natal. This means that we in Natal are running a risk in terms of the CP philosophy, especially if one keeps in mind that of the total number of primary school pupils, no magisterial district in Natal has more than 4,5% White children.

The hon member for Randfontein spoke about 13 Black states and a “Southland”. We want to know where this Southland is and how it will affect Natal. Does Natal or do sections of Natal make up part of Southland or not?

Only Vryheid!

I want to know how this affects Natal and where the Indian population is going to be accommodated in Natal in terms of the CP policy.

I want to quote a passage from Leadership of January 1986. The article “By the Right” was written by Hendrik Verwoerd, the son of the late Dr Hendrik Verwoerd, and he said the following:

Is that also the CP’s philosophy? If this means a shrunken White homeland or Southland, where does Natal feature in this programme? It is extremely important for us to know that.

Go and read our programme of principles. [Interjections.]

We took cognisance of what was said at the CP congress in Durban. I want to quote to hon members from a report in Beeld of Thursday, 30 October 1986, in which the writer said:

One does not even get answers. [Interjections.]

With reference to the CP’s partition policy, the report says that at the CP congress in Durban the CP spoke about partition with undivided enthusiasm.

We hear this in the House every day. The writer went on to say that the CP said at their congress:

Die beleid het mooi op die oor geval vir die afgevaardigdes en is luid toegejuig.

That was at the CP congress. The report continues:

Dr Treurnicht weet waarvan hy praat, want hy het Saterdagoggend op die kongres erken dat ’n kaart van die toekomstige ‘blanke tuisland’ wat in 1984 deur sy party in ’n pamflet in die kiesafdeling Roodeplaat versprei is en toe weer deur die NP in die tussenverkiesing in Kliprivier gebruik is, die KP baie skade berokken het.

Daarom wil (ons) voorstel dat die kiesers na die KP-vergaderings stroom en aanhoudend uitroep: ‘Gee ons die kaart! Gee ons die kaart!’

The CP must give us the map of Natal. [Interjections.] This is of the greatest importance to our voters in Natal. I want to know whether or not it is true that this is the crux of the CP’s policy. If it is not, they must tell us explicitly where they are taking us, especially in Natal. [Interjections.] I tell the hon members that either the CP cannot do so, or they do not want to. [Interjections.] If they cannot do so, they have no policy. If they do not want to, they are being unreasonable in respect of the electorate.

I should like to address myself to the hon members for Potgietersrus, Brits, Bethal, Schweizer-Reneke and Losberg who are newcomers. I ask them not to lapse into the silence of their frontbenchers. They must please take us into their confidence and tell us in so many words what they intend with us, particularly with those of us in Natal. I want to know whether the CP’s Roodeplaat plan which turns Natal, apart from the Vryheid/ Utrecht corridor to St Lucia Bay, into a Black homeland, is really their plan for our future. We shall not know, until we have received those answers, what we are supporting if we want to vote for the CP. It is the responsibility of those hon members to spell out to us in the immediate future, in this debate, precisely what their plan entails.

Mr Speaker, it is a privilege and an honour to address this House for the first time, and I regard it as a privilege to follow in the footsteps of my esteemed predecessor, the former member for Bloemfontein East, Dr Louis van der Watt. Hon members know that he has been appointed as the first ministerial representative for the Free State. I should like to thank him for his good example and his selfless service to our constituency, and wish him every success in his new office. I believe that there too he will serve our country well.

I am also following in the footsteps of two other esteemed predecessors who were and are very well-known to the hon members of this House. I am referring to Mr P L S Aucamp, at present the Commissioner of the Transport Services, and the late Minister Basie van Rensburg, former leader of the NP in the Free State. Both these gentlemen, whom I was privileged to know, rendered valuable service to our country. It is a privilege to honour them on this occasion for doing so.

I thought it fit on the occasion of my first speech in this revered House, and particularly in the discussion of this debate on the Administration: House of Assembly, to draw the attention of hon members to certain prominent characteristics of the constituency I represent. After all, I have the interests of this constituency and these voters at heart and am here primarily to serve them, irrespective of which party they belong to.

I believe that not only will hon members find it interesting to make a closer acquaintance with our constituency, but also that the House will come to a better understanding of the aspirations and needs of our constituency.

Bloemfontein East is a typically urban constituency. In my opinion it is characterised by three significant activities—its educational, cultural history and business activities. It is interesting that two of these activities are own affairs. In the few minutes at my disposal, I should like to illustrate these characteristics briefly.

It is illuminating to note that there are 13 schools—11 ordinary and two extraordinary schools—in Bloemfontein East. Almost 7 000 scholars are taught here by approximately 450 teachers. In addition there are four tertiary educational institutions in this constituency which I should like to mention here, viz the Bloemfontein Teachers’ Training College, the Free State Technical College, the Free State Technikon and the Nurses’ Training College.

You can see, Mr Speaker, that education and training have an important place in the activities of our constituency. I am pleased to be able to say that work of a very high calibre is done at all these institutions. The importance of education cannot be over-emphasised in the times in which we are living. Indeed, our children and our young people are our greatest asset. That is why you will understand my saying that in view of this constituency’s extensive involvement in education, I look forward, as a member of this House, to giving special attention to our youth, their schooling and education.

Another striking characteristic of Bloemfontein East which I am proud of, is the heritage of cultural history of this constituency. In this connection I should like to refer to our monuments, museums and cultural history institutions. I believe that hon members will find it interesting to know that the well-known Vrouemonument, as well as the War Museum of the Boer republics which is at the same location, is situated in our constituency. In addition to the striking grouped figures which are in the process of being erected around the Vrouemonument, there are also various other statues within the boundaries of our constituency. I am referring to the statues of President J H Brand, General C R de Wet, President F W Reitz, General J B M Hertzog and Dr H F Verwoerd. These statues not only commemorate these esteemed leaders from our past in a dignified way, but are still an inspiration to us, their descendants.

The National Museum, the Old Presidency which was the official residence of the Republic of the Free State’s presidents, the provincial council chamber which houses the Free State ministerial representative today, Hertzog House, the historic Tweetoringkerk and the National Afrikaans Literary Museum and Research Centre deserve to be mentioned in this connection. With the modern Sand du Plessis Theatre, these cultural history institutions form the nucleus of Bloemfontein’s cultural activities. They also give hon members an insight into the rich and noble heritage we, as a province, take pride in. I hope that I will have the co-operation of hon members not only in preserving this heritage, but also in developing it and utilising it in the interests of our country.

I conclude by referring, finally, to the business activities in this constituency. It is interesting and significant that Bloemfontein’s central business area falls within this constituency. When one takes into account that the only hypermarket in the Free State is there as well, and that the first hyperama is being built there, one will realise that that kind of business centre with its satellite enterprises makes an exceptional contribution to the economic activities of the Free State’s capital city. The value of economic prosperity as a prerequisite for development, peace and progress, may not be underestimated in the times and conditions in which we are living. For that reason everything possible must be done to develop these activities even further.

One could single out many other characteristics. The information I have given is sufficient proof, however, of the fact that our constituency is a multi-faceted, dynamic and in many respects a future-orientated constituency. I should like to express my sincere wish on this occasion that I shall be able to serve this constituency and its people to the best of my humble ability in the years which lie ahead.

Mr Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity of congratulating the hon member for Bloemfontein East very sincerely on his maiden speech in this House. May his contributions always be very positive and in the interests of the voters he represents here.

I should also like to express my thanks for the opportunity of making my own maiden speech in this House today. Sir, I am exceptionally proud to be able to do this as the representative of the Brits constituency. Brits has often been in the headlines recently because of political events there; the recent election also produced points of interest in this regard. To my knowledge this is the first time in our political history that two former clergymen not nearly approaching retirement age opposed each other in the political arena. I thank Mr Willem van Rensburg, a descendant of a former Transvaal President of that name, for the excellent spirit in which we were able to conduct the political struggle against each other.

On the subject of the appropriation for White education, I wish to appeal to the Government on this occasion to ensure that this important matter continues to receive its fair share in future budgets of this House. It is unnecessary to point out that education is of paramount importance to the future of our country. We shall have to make great financial sacrifices in our budget in order to equip our children properly for the demands of the future.

I wish to refer more specifically to smaller rural schools this afternoon. There was a period in our people’s history when these schools furfilled an extremely important function. Before the institution of compulsory school attendance and subsequent raising of the age to which this applies, numerous children in all parts of our country were able to receive education, which they would otherwise have had to forgo, by attending single-or two-teacher schools. It may be claimed with justification that there are many Afrikaner children who were saved from illiteracy by small rural schools even if the first private tutors were anything but well-trained teachers.

As I was once a pupil of a single-teacher school, I want to pay tribute on this occasion to those teachers who in the past rendered— and today continue to render—our people a great service, frequently accompanied by great sacrifice and much inconvenience.

These schools are disappearing from the scene today. There are reasons for this. I am thinking for instance of the depopulation of country districts, the dwindling size of Afrikaner families in particular and then, of course, the centralisation of educational facilities.

I am grateful to be able to say that our own education authorities have always shown great understanding for the need to retain the smaller rural school. Centralisation has always been applied most judiciously. In the Transvaal at present three two-teacher schools remain, with an average enrolment of 23,3; 33 three-teacher schools, with an average enrolment of 40,6, and 34 four-teacher schools, with an average enrolment of 64,3. The policy is that such schools are normally closed at the end of the term in which the enrolment drops below 18 or immediately the figure falls below 15. This policy is applied with great discretion, however, especially in border areas. The closing of a school always takes place in consultation with the parent community and exceptional circumstances are also taken into account.

Of course, strong arguments are continually being raised against the retention of these small schools, the most important of which are the financial demands involved. It is an expensive undertaking to keep these little schools going.

A further important factor is the lack of modern educational facilities. The child has to forgo much at such a small school. Grouping of classes also creates problems. While the teachers are occupied with a specific group or class, the other pupils are forced to continue on their own—yet there is proof that the grouping system also has its advantages. It develops a strong sense of independence among pupils so that teachers of mathematics often find that pupils coming from small schools are able to work independently at high school and know how to struggle with maths problems. A number of years ago the International Education Bureau, in co-operation with the Ministries of Education in various countries, conducted an inquiry into single-teacher schools—the smallest of the smaller rural schools. The interesting finding was made inter alia that children attending these schools did not find it difficult to continue their education at high schools or vocational schools. In addition there was complete unanimity that it was certainly possible to achieve good results by grouping classes.

I also wish to point out arguments in favour of the judicious retention of small schools in country districts. To my mind these arguments weigh more heavily than those supporting their summary closure. In the first place, it is of paramount importance for the child to receive his education while based at home—especially in the junior school. The parent is very closely involved in the informal education of his child. In fact, the parent is an irreplaceable component in this informal education. Because of his parenthood he is primarily responsible for the care, upbringing and education of the child. These responsibilities begin at the birth of the child, even prior to that, and although informal they are enormously intensive during the first years of a child’s life. That is why it is wrong to remove a child from his parents’ care during these important years and place him in a hostel far from home.

A second reason is the depopulation of rural areas. If we wish to counteract this phenomenon effectively, and particularly if we wish to keep our young generation of farmers on the land, we have to provide for the education of their children in their own neighborhood. If we vote finance for the restructuring of agriculture—and I am greatly in favour of this—it is equally important for us to make financial sacrifices in maintaining our smaller rural schools for the sake of our farming community.

In conclusion, I should like to mention a few possibilities worthy of consideration in this regard. Firstly, attention should be given to the accommodation of teaching staff—frequently unobtainable—as well as to a possible compensatory allowance. Principal posts at such schools could possibly be upgraded by one notch as an incentive to applicants.

Secondly, regulations on the bus transportation of pupils could be re-examined with a view to possible improvement.

Thirdly, temporary relocateable structures could be considered with a view to improved educational facilities.

Mr Chairman, my plea is for the retention of smaller rural schools wherever possible. This is in the interests of the child and a happy, progressive and stable farming community.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasant duty for me to congratulate the hon member for Brits on his maiden speech in this House. The subject he broached is one dear to the hearts of many of us. I myself attended a farm school in the far Western Transvaal and can therefore sympathise with him. Unfortunately times have changed and education has been forced to adapt to them. Regrettably it is impracticable today to keep the little farm schools going.

The supplementary addition of R400 million to agriculture for own affairs evoked a peculiar reaction from the hon members for Barberton and Lichtenburg. It is a dramatic increase—83,1%. I am sorry the hon member for Barberton said it was an afterthought, because that is insulting. It may have some political value for him but this type of remark does agriculture and farmers no good. If necessary, I shall discuss this with him again. [Interjections]

A supplementary budget in agriculture is nothing unusual; on the contrary, it is natural. It is a result of the uniqueness of agriculture as one does not know in advance whether one’s dams will be empty or full, whether it will rain, whether there will be pests and plagues and whether there will be floods. This has always formed part of the agriculture budget as long as I have known it. About 10 or 12 years ago the part of the Budget devoted to agriculture was a nominal figure. Later the Treasuray felt that Agriculture should also develop a Budget.

One is dealing with an unpredictable situation in agriculture. To assist in developing an agriculture budget, we paid visits early on in the year to the northern and western grain-producing regions—we were at Lichtenburg among other places—to examine the impact of current conditions there. In March this year the hon the Minister of Finance had already made a supplementary amount of R117 million available to deal with the situation—hence the availability of further funds for subsidisation of carry-over debt.

I am trying to indicate to the House how difficult it is to develop a budget for agriculture. When we subsequently became aware of the collapse in the maize price, we had to make out a case to the hon the Minister of Finance and he made a supplementary R134 million available. This was all in consequence of factors which we had been unaware of two or three months before.

One begins developing a budget as early as November. The fact that one has to make these amounts available piecemeal, especially before an election, is proof of the Government’s sincerity toward South African farmers. We did not try to win votes in the election with the aid of budgets.

I wish to refer to a further important statement made by the hon member. He accused us of doing too little too late. What is the figure one puts on doing enough in time? There is only one way of calculating this and that is by examining one’s losses over a specific period. In this way one can at least place producers in a favourable position before they land in such a situation.

I examined types of grain for instance— wheat, maize and oil seed—over the past four years. If we had merely been interested in recouping losses, it would have cost this country R4,7 billion. A further breakdown of this figure is important. There are approximately 25 000 maize farmers in South Africa. Only 283 of them, the large producers, would each have received R1,7 billion if that had been one’s approach. My question is now whether we can use the taxpayers’ money in this way to make relatively rich people even richer? I do not see my way clear to doing that and I think the hon member would adopt the same standpoint if he were in a responsible position. I have quite a lot of respect for him.

What did the USA try to do? In spite of a collapse in world grain prices and its own problems—and they were not faced with droughts—the USA did everything in its power to support its prices to enable its producers to remain on their land. American farmers have enormous problems at the moment because the USA could not succeed in doing this. The other day Canadians reduced their prices by 18%. To cap it all the South African farmer is faced with drought.

I therefore make no bones about saying it is impossible for this Government, neither will it be possible if the hon member’s party has to take over one day, to subsidise droughts and poor grain prices with financial assistance and State aid. [Interjections.] A subsidy cannot be created for this. I say candidly that it is impossible. The Americans could not do it, neither could the Canadians, but that hon member now expects the South African Government to do this by collecting this money from South African taxpayers.

Hon members make a second basic mistake by wanting to use a budgetary figure and divorcing it from the goodwill of the Government toward agriculture in South Africa. In terms of the Marketing Act—and the hon member knows this Act—one recovers money from the community and consumers to stabilise a profitable industry. If one stabilises an industry, the stabilisation definitely benefits the community and consumers, but also the farmer. In this way, for instance, we collected R50 million from consumers by means of levies on dairy products this year. This is a form of aid. It is a method by which one assists an agricultural industry, one not reflected in budgetary figures. At present there is an R70 levy per ton on maize sold domestically to finance our enormous current losses abroad. This is also a form of assistance to agriculture; it is a form of aid to the maize farmer which is not reflected in the Budget. If one is to judge the Budget in the light of aid to agriculture, one has to look far beyond the figure appearing in the Budget.

At present the expansion of this department, the Department of Agriculture and Water Supply, is of paramount importance to agriculture. I have a specific reason for saying this, which is that White farmers in South Africa form the largest commercial segment of agriculture in this country. White farmers represent in excess of 90% of agriculture in South Africa; White producers here supply the food for this country. That is why it is our duty, and I have committed myself to this, to expand own affairs for agriculture as far as this is practicable.

The typical farming culture as it has established itself over the years in South Africa must be retained. Its characteristics of toughness and perseverance under difficult climatic conditions are typical of this agricultural community. Consequently we have entrepreneurial potential in White agriculture in South Africa which we have to cherish and retain at all costs.

In the short term the problem is that a very large percentage of farmers have been ruined financially, so we shall have to ensure that these farmers recover financially in the short term. We are conducting a debate on this subject on Monday, however, therefore I do not want to elaborate on it now.

To my mind there is a second reason why agriculture should be expanded as an own affair, and that is the cardinal role it has to play in providing food for South Africa. This statement is frequently made but I want to repeat it today as I find myself in good company. The Economic Advisory Council, which recently conducted an inquiry, also made this assertion. I regard it as important if such a body states this because who are they?

They are the cream of the financial and business world of South Africa. They adopted as their premise that this was the primary role of agriculture; consequently it had a definitive role to play in the overall national economy of South Africa. They made this statement about three or four months ago.

There is a third reason why it is essential for this own affairs department to be expanded. In consequence of a variety of difficult circumstances—not only drought—the natural resources of agriculture in South Africa have been harmed and have even deteriorated drastically. Our natural grazing, our sources of water and the nuclei of our breeding herds have shrunk and been depleted. The demoralisation of the South African farmer has been equally serious. These all have to recover and that is why we are currently speaking of restructuring agriculture.

To sum up, this department therefore has three main tasks, which are the promotion of food production, the protection and care of our natural agricultural resources and to strive for the welfare of farmers of the White population. The execution of this brief is contained in a national development plan which has to be fulfilled by taking certain steps.

The first step is research. We have 11 world-renowned institutes which have done good work. I agree that, if it is in any way possible—we are providing for it this year— we should reinforce these research activities further by means of funds. The second is extension and advisory services. This is an enormous task in the rebuilding of agriculture. Advisory and extension services have declined over the past number of years and we have to revitalise them. The training of prospective farmers at our agricultural colleges and by means of short courses is the next step then we shall also have to make a start on training agricultural labour. We shall require far more training establishments like Boskop in South Africa. Finally, we shall have to assist our farmers financially. This plan is fully set out in the White Paper on Agricultural Policy. We shall have to establish our priorities from time to time in the light of this White Paper and the present priority is the restructuring of agriculture by means of all these different steps.

Mr Chairman, I take pleasure in following the hon the Minister of Agriculture. I also spoke last Friday afternoon and must admit I would prefer to follow the speaker who preceded me in last Friday’s debate than the hon the Minister. I am compelled to admit I agree with much of what he said but there are obviously also matters on which I cannot agree. We on this side of the House regard own affairs departments as absolutely ludicrous. It is definitely monumentally ridiculous to want own affairs agriculture in South Africa.

But you eat well! [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister’s splendid expression that I nevertheless eat well is true. I eat well in South Africa because I am White. The White own affairs department will take good care of me because I am White. There are many people …

That is why you eat well!

Would that hon member with the bombastic voice please keep calm.

I am merely telling you the truth.

We could prescribe a sedative for him which might calm him down. The hon member should take his medicine from my words. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member must be given the opportunity to complete his speech without unnecessary interjections. The hon member may proceed.

Of course, there is one point mentioned by the hon the Minister on which I am in firm agreement with him and on which I support him. This is the farmer’s importance in supplying food to the public in South Africa, and obviously in every other country. Since there are still many people in our country suffering from malnutrition, and since there are many who have only a slim chance of going to bed on a full stomach, and since people are dying of malnutrition, I consider the point made by the hon the Minister to be enormously important. As regards the farmer’s vital importance in providing the people of South Africa with food, we on this side of the House will support the hon the Minister in all he says. To tell the truth, if we examine the programme of the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development, the provision of food to assist in limiting the birth rate and consequently the population in our country is of paramount importance. We support the hon the Minister in this.

The hon the Minister of Health Services actually made a very interesting speech here this afternoon. It appeared to me that his department was doing nothing and that he could do nothing but make a political speech. He is certainly fully entitled to do so. He reminded me of a punch-drunk boxer. His first blow to the right did not connect, nor that to the left. After that his Ministers’ Council face kissed the canvas. [Interjections.] That is how I saw it. I assume that hon Minister is still registered as a medical practitioner. He must put it to me clearly today whether his medical etiquette and morality permit the dissection of health in respect of race, because his department is based on a racial principle.

I did not find it strange that the hon the Minister was unable to say much about his department because, when we read his budget for Health Services for the year, it amounts to R64,8 million. It is interesting that the budget of the Baragwanath Hospital is R114,5 million and that of the Johannesburg Hospital R119 million; that of the H F Verwoerd Hospital is R98,3 million—merely the budgets of these three hospitals—so the hon the Minister’s department does not really exist yet. On reading the department’s report one finds it difficult to establish why there is such a department. I also found it very interesting that the hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare had the following to say in his speech:

I have an idea the hon the Minister said this last year too, or the previous hon Minister, and the year before that the previous hon Minister said it. What does this process of “being transferred” mean? I should now like to know of the hon the Minister what the case is in this regard. In South Africa hospitals can be divided chiefly into two groups. There are Government hospitals, controlled by the Government, or obviously by agents acting on behalf of the Government such as provincial administrations. The second group of hospitals comprises private hospitals. We know that private hospitals are an own affair in terms of the Constitution, but there is mention of the management of private hospitals in the department’s annual report.

We know further that hospitals can also represent own affairs, but this division exists. It is a pity the hon the Minister will not be speaking after me because I should like to hear from him when a hospital is an own hospital and when it is a general hospital.

I shall explain that in the discussion of my Vote.

Well, this is also a Vote. Are we not discussing one of that hon Minister’s Votes? I think we are discussing a Vote of his. [Interjections.] Mr Chairman, permit me to express it as follows. If I am mistaken, the hon the Minister can set me straight. To my knowledge all provincial hospitals are general hospitals. Is that right?

No.

No? Pardon me, Sir. All teaching hospitals are general hospitals.

Training hospitals! [Interjections.]

All right, training hospitals. I thank the hon the Minister. All training hospitals are therefore general hospitals. In consequence, own affairs hospitals are those to which less than 5% of a specific population group come for treatment. Will the hon the Minister please tell me how many hospitals falling under his department are own affairs hospitals. How many? Mr Chairman, as I understand it, there is not yet a single hospital in South Africa which is an own affairs hospital.

You will find the reply to that in the annual report of the department.

In the annual report? It is not in the annual report of the Department of Health Services.

It is in the annual report of the Department of Health Services. Read the first annexure to the annual report!

Order! The hon member for Park town was the only member called upon to speak.

Thank you, Sir.

Annexure one! [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister would do well to remain calm. I shall quickly write out a prescription for him too. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I questioned the provincial administration of the Transvaal and according to them there is not one hospital in that province which is an own affairs hospital but there are 11 which are apparently going to become own affairs hospitals.

Permit me to correct you. There are many hospitals in the process of transfer. [Interjections.]

Oh, many? Excellent! We are delighted to hear it. The hon the Minister makes us feel like pregnant mothers; we are waiting for this to be born. It will probably happen some time or other but I think it will be an abortion. I am convinced it will be an abortion, Mr Chairman. [Interjections.]

You already sound like someone with labour pains!

You sound like someone in protracted labour! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I regret I seem to be bringing out the worst in the NP. [Interjections.] Obviously it is not difficult to succeed in this.

By comparison your words are complimentary! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I now want some information from the hon the Minister of Health Services. He spoke of self-determination earlier and directed his fire at us on this side of the House. He will know that, when we were students, it was customary for non-Whites to leave the lecture hall when we had to attend a lecture or a practical demonstration. Apartheid and racial discrimination have therefore come a long way in hospitals. We know this has changed over the years. Subsequently there was …

Why didn’t you object then?

Like that hon Deputy Minister, I was still a UP man then, and stupid to boot! [Interjections.]

Order! As far as the word “stupid” is concerned, I assume the hon member for Parktown is referring only to himself. If he is also referring to the hon the Deputy Minister, however, he will have to withdraw that word.

Mr Chairman, I am prepared to withdraw the word “stupid”. I shall not withdraw the statement that the hon the Deputy Minister was a UP man—and that says it all. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, as regards the self-determination of own affairs hospitals, I want to know from the hon the Minister who decides this. Who determines this? Will he tell us whether this self-determination referred to by him and the Cabinet is not merely again of the type in which a dominating White group has the sole say in affairs?

I find the word “self-determination” very interesting as it should not actually be that. According to the hon the Minister it is the determination of a group because under the Government’s group idea it is its philosophy that a hospital should be either White or non-White. I think I am right; its members believe in a group identity which is why there have to be hospitals for the various groups. When one examines this, one sees it is a fallacy. As regards own affairs, it is a group like the Coloureds, Indians or Whites but when we get to hospitals there is a division according to race. The connotation of “group” is therefore not a group but a race. The hon the Minister knows as well as I do that there is a division in provincial hospitals with Whites in one ward and non-Whites in another. Group plays no role as all who are not White, the Coloureds and Asians, go to the other ward. I now want the hon the Minister to tell me whose decision that is. It is not that of the individual or even the group but of the hon the Minister of Health Services and his department from whom we shall receive a report later and whose Vote we shall also debate later.

We realised this was a misrepresentation over the years and experienced the hopelessness of this racial way of classification in hospitals. I am sure this was also the hon the Minister’s experience. We dismantled it during that time as it was simply not practical. I think the Cape department was the first to start. There was an intensive care unit for children at the Red Cross Hospital, but none for those of colour, which compelled us to treat all children in one unit. When they were out of danger and the emergency over, each child could return to his own ward. In the 17 years I spent there we did not receive a single complaint. When the policy caused children to return to their own wards after they had been in the intensive care unit, Black fathers and mothers and White parents visited one another to find out how the children were faring. There was mutual interest because they were in a team situation.

At Groote Schuur C2 and C4 were initially separate. When we moved to the new unit, there were two intensive care units—one for Whites and one for non-Whites. We had to close one, however, simply owing to a shortage of nurses. The Government and the hon the Minister’s department are now permitting coloured persons to nurse Whites as well. The policy is actually not to permit this unless there is a shortage of nurses for one group. The reason why Whites are nursed by coloured persons is therefore a shortage of White sisters and nurses. I challenge the hon the Minister this afternoon to refute this. In this way we started dismantling the racist, impractical division in our health services because it was no longer feasible to continue with it. The Johannesburg General Hospital now has only one cardiac unit—this was removed from the Baragwanath Hospital. This did not happen because of a change of Government but because there was no longer sufficient staff to man it.

I wonder how much time I have; I wish I had a year left in which to discuss these matters. [Interjections.] Apartheid started disappearing from the old Groote Schuur Hospital— the hon the Minister knows what I am getting at now. During the last years of my involvement at hospitals, there have been no complaints. In many cases White patients say they hope the Black sister will nurse them again because she is so good and has more compassion.

It is only the Progs …

No, that is not true; I shall tackle hon CP members on that later.

Now the hon the Minister—I am certain this emanates from him and the Cabinet, has re-introduced apartheid at the new Groote Schuur Hospital. This is contrary to the wishes of the entire staff, professors and tutors attached to the hospital.

What about the patients?

They do not want it. [Interjections.] I challenge the hon the Minister to prove me wrong.

Whereas the old Groote Schuur hospital was a monument to the doctors of South Africa, I promise the hon the Minister the new hospital will be one to apartheid in our health services. It will be held against South Africa and is a disgrace. The good name of the medical profession, doctors and medical staff in South Africa will suffer.

Mr Chairman, I think there are two main reasons why it is probably neither necessary nor warranted to reply to the hon member for Parktown. The first reason is that the hon member saw fit to direct personal, derogatory remarks at the hon the Minister, particularly at the beginning of his speech. If that is what gives the hon member for Parktown pleasure, let him carry on.

There is a second reason why it is not necessary to react to what the hon member said. The Budget to which the hon the Minister of the Budget referred, does not include the budget for own affairs hospitals because, as the hon the Leader of the House has rightly pointed out, those hospitals that have been identified, are in the process of being transferred. In other words, what he spoke about was not really relevant.

The third reason why it is not necessary to react to what he said, is that the hon member could certainly have dealt with all these questions, which he is so keen to ask, during the discussion of the relevant Vote. The hon member has been in the House long enough to know full well that he may, of course, raise these issues in the House, but that the time and place for actually debating them is during the discussion of the Vote of the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare. The hon member would have been given the answers to his questions there. I shall therefore leave the matter at that.

Before I go on to certain other matters I want to discuss, I should like to refer to the hon member for Lichtenburg. It is most certainly the right of every hon member in this House—I am not debating the issue—to convey his own interpretation of a certain subject within the ambit of the rules of the House. However, what I object to as far as the hon member for Lichtenburg is concerned, is that the hon member took some pot-shots with a machine gun, and in the process fired many shots wide of the mark, just as was the case with the so-called bull’s eye shots kolskote contained in the little newspaper they distributed before the election, a matter I shall come back to later. I also think that when those bulls’ eye shots were fired, the gun was held back to front, the butt facing forwards and the barrel of the gun directed at the CP. However, I shall not take the matter any further.

The hon member for Lichtenburg made quite a number of allegations which I am convinced the hon member knows do not represent the full, unqualified truth.

Mr Chairman, …

No, I shall not reply to the hon member’ s questions now.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The hon the Minister says that the hon member for Lichtenburg knows that what he said was not the full, unqualified truth. That is precisely the same as saying that he is telling an untruth, and he knows it. [Interjections.]

Order! I understand the hon Whip’s point of order. I think the hon the Minister may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Chairman.

Mr Chairman, on a further point of order: It is the practice in this House that whenever a point of order is raised, only the Chairman listens to that point of order and gives a ruling. It is becoming a habit among hon members on that side of the House to pass comment before you have given your ruling. I ask you whether this is in order, Sir.

Order! The hon member for Brakpan is quite right. I ask hon members to comply with the practice. The hon the Minister may proceed.

The hon member for Lichtenburg referred, inter alia, to the growth, in the Budget, in respect of the individual population groups. The hon member knows just as well as I do that when one wants to draw comparisons one must, as one of my other hon colleagues has indicated, examine the basis upon which one is drawing the comparison. The hon member knows that too! He hopes that the effect of what he has said will be reported in the newspapers so that it may simply be accepted by the general public that there has been less growth in the budget for Whites as compared to the growth in the budget for Blacks, Coloureds and Indians.

There is also another matter involved. The hon member referred to bursaries and tried to make an issue of the fact that the amounts of certain bursaries had been increased in respect of the Administration: House of Representatives but not for the Administration : House of Assembly. The hon member regards this as proof that the standard of education of Whites is being lowered, but that is far-fetched and the hon member knows it. I know that he knows it; he is merely doing this for political gain. The fact of the matter is that the amount that has been allocated for bursaries can by no means, in itself, be advanced as the reason for the decline in the standard of White education. [Interjections.]

What is more, this is in fact proof of the actual of the existence of own affairs in the sense that the House of Representatives receives a specific amount of money for own affairs, and they themselves decide on how that money they receive from the Treasury is to be spent—without anyone else having a say in the matter. In the same way, the House of Assembly receives a specific amount from the Treasury and makes its own decision as to how it is to be used. If the House of Representatives were to decide to allocate a larger amount for bursaries, it does not mean to say that this would reflect negatively on the standard of White education.

The hon member dared to say that the Ministers’ Council had no function or powers because the Ministers’ Council did not make any policy decisions.

Of course.

Now the hon member is saying “of course”. At this moment he is sitting in the House of Assembly—this is not a joint sitting—and knows just as well as I do that all policy matters and legislation pertaining to White affairs are discussed exclusively in the White Ministers’ Council, on which only White Ministers serve, and that a specific policy is subsequently formulated in legislation in the House of Assembly, if it is necessary. [Interjections.] The hon member knows that no one else has a say in the matter. What the hon member stated across the floor of the House was therefore not the whole truth.

He also referred to the University of the Free State and said that the majority of students at the university had decided that people of colour should not be admitted to it. That is not the unqualified truth, because the hon member should also tell the House how many of those students voted. [Interjections.] Can the hon member tell us that? I shall tell him. They were far and away in the minority. Therefore the statement the hon member made about the majority of those students having decided against the admission of people of colour, is not true, and he ought to know that. I shall now leave the hon member at that for the time being.

I want to state categorically today that hon members of the Official Opposition and hon members of the PFP may shout as loudly as they like and say that own affairs have no status and will disappear—the hon member for Lichtenburg has done so—but own affairs have come to stay. [Interjections.] Own affairs will remain. The hon member for Lichtenburg proclaimed that own affairs would disappear because the CP would dispense with this monstrosity as soon as it came to power. I want to ask him whether own affairs are a monstrosity.

I say that everything is an own affair.

This constitutional dispensation also makes provision for own affairs and the right to self-determination of the Whites, but the hon member says that he will dispense with this monstrosity.

I did not say that. I did not say it was a monstrosity.

The hon member for Barberton said it.

Order! Remarks are continually being made, and this is getting to be too much now. [Interjections.] I am also talking to the hon member for Lichtenburg. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Thank you, Sir. If it was the hon member for Barberton, I apologise to the hon member for Lichtenburg, but surely he does not disagree with the hon member for Barberton?

We all agree.

There you have it, they all agree. Now we understand each other. We can therefore continue. What the hon member for Barberton, and by implication also the hon member for Lichtenburg, have not told the House, is how they are going to get rid of this system. Their political slogan during the election campaign was: “Vote for the CP, because we will get rid of this.” However, they never said how they would do so. On numerous occasions the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition was challenged to say how they would do this, but he never told us.

Just vote for us and then we will show you.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition knows that the Constitution prescribes and defines certain ways in which the Constitution may be amended.

At every meeting …

Among other things, this can only take place with the approval of all three Houses. Are the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and his party optimistic enough to think they will obtain the cooperation of the House of Delegates and the House of Representatives when they want to abolish the concept of own affairs?

We have already worked that out.

Go and read the Constitution.

The hon leader, however, will not reply to that now. He will laugh about it, probably to conceal his embarrassment.

Go and read the Constitution.

You should rather attend a CP meeting.

Your legal advice is poor, Frank!

I want to say, furthermore, that own affairs have come to stay because the Constitution is based on two main foundation stones. The first of these is a recognition of the right to self-determination—own affairs—which stands in relation to a recognition of the reality of affairs at a general level. It is for that reason that own affairs exist.

There is also a second reason. The hon members may use whatever reasoning they like, but they cannot undo the existence of ethnicity. [Interjections.]

Nor do we want to!

I am not saying that you want to do so. I am referring to all three … [Interjections.]

Can’t your see straight?

If we lost sight of that fact, then of course we would reason like the hon members of the CP. The fact is that the voters reject the Official Opposition and the PFP because they do not accept those realities. The PFP ignores the importance of ethnicity and the CP is living in a fool’s paradise because what it stands for is not attainable.

Just give us the SABC, and we will show you how the Whites see things.

It is thanks to the SABC that you won, Frank!

I shall not talk about that any more. Own affairs have come to stay and I shall quote hon members a few examples. One of these is that we have three Houses of Parliament at the moment. Hon members may oppose the own affairs system if they wish, but as members of this House they remain in this system together with the members of the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates. Progress is being made, in respect of the own affairs concept in the administration of these three individual Houses.

I now want to talk to hon members a bit more about the Budget. The hon members say that the own affairs Budget indicates that there has, of necessity, been a decrease in this regard. They put forward various arguments to which my hon colleague will reply. One thing is certain, however—they may quote the figures if they wish—and that is that it will not be possible to do away with the principle, the concept and the perception of own affairs. It will not be possible, because it has come to stay.

To come back to education and culture, I want to say that a vibrant department has developed in this field, and that nothing will stop it. That is a simple fact. There is a great to-do about the fact that the Budget of the Department of Education and Culture has only grown by 8,8% and that in real terms this is therefore not of any real significance. [Interjections.] However, let us briefly take a closer look at the Budget for Education and Culture. The hon member has it on his desk. As far as cultural matters and recreation are concerned, there is an increase of no less than 50,5%. [Interjections.] No, wait, give me a chance. The hon member will have a turn to speak a little later. By the way, I shall come back to him at a later stage. [Interjections.]

The Budget for the Promotion of Cultural Services, Youthwork and Publicity shows an increase of 239%. Let me tell the hon member for Barberton that straight away. He could well ask me what my argument is. The fact remains that there has been a growth of 239% in this Budget, increasing the amount to R5,338 million in respect of that extremely important component, cultural services. Let us take another example, namely the Programme for Assistance to Declared Cultural Institutions. This includes museums and art collections. In this respect there is an increase of 21,8%. Let us look at the expenditure on organisations that have to do with the preservation of national monuments such as, for example, the Huguenot Monument, the 1820 Settlers’ Foundation and the Voortrekker Monument. In this regard there is an increase of 62% in the budgeted amount.

I now want to ask the hon member for Barberton, who is a reasonable person, whether he does not think, in all fairness, that this is proof of the growth of certain extremely important components for the preservation of identity, culture and traditions, that is to say the own affairs concept as such. Surely it speaks for itself; it is self-evident.

Let us take a closer look at this. Post-school and special education, which previously formed part of the Department of National Education, have been transferred to the provincial education departments. Meanwhile, the provincial education departments have been transferred to the Department of Education and Culture with effect from I April 1986, and therefore these departments simply remain as executive departments. As a result of that transfer, there is now one single large department which deals with White education in the most meaningful and effective manner.

Networks have also been created which did not exist previously. I am referring to networks in respect of matriculation, evaluation, youth matters, educational technology, etc. These networks serve the purpose of building up this powerful department of White education.

Let us take a look at the Federal Teachers’ Council, which obtained statutory rights by way of legislation and which, in partnership with the State, is making a very responsible contribution to the organised teaching profession. Who would tell me that this is not an extension of the own affairs concept, one in which the individual partners co-operate wholeheartedly with each other?

Let us take a look at parent involvement. This is coming into prominence throughout the country. Various parent associations have already been recognised. I appeal today to those parents who are not yet involved in specific parent associations, to work towards that so that they may participate as fully-fledged partners in the development of education. They would also be able to make a contribution by way of their representation on the provincial education boards which are still in the pipeline.

Which hon members will now want to tell me that these matters are merely child’s play as far as the extension of the own affairs concept of education and culture is concerned? It is simply not true, because throughout the country they are attracting the attention and eliciting the co-operation of those concerned. Some derogatory references were made here to the ministerial representatives. Let me tell hon members today: The ministerial representatives perform an extremely important function, just as the Deputy Ministers do in respect of general affairs’ departments.

They are in this House.

Of course they are in this House. I know that. The fact is, however, that these ministerial representatives have a multi-disciplinary task within the individual regions in which they are situated. I want to predict today that those six people will become king-pins in the establishment of the own affairs which are already in the pipeline. As a result of the various powers to be delegated to them, and the other tasks and responsibilities entrusted to them, those people will make an extremely important contribution in the interest of the Whites. I want to thank them in advance for what they will be doing in the future in the interests of own affairs. I could go on in this vein. Perhaps I should just say that we have made wonderful progress at the cultural level. We are involved in the promotion of serious music by coming forward, inter alia, with a comprehensive national plan which will probably be announced shortly.

We are putting the final touches to a comprehensive national cultural strategy, which will also be announced later this year.

I should once again like to ask who would want to tell me that we are not building up this component of own affairs, namely education and culture. I want to leave it at that, however.

I want to come back to certain remarks the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition made during the censure debate on 20 May 1987. During the discussion of that motion, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, inter alia, said that he stood by his standpoint that the AWB did not support violence.

And the UDF?

Secondly, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said that he stood by his standpoint because the AWB was not under the control of the CP, nor linked to the CP. That is how I have understood it.

Are you under the control of the UDF?

The question of whose control I am under, is not at issue at the moment. That is what the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said.

Order! I should not like to put a stop to interjections, but it would appear that these very pleasant proceedings are being unnecessarily interrupted by interjections with the sole purpose of unnerving or attempting to unnerve the hon the Minister. That is not permissible. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Mr Chairman, it is the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition’s prerogative to put it like that.

Quote me correctly, that’s all.

Well, did I not quote you correctly?

You did not quote me correctly.

I want to repeat it, but then the hon Leader of the Official Opposition must answer me here and now in this House. The hon leader said that he …

Mr Chairman, on a further point of order: The hon the Minister is not entitled to submit another hon member to cross-examination.

That is not a point of order!

Order! The hon the Minister may proceed.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition indicated …

André, do you still say God must save South Africa …?

… that he stood by his standpoint that the AWB did not support violence. Is that correct?

That is not what I said.

In other words, the AWB does support violence? Is that what I should now infer?

Order! The hon the Minister must proceed with his speech. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition will have an opportunity to reply. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Very well, Mr Chairman, we shall leave it to Hansard to show whether or not I am correct. I say that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition indicated that he stood by his standpoint because the AWB did not support violence. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition may correct me if I am wrong. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition went on to say that the AWB—he adheres to his standpoint—was neither under the control of, nor linked to, the CP. What does Mr Eugene Terre’ Blanche have to say? What does Mr Eugene Terre’-Blanche have to say about that? Mr Eugene Terre’Blanche has said, on numerous occasions: “We shall fight …”.

And Buthelezi?

He says: “We shall protect with violence.” Let everyone outside this House settle that with him. However, when the leader of a group uses language such as: “I shall fight for it if I cannot get it” … [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, may I ask a question?

Order! The hon the Minister does not wish to answer a question. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Furthermore, I read in the Press—I have the article to hand—of an interview which Mr Terre’Blanche held with the Press. The hon member for Fauresmith also referred to it. What did he say? He said that the hon the State President and the present Government would yet discover that what had emerged so far, in the way of right-wing politics, was merely the tip of the iceberg. That is what he said. There is an hon member who agrees with him. I find that very interesting. [Interjections.] Mr Terre’Blanche went on to say that during the election the AWB threw its weight behind seven CP candidates. He boasted that four of those candidates had won their seats. He maintained that this was an outstanding achievement for his first election. My question is: What does that mean? [Interjections.] Does it mean that he has now already begun to fight the next election? Is he already paving the way for the next election? Does Mr Terre’Blanche perhaps want to indicate to us that he has many members in the CP …

Why do you not ask him?

… who can serve as a power base for him when he eventually participates in the next election? [Interjections.] I read in the SA Observer …

Perhaps Mr Terre’Blanche should confine himself to the Broederbond.

Sir, that hon member has now also made a remark—it happened this morning as well—about the question of membership of the Broederbond. I think it is time we talked about it right now.

Let us hear it! [Interjections.]

What actually happened? It was not so long ago that the then Chief Whip of that party, the former hon member for Kuruman, made a statement in a newspaper on behalf of all those members of the Broederbond who were also members of the CP caucus in this House. According to that statement they intended to resign from the Broederbond.

Some of the hon members who are now sitting there in the ranks of the CP and who were formerly members of the Broederbond, an organisation which they served—they know precisely in what way they served and what that organisation strives to achieve—did not have the courage of their convictions …

Tell us more!

Order! Too many interjections are being made. The hon the Minister may proceed.

They did not have the courage of their convictions to do the right thing themselves and write a letter to the chief secretary …

Now you are talking nonsense, man! [Interjections.]

No, hon members must give me a chance. In the first place they made use of the Whip of their party to make a public statement …

That is untrue! [Interjections.]

It is true, Sir. So very true. Those hon members now have the affrontery to come here and to try to cast aspersions across the floor of this House on a private organisation of which they were formerly members. [Interjections.]

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

No. [Interjections.] Does the hon member for Lichtenburg perhaps want to ask me whether I am a member of the AB?

No, I want to ask whether the chairman of the AB conducted negotiations with the ANC. [Interjections.]

Sir, that type of thing will not throw me off balance.

What is at issue is the fact that I am bringing a serious charge against those hon members who were formerly members of a private organisation—they swore themselves to secrecy and lauded that organisation—but who now want to try to discredit it in political terms across the floor of the House. [Interjections.] I do not believe that those hon members ought to make themselves party to something like that.

I was never a member of the Broederbond! [Interjections.]

Order! Interjections are now to cease for the duration of the hon the Minister’s speech. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Thank you, Sir. I read the following in the SA Observer of June 1987:

It states further:

As my hon colleague has indicated …

Order! I should like to point out to the hon the Minister that I have asked hon members not to make any interjections, and that the hon member for Ermelo has already said that he is not a member of the AWB. The hon the Minister must accept his word. He may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I did not deny that. I said that that was what had appeared in the SA Observer.

Order! That is quite correct, but we cannot allow the impression to be created that the SA Observer was correct.

I want to say, furthermore, that those hon members are at liberty to become members of that organisation if they so wish. In the light of what the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition has said, I just want to say that this spells trouble for him. It spells trouble for the CP.

Order! I am now going to spell trouble for the hon the Minister. His time has expired.

Mr Chairman, permit me in the first place to express my thanks for this first opportunity of being able to make a speech in this House. I represent the constituency of Kuruman and at the outset my sincere thanks go to those voters who had the personal confidence in me to give me this opportunity of being their representative in the House of Assembly of South Africa. Previously I was a member of the Senate for a while but I can assure hon members that my return to the Parliament of South Africa after seven years is almost like venturing into unknown territory again.

The old Senate formed part of the Westminster system under which we had two Houses of Parliament—the Senate and the House of Assembly. A new system became operative after the 1983 referendum. Hon members who grew with that system probably understand it much better than we who are now entering it as novices. Not only have new bodies and institutions been established; new divisions and groupings have also been made. As an example, the Budget for own affairs is under discussion in this House today. I still have difficulty in making a distinction between general and own affairs but I believe one will ultimately adapt and understand what the various functions comprise. Against the background in which I grew up, however, this dispensation should not prove strange to me. The constituency I represent is also my place of birth. Although the town is a hundred years old this year, a large part of the constituency is relatively new. Up to and including the early ’fifties State-owned land, or Crown land as it was called at the time, was still distributed to farmers for settlement.

I grew up on the border of what is known as Bophuthatswana today. This region borders the area of Bophuthatswana at present known as the Thlaping-Thlaro section. The headman at the time was Kudumane. The town of Kuruman was called after him. The London Missionary Society was granted the right by him to establish a mission station in his area. Later, thanks to the labours and efforts of a man like the late Dr Moffat, Tswana was the first Black language into which the Bible and hymnal were translated.

Because we grew up on those borders, we had an interaction of interests but there was also respect for those matters distinctive to and intimately connected with the various population groups. In this way the Tswana legal system was an own affair. It was the only legal system they knew; their matrimonial law and the “lobola” system exist today. The White soon learnt not to interfere in this type of matter because it did not elicit the goodwill of Blacks.

There were many other matters such as the Black children’s veld schools. Here they received instruction on the future from their own sages and headmen. We as White children were often envious of them because their school lasted only about six months whereas we had to attend school every day of our lives.

There was also the question of polygamy, which was something one learnt to leave to the Tswana people to regulate for themselves too. [Interjections.] In addition, there was the matter of communal land ownership. All the land was supposed to belong to the headman of the area and the individual Black farmer or settler did not acquire any right of ownership to that land.

Further there were matters of common interest such as the maintenance of boundary fences between the two areas. As I have already said, there was also the way interests interacted and supplemented one another. Health services, of which the Tswanas had little knowledge at that time, were an example. It was usually White women who had a knowledge of nursing and then hitched up the buggies and, armed with belladonna plasters, Zinc Pain Specific and the box of Dutch remedies, entered the Black areas to assist in the nursing of serious illness.

Furthermore there was the matter of water supplies. These people relied on open water and, when this dried up, they had to come to the White farmers to water their stock. Consequently, when we were towing a Government drill in those days, they gave ready assistance with their draught animals to get the drill to its location. I am mentioning this as I understand the supply of water by means of boreholes has also become an own affair.

In consequence, there was reciprocal help, from Whites to Blacks and from Blacks to Whites. There is a story about one of the Black chiefs who lent a White farmer 500 gold sovereigns to pay for his farm. That chief was so greatly honoured and respected that, on the day of his funeral, the farm school we attended closed early for the express purpose of permitting us all to attend his funeral.

I recall the joint service held there and also the words of the hymn sung by the Black people. Translated into English the words would be “Help of the helpless, abide with me”. I remember those words very well because I often repeated them to myself as a young politician—in the days when politics was still a rough game. [Interjections.]

I mention these matters to illustrate to hon members that own affairs and general affairs are actually established in the tradition of South Africa. I can only hope that our present system, regardless of however many faults it may have at present, will grow and be developed for the benefit of our country.

Mr Chairman, I actually prepared a speech on the basis of a paper I presented at the University of Potchefstroom before I was elected to this esteemed House, a paper which dealt with the juridical distinction between own affairs and general affairs, but in view of the debate that has just taken place … [Interjections.]

Order!

With reference to the debate that took place a few moments ago. I wondered whether I should not put my notes aside and deal with a few other questions. [Interjections.]

When we look at the record of the recent election, and we look at the parties involved here, it is the party on the opposite side of the House which can boast of having won the most seats in the election. I want to make this statement today: The majority of seats were won, but that party has lost the people, because the people are no longer behind it. [Interjections.] I say this because I should like to address an invitation to that side of the House. Let them hold a meeting in the Skilpadsaal to see whether 10 or 20 or 30 people will turn up. Let them hold a rally on Church Square in Pretoria, that venerable, historic place, and hold an NP function there, to see whether or not they can attract as many people as the CP. [Interjections.] I say this because this party is five years old, and I think political history was made during the recent election in that a political party which was five years old took part in its first general election and immediately became the Official Opposition of South Africa. [Interjections.]

I want to make so bold as to say that when a political party takes part in its first general election and can poll 550 000-plus votes, that party has the vitality to enable it to form the government of the Republic of South Africa after the next general election. [Interjections.]

When we consider vitality, the CP is the party that has vitality, because the nucleus of the Afrikaner people as well as those English-speaking people who associate themselves with us, support it. That is vitality. That is potential. And the CP is the party which will form the government of the future!

A great deal was said about the AWB in this debate. [Interjections.] As a newcomer I was struck by the way in which, every time that side of the House was concerned into stating its policy, they attacked the CP with the AWB and the PFP with the ANC. In my opinion that is not a genuine debating method, in view of the problems we have to solve in this country. [Interjections.]

When we look at the methods of negotiation which are used in these times, that side of the House said only a few years ago: “We shall not negotiate with communists.” This has been watered down to such an extent that today they say: “We shall negotiate even with radicals.” I am referring to the hon the Deputy Minister who has been entrusted with a new task. At the same time I want to congratulate him on his new office. Unfortunately I cannot wish him the best of luck in his task, but I should like to congratulate him.

If that side of the House says they will negotiate with radicals, this side of the House wants to know, and so does the public at large, whether that means that they will also negotiate with the ANC, because the ANC is also radical.

That is not true.

Is it not true that the ANC is radical? [Interjections.] Does that also mean that if they say they will negotiate with radicals, the Government will also negotiate with the UDF just as there have been negotiations with Mr Gumede. [Interjections.] If they say that the AWB is also radical, why is that party on that side of the House so discriminatory in its action that it wants to negotiate only with the radical Blacks, but not with its own White fellow-Afrikaners? [Interjections.] Hansard has not yet placed on record that that side of the House will definitely not negotiate with the ANC. Students from the University of Stellenbosch were stopped when they wanted to have talks with the ANC and businessmen were stopped when they had talks with the ANC. Politics in South Africa has become so one-sided, however, that everything the NP does is fit and proper, but if others who have the same objectives do the same things, it is not fit and proper. [Interjections.]

Let me give an example. May I ask the hon the Minister of Education and Culture whether it is true that Prof De Lange conducted an interview or negotiations with members of the ANC or with members of bodies affiliated to the ANC when he was in New York? Is that correct? [Interjections.] It seems my standpoint has hit the mark.

Order! Hon members cannot all talk at the same time. I request them to afford the hon member the opportunity to make his speech.

This question must be answered, because it is not only in the interest of this House, but also in the interests of the public at large. There will be another election in 1989 and we want to know during this session what the answer is. Have there been negotiations with the ANC? [Interjections.] Did Prof De Lange conduct a dialogue of that kind or not, because that is what introduced the name of the Afrikaner Broederbond into this debate. I am not here to score political debating points off anyone in respect of the Afrikaner Broederbond, but the general public want to know whether Prof De Lange spoke to the ANC in his capacity as a member of the NP on the instructions of the Government or in his capacity as the Chairman of the AB. [Interjections.]

If one had to ask who should really take responsibility for the establishment and the development of the AWB, I merely want to point out that the AWB did not exist in Dr Verwoerd’s time. Why not? Because that Government expressed the independent aspirations of a White people which refused to be destroyed. Why do we find that the AWB has become more and more active? Because the general public is becoming more and more uneasy in thinking that this Government is no longer able or wants to serve their interests.

All the fainthearted thrown together.

The hon member says all the fainthearted have been thrown together. When one wants to know who is really fainthearted, however, one must look at Brits and at Pietersburg and at places where meetings took place behind barbed wire. If I were sitting on that side of the House, I would not talk about being fainthearted.

Are you bragging or confessing?

We are bragging, because we have every reason to brag. [Interjections.] In reality we had two seats before this election took place, and now we have 22. We have gained 20 seats and anyone can go and work out the percentage.

Before I make a few remarks about own and general affairs, I want to congratulate the hon member for Kuruman on his election as well as on his conduct in this House. As a newcomer I do not want to be presumptuous, but I should like to do that.

I shall elaborate on the difference between general and own affairs on a later occasion, because I have dedicated my speech to other matters today. I want to address only one request to that side of the House.

Allow me to tell the hon the Leader of the House that a legal team is being put together, consisting of senior advocates assisted by junior advocates—whether these are State law advisers or private advocates and which political party they belong to does not matter to me—to make an enquiry into the true existence of and distinction between own and general affairs on a proper legal basis. I also want to tell that side of the House that if a lawyer can get up in South Africa and say there is a fundamental juridical distinction in this Constitution between own and general affairs, I maintain that he would be a very great exception. I do not know of any lawyer or anyone who has a good grounding in Political Science or Constitutional Law who would say there was a functional, juridical distinction, one that was also tenable, between general and own affairs.

A similar legal team drew up the Constitution.

Mr Chairman, we did thorough research on that point. We know who was in the legal team that drew up the Constitution. They were Government supporters. We shall leave it at that, however.

I should like to refer to section 14 and schedule 1 of the Constitution Act. Own affairs is set out clearly here, but when this is analysed, we see that there is really nothing in this distinction. A very famous South African professor at the University of Natal, Prof Boulle, said the following which I should like to place on record:

He was referring to schedule 1 of the Constitution Act—

He then referred to schedule 1 in which these own affairs are set out and said:

What is his name?

Prof Boulle from the University of Natal … [Interjections.] I do not think it is very nice to laugh at someone outside of this House because of his surname. He is not responsible for having that surname.

I make an earnest request that that side of the House will stop playing at this puppet-show of pretending that there is a substantial, juridically workable distinction between own and general affairs. Such a Constitution was not worth establishing. It has no substance. The mere fact that we have little more than a day to debate own affairs and can debate budgetary matters as far as general affairs are concerned for four days, proves the degree of balance between own and general affairs.

Posterity will not evaluate this period of our political history in terms of interjections which are made about this important matter that affects our people’s future so closely. They will ask, however, whether or not these own affairs which have been included here really guaranteed the future of our people. The future will show that such a distinction cannot do so.

Mr Chairman, to begin with I just want to convey my sincere congratulations from our side of the House to the hon member for Kuruman on the maiden speech he delivered in this House this afternoon. [Interjections.] This is not the first time he is speaking in Parliament, but it is the first time that the hon member has spoken in the House of Assembly. We extend our cordial congratulations to him on his victory in the Kuruman constituency … [Interjections.] … where, of course, he defeated the former Chief Whip of the CP. Therefore the sourness on the other side of the House concerning his election as a member of this House for the NP is probably understandable.

Apparently the emotions of the hon member for Losberg dominate his reason. Now, I should like to say that in my opinion the students of the Potchefstroom University were spared something exceptional in that they did not hear that lecture of his on own and general affairs. [Interjections.] To tell the truth, the fact that this debate has run the course that it has today, has meant that we, too have been spared the fate of listening to that lecture. [Interjections.]

The display put on here this afternoon by the hon member for Losberg created the impression that his party had won. In that regard the interjections made by the hon member for Wellington were only too appropriate. The scoreboard shows that after the election the NP returned to this House with a majority of more than a hundred seats. The same is probably happening at present in the general election in Britain.

You cannot be funny even when you try!

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Overvaal is still trying to create the impression that he can feel more or less at home in this Place. However we realise that this Place is too big for him. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Losberg came forward with another argument that he would like to propagate. It is as if the CP had the monopoly on the Afrikaner in South Africa. [Interjections.] The image that the CP wants to project in this regard is very far removed from the true image of the Afrikaner in South Africa and from the history of the Afrikaner in this country. It is pointless their coming up with such ridiculous and petty things, like a challenge to hold a meeting in the Skilpadsaal or on Church Square.

What about your meeting in the election office at Klerksdorp? [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Brakpan can ask his leader how many people attended his meeting at Klerksdorp and how many people attended our meeting there.

How many people attended your meeting at Marquard?

Mr Chairman, I want to go further. [Interjections.]

Order!

The fact is that the hon member for Losberg told us that we must spell out our policy. On 6 May the White voters of South Africa endorsed the mandate they were called upon to grant—a mandate in terms of the policy of the NP as it has spelt it out. When one puts forward one’s policy and on the basis of that policy requests a mandate from the voters, which they then grant, then in fact they are giving you a directive. A contract then comes into existence between the governing party and the voters of South Africa.

Stoffel van der Merwe says that that is not so.

Mr Chairman, the NP, we on this side of the House, will honour our side of the contract with the voters of South Africa. There need be no doubt on that score.

In the course of this debate spokesmen of the opposition parties in this House repeatedly disparaged the concept of own affairs, as the hon the Minister of Education and Culture rightly indicated earlier. I do not believe that the statements made by hon members of the opposition parties in connection with own affairs afford a fair perspective on them to the public. The concept of own affairs, that is to say, the division of power among groups, is surely a logical and justifiable consequence of the facts relating to the population structure in our country. I accept that in that lecture of his the hon member for Losberg would have referred to the composition of the executive in terms of the existing Constitution. Here the hon member makes very disparaging reference to the Constitution. This Constitution, too, was endorsed by two thirds of the White voters in South Africa by way of a referendum. Surely it is pointless his trying to fight that referendum all over again. It is history. [Interjections.]

We shall never stop opposing this Constitution.

You will simply lose over and over again!

With reference to the structuring of the executive in South Africa under the Constitution I should like to draw hon members attention to section 19 (1) of the Constitution, which reads as follows:

1. (a) in regard to matters which are own affairs of any population group is vested in the State President acting on the advice of the Ministers’ Council in question;
2. (b) in regard to general affairs is vested in the State President acting in consultation with the Ministers who are members of the Cabinet.

Therefore the Ministers’ Council is part of the executive authority, which gives binding advice.

Binding advice?

After all, the hon member for Brakpan has a whole legal team behind him. Surely he should consult them.

Is it binding advice? Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon the Minister?

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Brakpan should not be ridiculous. He can go and read the lecture by the hon member for Losberg. What is more, I am not answering questions now. [Interjections.] We in this House have legislative authority with regard to matters that are own affairs. We have full powers to pass legislation concerning affairs set out in the schedule to the Constitution. The purpose of this is therefore the effective protection of groups and their interests and rights. The Ministers’ Council has powers in respect of the election of members of this House and can furnish advice in this regard. Hon members can look at item 10 in schedule 1. No wonder hon members of the CP say it is meaningless, because as I have already indicated, they lost the recent election hands down.

With specific reference to my field of activities I want to refer to the Development and Housing Fund. This is dealt with and controlled solely by the Development and Housing Board in my department. It was established in terms of the Development and Housing Act which was passed in this House in 1985 as own affairs legislation. There is therefore a fund for White housing in its various facets. It is a revolving fund into which interest and capital repayments are made annually. What is important is that the fund ensures that housing projects can be undertaken annually.

With reference to specific aspects of housing I should like to furnish the House of Assembly with a few facts. Last year I mentioned here that the department wanted to launch a reliable country-wide survey of certain White housing needs. The purpose of this survey is to get every White person who is inadequately housed, whatever his income, to register his housing need. A person is regarded as having a housing need when he, as an individual or together with his family, has no option but to live with another family, or when he or his family are living in accommodation that is of an unacceptable standard according to the departments concerned with housing or the relevant local authorities. Here one could refer to houses that will be uneconomic to repair, squatter structures, garages or dwellings that are too small for the needs of the inhabitants.

Secondly, the survey aims to quantify the needs in order to establish a reliable picture of the housing situation in the country as a whole and to identify problem areas. Thirdly, it is a workable way of providing a consistent basis for future planning and the utilisation of scarce means, and to promote effectiveness in this regard. These proven needs will play a decisive role in the allocation of housing funds, whether for the provision of residential plots at an affordable price or for accommodation for the elderly.

According to the latest information obtained from this survey, on 3 June this year 24 941 Whites of all age groups had a specific housing need. The single biggest group, namely 18 441, were those people above 60 years old. They represent approximately 74% of the total need. In contrast, it seems that those between 41 and 50 are the best accommodated. Only 1 008 of this group indicated a need. On the other side of the scale there are more than 2 600 young people under 30 years old who indicated that they lacked suitable accommodation.

As regards the group with the lowest income—those earning less than R150 per month—2 516 people indicated a need. There were 20 411 people within the income limit of R1 000 per month—a person who earns more does not come into consideration for assistance from the Development and Housing Fund—who registered a need. The department offers those whose incomes exceed this limit and who indicate a need, certain aid schemes such as the 33,33% subsidy scheme and the home ownership savings scheme. Surveys have been carried out in co-operation with local authorities and welfare organisations and this is also updated regularly. Moreover, a special official has been appointed for this purpose by the department and he visits local authorities and welfare organisations on a regular basis. I should like to thank these local authorities and organisations for their co-operation. The department, too, does everything in its power to satisfy these needs. For example, I can indicate that in the period from 1981 to 1986, R283,357 million has been spent on housing projects for Whites.

I should like to deal with a specific aspect, namely accommodation of the elderly, with special reference to the issue of their safety. It is well known that the safety and security of elderly people has been given considerable attention in recent times. Particularly those elderly people who still occupy their own houses feel threatened. Although it is widely accepted that the protection of lives and property is the responsibility of the SA Police, there is also a duty resting on all of us to look after those close to us. Obviously the police cannot always be everywhere. Indeed, every person has a duty to see to his own safety as far as possible. After due consideration and consultation with the Department of Local Government, Housing and Works I have decided that welfare organisations, utility companies and local authorities constructing housing for the elderly with housing funds may in future include the cost of basic safety as a standard item, as part of the total cost of the project in respect of which a loan is applied for. Here I have in mind items such as alarm systems, smoke protection systems, window glass film, burglar-proofing, security gates, security fences and security lighting, where applicable.

Existing projects can also be safeguarded and loans can be provided on demand at a 10% interest rate, repayable over 30 years. As regards blocks of flats administered by the department and rented by the elderly, I have recently granted approval that elderly persons who apply may have safety doors fitted. There are also elderly people who are still living in their houses but are not in a position to ensure basic security such as burglar-proofing and safety doors. As I indicated in a recent discussion with welfare organisations, the department administers an aid scheme in terms of which persons may be granted a loan of up to R5 000 for home improvements. I also regard items such as burglar-proofing and safety doors as an improvement, and elderly people who cannot afford these things are free to avail themselves of the scheme. The department is at present refining the details and specifying standards and norms for the granting of such loans. I shall shortly be making more details available in this regard and shall indicate how to go about obtaining such loans.

I trust that these steps will contribute towards giving our elderly people added peace of mind and, in addition, allowing them to live autonomously in their own communities for a longer period. I am aware that my colleague, the hon the Minister of Law and Order, welcomes these steps.

Another matter I wish to deal with concerns the issue of rentals. I am aware that rentals of dwelling units of certain projects financed from the Development and Housing Fund are still high. Some people, particularly pensioners dependent on a fixed income, are finding it increasingly difficult to pay rentals and service fees and still maintain a decent standard of living. This is particularly the case with new dwelling units.

I wish to draw hon members’ attention once again to the fact that it is a long-standing principle to consider relief. The old National Housing Commission gave approval as far back as 1985 that in established cases where the rental, based on the lessee’s income, cannot be paid, a basic rental based on 25% of the family’s income is provided for.

The Development and Housing Board that was established to administer the housing fund for White housing, to which I made reference earlier, went further and it is now possible to set a basic rental of 25%, based solely on the breadwinner’s income in confirmed cases.

A recent case of the granting of ad hoc relief concerns flats in Algoa Park in Port Elizabeth. Local authorities and inhabitants of housing projects may, via the local authorities or regional office of the department, apply to the ministerial representatives in their particular region with the necessary motivated representations.

In this regard I should like to join my colleague in referring to the importance of the task of the ministerial representatives in the future. I should like to say that my department and I will also be relying very heavily in this regard on the work that they will be doing. I should like to give hon members the assurance that these matters will be given sympathetic consideration by the Development and Housing Board. Wherever possible we should like to alleviate the rental burden of less-privileged lessees.

Finally, I wish to speak about the potential— this is how the hon member for Losberg puts it—of his party. I just want to say—and I should also like to say this to the hon member for Losberg—that a constitution was drawn up after the referendum. According to the hon member for Losberg it is a useless constitution, but the important fact is that the Constitution of 1983 has been put into effect, and that it does work. The Constitution gives people an effective say in the political decision-making process affecting their lives. I want to say to the hon member for Losberg that the philosophy of this side of the House shows that there is a very profound link between the NP and the interests of the Republic of South Africa, and this has been proven over the years. The NP is not an opportunistic party. It is not a party of yesterday and of tomorrow, but a party that has been there for generations, and which will, humanly speaking, still be serving South Africa for generations. To summarise it in a sentence …

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

The hon member for Overvaal is a man who only asks questions, and he himself has no answers for any aspect or question in South Africa.

You are small in every respect.

The hon member had the opportunity to ask questions during the discussion of the vote.

I only wanted to ask a question about something you said.

If the hon member wants to be forward, then he can ask a question.

I am not being forward; I am merely doing my duty. The hon the Minister said that the Ministers’ Council gave binding advice to the State President in terms of section 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution. Is it his standpoint that the State President is bound by that advice, has no discretion and must do what the Ministers’ Council says?

The hon member need not try ask funny questions here; he knows exactly how it works. He can go and read the section again.

I have the section before me, but what do you say?

I shall read the section to the hon member:

1. (a) in regard to matters which are own affairs of any population group is vested in the State President acting on the advice of the Ministers’ Council in question.

That is my reply.

But is it binding advice?

The hon member must make an end of his pettiness now.

You cannot answer the question.

Order! I am not going to permit these interjections. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I want to conclude by saying, by way of summary, that the best interests of the Republic of South Africa are at all times the cause of the NP, and the NP will do its share, as it has been directed to do by the voters.

Mr Chairman, it is regarded as a right to be represented in Parliament—and this may be so—but I find it a privilege to be present here today.

I represent the Natal constituency with the largest number of voters and during the past election the largest number of NP votes cast in Natal was at Umhlatuzana in spite of a three-cornered contest. I therefore not only wish to congratulate the Umhlatuzana voters on this achievement but also thank them. I shall represent them to the best of my ability. In addition, I hope to prove a worthy successor to my predecessor, Mr Nico Pretorius, a former Chief Whip in this House. He and his wife supported us to the end—a memory we shall cherish.

A very experienced mentor gave us novices advice on our maiden speeches. In the first place, he said, we should speak on a subject of which we had extensive knowledge. This poses somewhat of a problem to me as I know so little about so much. One realises this particularly when one considers the paper war being conducted against us in this House. In addition, we were advised not to be controversial. This is obviously a difficult instruction, especially as I wish to speak on constitutional matters today. I shall do my best, but rely nevertheless on the understanding, patience and even the mercy of opposition parties.

I wish to associate myself implicitly with some of the arguments voiced during the course of this morning and this afternoon. I want to illustrate this by doing some preparatory work in regard to the green land of Natal. I do not wish to charm hon members with a description of the mountain peaks, the streams, the hills, the valleys or the plains of Natal; neither do I wish to bore hon members with the history of the open or closed beaches of Natal.

I want to talk about the people of Natal because at the end of the day it is the people of this country who are of vital importance to this House.

At the very beginning the Nguni came from the north—later to become the Zulus. One cannot omit the Pondos and the Tongas but in practical political terms they feature in the configuration of the Zulus of Natal. Subsequently the sons of Albion set foot in Port Natal from across the seas and established a settlement there. Meanwhile the Boers had come rolling from the south and, when the sturdy, bearded men wanted to turn back, tired and dispirited, it was the women who said: “Even if we have to cross these mountains barefoot, we shall go forward to Natal.” Today the union between Afrikaner and Settler in Natal is more cohesive than ever before.

Later the Indians, propelled by need, came to this distant green land from the Far East. In time they built their Shangri-la here.

After we had all gathered here, the Coloureds or Brown people—they are also people with self-respect—put in their appearance.

During the last century and a half we have obviously had our quarrels; in fact, we have had our wars. Not one of the four groups mentioned, however, succeeded in driving any of the others across or into the sea.

Natal, the so-called “last outpost” or, as it is known in some circles today, “the lost outpost”, therefore illustrates the real problem. It illustrates the point that we are all self-respecting groups or peoples—hon members may define this as they like—who came to live in this country. The question is whether we shall succeed in doing so. We all realise that negotiated settlements are essential if we wish to succeed. We have to negotiate, regardless of the policies we pursue.

We shall therefore have to decide together on the ultimate shape the future political dispensation will have to take. What it comes down to is that all of us, all these groups and peoples, will have to accept joint responsibility for the final dispensation. From the outset this implies a degree of joint decision-making on mutual problems, an aspect addressed from various directions in this House this morning. This immediately suggests the recognition of one another’s entitlement to contribute in this regard.

†How are we going to handle this without undermining each other’s self-respect and without endangering our pride in being what we are? How are we going to exercise power jointly in solving the problem I have referred to?

I put it to you, Sir, that a prominent Natalian has already indicated how this could be achieved. He is Chief Minister Mangosuthu Buthelezi and he expressed himself as follows:

In this very important statement three cardinal points are acknowledged: Firstly, there is the existence of self-respecting population groups in this country and the need for their political accommodation. Secondly, the fact that there will have to be consultation among these groups is also realised. None of them finds itself on an island. If we did find ourselves on different islands we might soon end up yearning for a challenge as posed by our present dilemmas.

Finally, the above declaration also subscribes to our belief in this House that, at least in South Africa, there must be good government. The fact that these sentiments have been expressed by a Black South African, a man also belonging to a proud nation, indeed gives one hope for the future. I put it to this House that these words put in a nutshell what has to be realised in order to solve our political problems.

*If we succeed in this, in other words if we establish a negotiated structure which, regardless of what we have in common, gives due recognition to our right to group or ethnic self-determination, I believe we shall have laid many ghosts. These are the uncertainties and fears which give rise to the current political division among people who to my mind actually belong together. In consequence, as soon as we have given this political freedom and our self-respect the final substance we are striving for, people who belong together from inner conviction will come together again. I believe this is the ultimate desire of all of us.

I believe this House certainly has a paramount role to play in the realisation of this ideal but we then have to take note of the wise words of Wolfgang Goethe expressed as follows:

I believe there is still room for our ideals within the framework of the hard realities of South Africa. In my opinion the framework has been well expressed by Chief Minister Buthelezi among others. He said in that declaration that he did not wish to dominate other groups. Let us examine this but may Chief Buthelezi not forget this either and permit himself to be led along other highways and by-ways.

Let us therefore convince one another that such sentiments are not mere lip service, otherwise we shall not become part of the ultimate dispensation which will come.

We shall have to exhibit courage and daring but also self-confidence and innovative thought.

Mr Chairman, I want to say a few words congratulating my neighbour from Umhlatuzana. Umhlatuzana lies just to the left of Pinetown and, as the hon member said, Umhlatuzana has the largest number of voters in Natal, and it polled the highest number of NP votes. We in Pinetown are the second largest constituency, however, and I polled the largest number of votes in the whole of Natal. [Interjections.] †

†We can agree entirely in sentiment with the speech of the hon member for Umhlatuzana. What remains to be seen, however, is whether the attractive beauty of the words that he displayed and hung before us can be realised. I am not only his neighbour as far as Umhlatuzana and Pinetown are concerned but I also sat next to him for many days at the Natal-KwaZulu Indaba where he represented the FAK. The point of view he held today was also made at the indaba. We also know what the point of view of his party is concerning the outcome of the indaba. It is how things are realised and not the beauty of the words that matter. We have to get down to do something and not just indulge in fine talk. [Interjections.]

If I may I would like to add a word to what the hon the Minister of the Budget said concerning the coming retirement of Dr Jooste. I will add a short word now but I will have a better opportunity a little later in August to express myself at greater length.

I think that from these benches, we also need to add our praise for the work Dr Jooste has done in public service over many years; in the Transvaal, in the departments he has been associated with, as well as in his present capacity as Director-General. We know him to be a man who is committed and hardworking, who has dedicated his life to service. Certainly, we from these benches, wish him well and we also wish him a good rest.

The allocation of funds in terms of this Budget is open to most serious question. The hon the Minister of Finance in his Budget Speech last week made a reference to this. A number of hon members have quoted an opening sentence which I want to repeat and continue with the two sentences which follow:

*For the past two years, Mr Chairman!

†So for two years, Mr Chairman, the formulae for the funding of education have been applied. That is what the hon the Minister of Finance says. For three years, however, I have been trying to have these formulae made public. Every time I ask the hon the Minister of National Education about this matter, an evasive answer is produced. I asked the most recent question two weeks ago. I want to read the reply:

Two years!

For two years, therefore, they have been applied! My main comment at this stage of the debate on this Budget is that I think the time has come for some truth to be told. I think it is high time that we had a little truth from that side of the House. I am not saying that lies are being told; I am saying that there are things that are not being said at all. What is going on with regard to the formulae?

I actually have the common funding formulae to hand. It has been kept secret for three years and no one knows about it. I want to state very clearly that I hope the hon the Minister for Education and Culture and the rest of the members of the Ministers’ Council do not do what has already happened in the past, namely try to establish and then victimise the individuals who may have released this information to me. It has been happening, and I want to say that quite plainly. He must also not use his magazine, the magazine of the Department of Education and Culture, to direct an attack, a veiled attack on me, simply because I happen to ask him many questions in this House. I think it is time the truth was told and a lot of these facts revealed.

Let us have a look at the common funding formula and see what it contains. In actual fact, it does not contain what my hon colleague the member for Yeoville said it contained, namely that its content is based purely on population. That is not the case.

With regard to education it includes: The unit cost of teaching staff; the unit cost of staff other than teachers; the unit cost of service personnel; the unit cost of supply; the unit cost of buildings and ground improvements; the unit cost of media packages; the unit cost of equipment; the number of subsidised pupils and so forth. It is a very complex formulae which, as the hon the Minister of Finance points out, will be improved from year to year. For two years, however, it has already been applied.

Now, the Ministers’ Council and the hon the Minister of the Budget must indicate to us what in actual fact has been the effect of applying this formula? We have had figures thrown around; we have been told that 11 000 pupils fewer than last year have enrolled in our schools. Do you know, Sir, what percentage 11 000 is in terms of the total White pupil population of South Africa? It is just on 1%; in other words, a 1% reduction in the number of pupils. Let us consider the fact that the inflation rate stands at 16% against the amount of money allocated by the hon Minister of the Budget to school education. I want to separate that facet. In his Budget, he allocates R3,3 billion to the Department of Education and Culture as a whole, but allocates just over R2 000 million to school education.

School education grows in one year by 2,7%. I repeat, the allocated amount is increased by 2,7%, while the inflation rate is 16% and while the number of pupils reduces by 1%. What does that mean? Any person who sits down and works that out will know that it means one thing: It means that the Government’s real spending has gone down by 12,5%. These are questions which we will take up in detail later with the hon the Minister of Education and Culture.

I want now to ask the hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare whether he has been told about this. Has the Ministers’ Council told the rest of the NP what the effect of these cuts will be? Has the Government told the various constituencies that the schools’ funds are being cut? I do not think they have. I have listened to some of the answers to this question, and it is perfectly obvious that some of the NP members have not been told.

Does it mean. Sir, that in the Cape Province education spending is actually going to have to be cut by a figure of about R15 million per month? Does it mean that in real terms the provincial education spending must return to where it was in 1983? Does it mean that real cuts are taking place in every facet of education under this Ministry?

These are the truths that we need to be told, and I am not pointing fingers on the basis of political partying. Sir. It is the people of South Africa, no matter for which party they voted, who need to be told these things. I go along with what the hon member for Yeoville said, namely that we should be told the truth and that we had to face up to that truth, but the Government is hiding things from us. We challenged the NP to tell us the truth before the election. [Interjections.] They did not. Let us hear the truth now.

Let us hear whether parental fees are really coming. Let us hear whether, in fact, the prevaricative answer which the hon the Minister gave the other day regarding the application of tuition fees in the Cape Province is true. Let us hear whether tuition fees are coming in every province of this country, because I will tell you that this appropriation implies that they have to come. What is going to happen?

You must just have a little patience. [Interjections.]

It is obviously coming in August, Sir!

†What is going to happen to the funding of pre-primary education? I want to tell you, Sir, because I have a child in a pre-primary school; that is an extraordinarily sensitive phase of education. The rumours are rife in every province that the salaries of the teachers in the pre-primary phase will in the future no longer be paid by the departments and that a serious rethinking is taking place. We want the truth. That is what we want to hear.

Why are those hon members laughing? [Interjections.] What’s so funny?

We in these benches honestly believe that the allocation of funding has to be sorted out. This party has acknowledged that, but I am afraid that our hon colleagues on the right here, the CP, have put their finger on the problem because there is, in fact, a movement of money from one department to another. However, tell us the truth! That is all we want to know. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister of Education and Training told the Standing Committee on Finance earlier in the week that at the end of the 10 year plan the teacher-pupil ratio will stand at 1:35 for primary schools and at 1:30 for secondary schools. I want to ask a plain and simple question: Is that for all departments? I ask this because that is what the 10 year plan is all about. The intention is that at the end of 10 years all will be equalised. My understanding of the hon the Minister’s words is that there will be a ratio of 1:30 or 1:35 in the White school system. That may be a joke to some, but what it is actually going to mean is that our children and grandchildren are going to be in bigger classes because the teachers are being laid off right now.

I would now like to turn to the question of own and general affairs. My colleague from Parktown has already made a comment regarding hospitals. The hon the Minister of National Education and the hon member for Turffontein referred to the Schedule, and I hope the hon member for Turffontein will listen—he said I should read the Constitution. The Schedule to the Constitution on hospitals states clearly that health matters comprising hospitals, clinics and similar or related institutions are an own affair. It should be quite clear to the hon the Minister of the Budget that this is an own affair. In the Standing Committee on Provincial Affairs, however, we are told that the hospitals are being divided up. We asked how the hospitals were being divided up in Natal. They are being divided on the basis that if the hospital usage is 95% plus for one race, then it will be allocated to own affairs, otherwise it is a general affairs matter. In Natal Grey’s Hospital and the Hillcrest Hospital will fall under the Administration: House of Assembly while the R K Khan and Northdale Hospitals are going to be administered by the House of Delegates. All the rest will be general affairs hospitals. The amazing thing, however, is that even the own affairs hospitals are going to be run on an agency basis by the general affairs component of the Province of Natal.

What is wrong with that?

What a farce this is! The only people who could believe this are those—I nearly said it! …—people of the NP who believe that they can be fooled by this farce of own affairs. No clear-thinking South African will be taken in by this racial separation. The Ministers’ Council know full well that the carefully fostered empires that they have been building are going to be swept away.

Why do you not look at the election results and test the public’s opinion?

What offends when I listen to hon members of the NP is that they arrogate the virtues of moral righteousness. Those empires of those Ministers’ Councils are, however, colour based. They are race based; nothing else. They must not resort to saying that Belgium, Switzerland or the United States have devolved empires. I have been listening to the hon the Minister of National Education comparing us to Switzerland and Belgium. These countries, however, do not have race-based departments. They do not have enforced racial departments.

The end questions that the people of South Africa are going to ask of this Ministers’ Council, are questions such as: What are they going to do with the 200 000 empty school benches in their system?

Nothing!

What are they going to do with the 22 000 empty hostel places in their system?

Nothing!

What are they going to do with the 2 500 empty teacher training college places?

Nothing!

Who is meeting the cost of building separate racial institutions? It is not only the members opposite who are doing so; every taxpayer in South Africa is also paying for it. We have the despicable situation of Black pupils being turned away from overcrowded schools, whilst nearby all White facilities are standing heavily underutilised. Even the most biased observer can see that that is an explosive situation. Something has got to change. When we review the whole situation of own affairs, in matters such as I have been discussing, it is clear that the NP is simply holding on because they are not prepared to share with the people of South Africa.

We can ask the same question concerning libraries. Do libraries form part of own affairs or general affairs? It is no use referring me to the Constitution because the hon Ministers know what is in the Constitution. They know that they are not observing the Constitution in these aspects.

We have heard the hon the Minister of Education and Culture say that own affairs is here to stay. However, we have heard others say that their countries and their systems would be there for a thousand years. However, if own affairs is here to stay whilst the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning says the tricameral system is merely a transitionary stage, then somebody has to get his act together because if one is going to do away with the tricameral system then own affairs cannot survive. [Interjections.]

I want to end by making a remark concerning the provincial ministerial representatives. I know some of the individuals personally and I have the highest regard for the individuals occupying those positions. I want to say that my remarks are concerned with this system only.

I want to make the following suggestion to the hon the Minister of the Budget and the Ministers’ Council in general: If there can be a standing committee for each province that looks at matters of general affairs, then is it not time that we also considered the possibility of at least a select committee of this Parliament to look at the own affairs of the provinces? In doing away with the provincial councils one cut links with education in that provincial councils legislatively were elected bodies. We certainly believe that that review procedure should still exist.

We in these benches unreservedly condemn the own affairs system and I wholeheartedly support the amendment of my colleague, the hon member for Yeoville.

Mr Chairman, on behalf of this side of the House I wish to congratulate the hon member for Umhlatuzana sincerely on his maiden speech. I believe all hon members will agree that it was excellent, and we believe that he will have a very fine career, not only in this House but also in the Province of Natal. We need representatives of his calibre there.

It is a privilege for me to congratulate him because I think he represents the new political school of thought we find in Natal. It is a school of thought which is in harmony with the voters, and there are 120 000 of them scattered all over the province. This is in sharp contrast to people like the hon member for Pinetown.

†I should like to make the point that the hon member for Pinetown—this is no reflection on him as it is not his fault—represents what is essentially a lost cause in this House. The PFP in Natal is on the run and all their big talk before the election did nothing for them. The voters of Natal weighed them up, found them wanting and sent them packing. I would like to give the PFP some friendly advice: They should take their defeat and their trouncing by the voters of Natal somewhat more graciously than they have managed to do up to now.

I intended to respond to the excitable hon member for Pinetown but there is unfortunately very little to respond to. [Interjections.] He is so predictable and repetitive but I am sure that the hon Ministers concerned will deal effectively at a later stage with the few relevant points that he did raise.

What has struck me most forcibly about this debate has been the absolute negativism from the opposition parties in this House—I refer to both the Official Opposition and the unofficial opposition. It is tragic to see an attitude of this nature at this time.

*I should prefer to be more positive, and refer to a subject which in my opinion is important and which at this stage has a Minister who is involved in it, namely the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Works in the Ministers’ Council. I am referring now to the matter of local government.

†Mr Chairman, hon members will be aware of the danger of familiarity when dealing with a subject which is often discussed, especially when it is as close to one as local authority and local government are. After all, local government is something that affects each one of us every day of our lives, for better or for worse. As a result of its proximity, we tend to take it for granted. Familiarity or proximity do not detract, however, from its importance or significance. It remains a fact that local government is of great current and potential importance to us all.

*Our hon State President said on 18 May this year, when he addressed the congress of the Municipal Associations of the Cape:

Very much in keeping with this the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Works of this Ministers’ Council referred to this matter last week during an important speech when he said that the local government level was going to increase in importance, and that he considered this to be a very positive development. He expressed the opinion that this increase in importance extended much further than the declared policy of the Government of this country. He also referred to a newly-published work Die wêreld en Suid-Afrika in die jare 90 by a Mr Clem Sunter, in which the author observed that in the past people had been quite satisfied to have their representative in Parliament take decisions on their behalf. Those days are past, however, he maintains. I just hope this does not mean there is no longer going to be a Parliament! He went on to say:

This is in direct contrast to the statement of the hon member for Lichtenburg, who said that the exercise of power tended to move upwards. The world tendency is for it to move downwards.

†This is not a new question, however. Way back in 1787, 200 years ago, the following question was posed in The Federalist:

I would say neither of these is acceptable. There are more than 80 000 local governments in the USA, and despite the differences in size, there are some very important similarities between South Africa and the United States. The most important of these is that each is a pluralistic society made up of many different ethnic and racial groups. Pluralistic societies face especially difficult problems governing themselves because it is difficult to reach agreement on national policies in simple political systems such as the unitary parliamentary system. I think all of us here can bear witness to that fact. It is relatively easy for one or more groups simply to take over the government and run it for their own benefit. Thus, in pluralistic societies one must pay special attention to decentralising the system so that government activities can correspond to the preferences of diverse groups, and at the same time one must use the decentralisation to create a system that cannot be taken over or monopolised by any one group. I would say that these two objectives—to permit diversity on the one hand, and to prevent the abuse of government authority by one faction on the other—were both major goals in the design of the US Constitution, and they are equally important goals for the future of South Africa.

The challenge is for local government to provide specifically for diversity and to create a network of institutions whereby citizens become familiar with and responsible for governmental processes.

Local self-government, however, is not an end in itself. Groups of people face problems requiring collective action, and it is by using local government to solve common problems that true self-government can develop. In the United States the tradition of local self-government to resolve common problems predated the revolution and the constitution by over a hundred years. It was the very experience of local self-government that made it possible for the drafters of the constitution to understand that governmental systems need not be centralised and that citizens were much more likely to be satisfied with government if it were comprised of many independent units instead of a single monolith.

These, are not simply my own views but those of a very distinguished American academic, Professor Robert Bish, who edited a publication published by the University of Pretoria in 1983 entitled Basic Principles of Political Centralisation to Local Authorities, which I recommend to everyone who is interested in promoting good government in South Africa and elsewhere. I may also add an interesting statement that was once made by John Stuart Mill when he said:

I tend to agree with him.

*In 1975 there were 36 000 local authorities in France. What is interesting is that as many as 62% of those 36 000 authorities governed fewer than 500 inhabitants. A further 18% governed fewer than 2 000. That is to say, 80% governed fewer than 2 000 inhabitants. This is an interesting illustration of the fact that even if communities are very small, they can nevertheless establish an effective governmental institution on a very small scale.

I want to continue with my example. Only 0,1% of those authorities governed more than 100 000 people and only 0,005% governed more than half a million. That is to say, two out of 36 000 local authorities governed more than half a million inhabitants, and were therefore large cities. However, this did not detract from the effectiveness of those local authorities. In spite of the wide spectrum of numbers these bodies all have the same potential powers. They themselves decide what they want to undertake and what they see their way clear to doing. An interesting fact is that in most of the cases education, which in France is an optional function, was accepted by them.

In South Africa there are more than 700 local authorities, of which 92 of the White authorities are in Natal. I personally consider local government to be so important that I undertook in my own constituency to visit all 50 of my White local authorities within two months after the election. I have already met the largest local authority there.

†It is obvious that the more functions a local government has, the more scope it will have in respect of self-determination. Self-determination at local government level is therefore directly related to the functions performed by a local government body in its own right. For this reason, it is essential that local government bodies should look collectively at what functions they want to have a say in or want to perform. They have been invited to do so by the hon the Minister of Local Government and I would appeal to them to do so as a matter of urgency so that they do not allow a golden opportunity for an expanded role in our society to go by default.

*Mr Chairman, owing to the immediacy and the proximity of local government, this institution can play a cardinal role in the creation of positive perceptions of government. It can also make a meaningful contribution towards giving citizens of a country that to which they are entitled, viz good government on every level. I sincerely hope that the realisation that effective participatory democracy will, in the interests of White and non-Whites, increase rapidly and significantly. I also hope that our Ministers’ Council, under the guidance of the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Works, will play an every increasing role in this connection in the time which lies ahead. It is my conviction that we can consider afresh these possibilities that local government entails for us. We can try to use them as building bricks for other constitutional structures so that they may in future mean a great deal to our country.

Mr Chairman, the hon member elaborated on the subject of local authorities, using certain scientific evidence in an attempt to prove that power was increasingly devolved on local authorities. I only hope he will be able to succeed in convincing the public of South Africa that that is desirable. In this connection we agree with him, but at this stage in the history of the Republic the facts prove the opposite, and that is that our people are not, for example, interested in voting in local authorities. The percentage polls are low and there is a greater interest in the central government, the tendency still being to accept that power is vested in the central government. That is also where the interest lies.

I want to come back to other aspects, however. Firstly the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Works made a bad blunder this afternoon in his interpretation of the Constitution. He said that when it came to own affairs the hon the State President acted on the advice of the Ministers’ Council. That is what is stated in the Constitution. The hon the Minister then went on to say that the advice was binding. That is not, however, the case. I think the hon the Minister should take another look at what is stated as far as this is concerned. The hon the State President is not bound by the advice he receives from his Ministers’ Council. He would not be able to govern if the advice were binding. That is not the case. That is not what happens in practice.

The hon the Minister of Education and Culture has unfortunately focused on a subject that I am forced to reply to.

You people began with it last year.

Very well, then let him discuss it, but then he must stick to the truth.

Hear, hear!

The first allegation he made was that those on the CP side had not resigned from the movement in question.

That we did not say!

No, he said that the Chief Whip resigned on our behalf. He added that hon members on this side of the House who were members did not have the courage to do so themselves.

I said that afterwards.

He did not say it afterwards. He said we did not have the courage. So apparently he is not a member of the Afrikaner Broederbond, because he does not know what happened. From hon members on his side of the House he should ascertain, for a moment, whether hon members on this side who were members of the Afrikaner Broederbond had resigned or not.

He said that in seven constituencies the AWB had apparently supported the CP and its candidates.

That is what Eugène Terre’-Blanche says.

Very well, now I just want to know from the hon the Minister in how many constituencies in South Africa the Broederbond supported the NP. [Interjections.] In 166 of them. Let him just reflect on that and reply to our question at a later stage. [Interjections.]

The following aspect I want to refer to relates to the announcement about office expenditure. The hon member for Lichtenburg has already referred to that. In this connection I again want to state very specifically that the CP has consistently indicated that at this stage the country’s economy cannot justify an increase of this nature. We are still opposed to it. Yesterday evening we issued a statement about this, a statement which reads, inter alia:

Absolutely ridiculous! [Interjections.]

Alwyn, you are ridiculous! [Interjections.]

Sir, may I please continue with my speech?

Order!

I quote further:

Now the hon the Minister in the Office of the State President, who is so vociferous, wants to move a motion. There is just one thing I want to tell him. This statement was handed to the SABC in good time for the eight o’clock news. What, however, did the SABC do? It called in Assocom and other people to heap praise on the Government. It did not, however, put the standpoint of the Official Opposition which had been made available to the SABC before eight o’clock.

Scandalous! [Interjections.]

And that is the so-called unbiased attitude of the SABC, of which that hon Minister is the head.

And which he constantly defends! [Interjections.]

Yes, which he constantly defends. [Interjections.] Let me now, however, put another proposal to him. I am prepared not to apply for the R10 000 on condition that—the numerical ratio between the CP and the NP is approximately 1:6—six hon members on the Government side … [Interjections.] Yes, just listen now. I am prepared to do so on condition that six hon members on the Government side who had a majority of less than 2 000 on 6 May do the same. [Interjections.]

I can tell you, even at this stage, that I reject that!

But he is not even talking to you!

That is an absolutely ridiculous proposal. I shall certainly not accept it! [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister is not an elected member and he may therefore make as much noise as he wants to. He is merely here on the sufferance of the hon the State President—on his halting sufferance. [Interjections.]

There are hon members in our benches who would do the same as I am prepared to do. For every six Government members who obtained their seats with a majority of less than 2 000 votes and who do not apply, one of us will not apply either. [Interjections.] I am not speaking to the hon the Minister in the Office of the Sate President.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition was correctly reported in connection with the 12,5%, the impression having been created that the CP’s standpoint is that a distinction is being drawn between the Public Service and politicians? [Interjections.]

No, we did not say that. The hon the Minister received our statement. We have, after all, made our standpoint very clear.

The NP has the very unique ability to accuse other parties of shying at their own Aunt Sallys, and then they themselves are guilty of the very same thing. The hon the Minister in the Office of the State President is a typical example of this. In his characteristically slow, half-halting and melancholy way, like a large ship manoeuvring itself into a small harbour, he appeared on TV the other day and gave alarming figures of the population growth amongst the Blacks up to the year 2020 in an effort to prove that our policy was not a practical one. [Interjections.] Now he speaks about our so-called policy of forced removals, an Aunt Sally he himself set up. He himself was a member of the NP when I was a member of that party. It was then a linking policy and it is still a linking policy. Has he never heard that 60% to 80% of all Black people live in or adjacent to the national states? Has he forgotten about the fine words, the flowing style in which his own Cabinet colleague specifically broached this aspect? The hon the Minister of National Education said (Hansard, 1976, col 8454):

Who would have said so?

Yes, Sir. Then that hon Minister, who is a colleague of his, went on to say (col 8455):

That is the policy of the CP.

How are you going to assure a White majority?

We are striving to achieve that. It is everyone’s ideal to have White majority occupation. [Interjections.] It is in everyone’s interest. [Interjections.] That hon Minister’s colleague, the Minister of Education and Development Aid, says that our policy has not succeeded because only 20% of the Black people living in the urban areas outside the national states participated in the elections of the Black national states.

That is a dream!

That hon Minister does not know what I am talking about. It is our policy, and the hon the Minister clearly does not know what I am talking about. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid said that the policy of separate development and the process of linking up with the national states had not succeeded because fewer than 20% or just 20% of the Black people participated in the election. What percentage of Indians participated in the election for this new dispensation? [Interjections.]

And the Coloureds.

What percentage of Coloureds participated in the election for this dispensation? [Interjections.] We know, do we not, that this is a developing process.

Not only do they put up Aunt Sallys, but they also brilliantly succeed in giving tangible substance to ghostly figures. Then they walk hand in hand with those ghostly figures, trying to make the South African electorate believe they have factual substance. They allege, for example, that the CP cannot take over the Government of this country because it cannot even get along with the HNP—that it cannot even get along with the other right-wing elements. [Interjections.]

There are indeed certain aspects on which we have not yet come to terms with one another, but we have certain things in common, and those common elements are situated in our endeavour to achieve a sovereign White state governed by Whites in White South Africa. [Interjections.] What is more, we reject power-sharing with other ethnic groups because that would mean continual storm-clouds on the horizon and ultimate tyranny. That is what is happening here. What is the ultimate goal of the NP, the independents and the other leftist elements? It puts me in mind of the Malay song that goes like this: “My voete loop na Wellington, maar ek gaan Worcester toe.” Perhaps they are not all striving to achieve the same ultimate goal, but as surely as we are sitting here, the end result will be Black majority rule. That is going to be the end result of the policy of the PFP, the alliance, the independents and the NP, whether they want it or not. Who is the NP to say we cannot get along with the other right-wing elements. In the first instance, they could not get along with us. [Interjections.] They drove us out of the NP caucus.

Secondly they could not get along with the hon member for Randburg. He left the NP. They could not get along with their ambassador in Britain and he also left the party. [Interjections.] And they also nearly gave the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning a hiding. Nor could they get along with the Esther Lategans, and there are many in their ranks, like the hon the Minister of the Budget sitting there, the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs and others, who are part of the New Nats. [Interjections.]

We are all New Nats. The Old Nats are sitting on that side! [Interjections.]

They are just waiting for more progress on the part of the independents.

†The mating call came from Dr Worrall and it was responded to by the hon member for Randburg, but unfortunately those other hon members are still too shy to respond to that mating call.

Dawie, you are welcome! [Interjections.]

They could not get along with Lang Dawid de Villiers, the managing director of Nasionale Pers, or with Dr Wimpie de Klerk. Nor could they get along with 300 Stellenbosch academics, but they want to govern the country. They say we cannot get along with the HNP, but they want to govern the country. [Interjections.] What nonsense is that! [Interjections.]

Then we come to the question of the hon the Minister of National Education who, in the Brakpan town hall, told the good voters there that I had glowingly sung the praises of the Black trade unions. Fortunately they rejected him, but he did address a few people. It was an East Rand gathering under the chairmanship of the hon the Deputy Minister of Education.

Hon members are free to ask his friend, Fanie Botha, whether I gave them glowing support. The Director General said at the time that the small group of us who did not really agree with the idea of Black trade unions were the verkramptes in the NP. That particular Director General always spoke of his “verkrampte vriendjie”. In the study groups we warned that these Black trade unions would cause us major problems in the future. By way of the trade unions the Black people will try to flex their political muscles. On the way to Shandor in 1980 Minister Fanie Botha told me he would resign if we did not want to go along with him on the question of Black trade unions. He then said we should accept them because we could not deny that an animal in the zoo did exist. He said that we would have to live with the realities. He said that these people would have to register themselves and that we would not allow the Black people of other states to become members of the trade unions.

A short while later, typically à la Huntington, he said that we could not draw a distinction between a Black man of South Africa and a Black man of the other states and would simply have to open up the trade unions to all Blacks. At a later stage he also did away with the registration of trade unions. That is the course they adopted, and as a result of that process we left the NP. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister of the Budget says there is no such thing as White South Africa. My time is running out, but I just want to tell him that that is a new manifestation in the NP. In the censure debate my leader referred to it. We got this country by methods sanctioned by international law. We got the country by lawful occupation, treaties and conquest. By internationally recognized standards White South Africa is a country that came into being as a sovereign state. [Interjections.] That is the part which has geographically and historically been occupied by the Whites and governed by them. That is the White South Africa that those hon members and I voted for when we became a Republic. [Interjections.] In the process the Blacks came to White South Africa from their established areas. We gave them jobs. We gave them a roof over their heads. We provided them with food. We supplied them with medical services. For what reason can they have a joint say over me, joining my people in governing me? On what grounds? [Interjections.]

Only on the grounds of capitulation!

We want to know. The Government must tell us what the underlying motives, the underlying logic is in letting people have the right to joint me in governing my people—people who come from another country, people to whom we have given jobs, food and labour and who have come to White South Africa. We reject that concept.

Mr Chairman, the hon member covered a wide range of subjects. I do not know whether I shall get round to all of them, but first let me deal with a few random points in his speech.

When I referred to him at Nigel and elsewhere, I did not do so without evidence to back me up. Unfortunately I do not have the relevant Hansard to hand. He will know, however, that he used certain words in this House. He contended that the logic in the Wiehahn Report was irrefutable. In this House he defended the logic embodied in the Wiehahn Report. I shall obtain that Hansard from amongst my election notes and send it to him. It is there in black and white, and I quoted it when I was speaking at Nigel.

The hon member took a new tack. I am not saying that he was enthusiastic about Black trade unions per se. He took another tack, however, in regard to support for the new labour dispensation which was introduced. In that connection he holds opposing views today. I am not saying he does not have the right to change his standpoint; he must just not argue about having changed his standpoint.

Here is your speech in the newspaper … [Interjections.]

Sir, I delivered my speech; I have a better knowledge of what I said than the one who wrote the newspaper article.

Secondly the hon member referred to the mutual discussion conducted about the Broederbond and the AWB. I just want to put a simple question to the hon member. There is no catch in it; I just want his answer on record. The hon member is familiar with the constitutions of both organisations. I just want to ask him whether he feels himself to be closer to the AWB than the Broederbond.

Yes, definitely.

Thank you, that is now on record. [Interjections.] Now we do not have to argue any longer about where we stand. [Interjections.]

Tell us where the Broederbond stands.

I am arguing here today as a Nationalist and I have no inclination to discuss the particulars of a confidential organisation here across the floor of the House.

Mr Chairman, may I put a question to the hon the Minister? [Interjections.]

No, Sir, definitely not on this subject. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister, on the strength of an AB document which has been distributed—it has become public knowledge—whether he accepts the contents of that document and whether he acquiesces?

Sir, I have answered that question at numerous political meetings, and I gladly do so again. That document is a document of that organisation, and the members of that organisation must answer for it.

Do you accept it?

Sir, I have not questioned the hon member about a Eugene Terre’-Blanche standpoint here or an AB standpoint there. I said that he was familiar with both constitutions. He answered my question by saying that on the strength of that he felt closer to the AWB than the Broederbond. [Interjections.] We do not need to take the argument further, because we know where we stand, philosophically speaking. [Interjections.]

There was another argument in this debate. Here I am referring to the constitutional argument to which the hon member also referred. He said that the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Works was not correct in his specific interpretation of section 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution. Section 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution reads:

When it comes to general affairs, reference is made to “in consultation with the Ministers who are members of the Cabinet”. The original Constitution of 1961, before we had an executive State President and still had a Prime Minister, read as follows:

The hon member served on that committee which bad to draw up the Constitution. The words “on the advice of” were inserted with a specific purpose. There is no doubt—here I am not relying on my own opinion; I checked with an authoritative source—that except in instances in which the new Constitution grants special or specific powers to the State President, his relationship to the Ministers’ Council is the same as the relationship of the then non-executive State President to the then Cabinet. So those hon members must not try to argue as if the authority for what I am saying rests with the evidence of all those who gave evidence before the select committee. My authority rests, firstly, on what happened with the drawing up of the Constitution, and what legal experts and experts in constitutional law told us at the time. My authority rests, secondly, with what official law advisers of this institution told me today in response to my specific enquiry.

Is that binding?

It is binding. The present-day State President has to follow the advice of a Ministers’ Council, just as the State President of 1961 had to follow the advice of the Cabinet of 1961. Since the new State President is a new figure, however, there is one exception: The new Constitution, in contrast with the old Constitution, gives the State President special powers to decide on specific matters. I want to mention two examples. In the composition of the Ministers’ Council the State President has much greater powers than the State President had in constituting a Cabinet in the old dispensation. Secondly, in the allocation of portfolios and so on the State President has, in regard to own affairs, much greater powers than he had in the old dispensation when there was no executive State President. As far as the transfer of powers and the taking of decisions are concerned, however, the position is identical to that in regard to the non-executive State President.

I am not arguing about that.

No, the hon member did argue about that. [Interjections.] Then I am very glad the hon member is no longer arguing about that.

I am saying he is not bound by that.

After a long argument the hon member tried to imply that we are setting up Aunt Sallys when we say their policy cannot succeed. Stripped of the emotional display which the hon member was guilty of this afternoon, and stripped of the personal, derogatory and disparaging remarks he made about my hon colleague …

He asked for it!

… he is saying—that is the actual gist of his argument—that he believes he can bring about a situation in which there would be a White South Africa with a White majority. There are, however, two matters the hon member does not deal with. Firstly he and that party acknowledge, by implication, that there are going to be millions of people of colour in what they call White South Africa. If their standpoint is that they do not begrudge others what they demand for themselves, where are those people going to exercise their rights in practical terms? We await a reply to that and this debate today is the debate in which to furnish that reply.

Linking policy!

Secondly, they know that the linking policy did not work. [Interjections.] No, they know it. They also know that despite our best efforts over a period of decades, we could not succeed in decreasing the number of people of colour in White South Africa, the numbers in fact having increased.

Thirdly, there is something else they know. It is a reality of 1987 that increasing numbers of Black people are developing a new identity in the metropolitan areas. Like our forefathers, they are gradually breaking their links, although cultural ties are being retained, and saying: “It is more important for me to say I am a Sowetan with my immediate problems here where I live than to have my cultural ties.”

What authority does the hon the Minister have for saying that?

The hon member and I are my authority, because our forefathers felt themselves to be much closer to the Dutch and the French than the hon member and I do. That is what is now happening with the Black communities. If we have the welfare of this country at heart, and if we want to conduct a serious debate on the future of all of us in this country, we must discuss matters within the framework of these realities and stop trying to play petty politics with one another.

The hon member also made a great fuss about whom we cannot get along with and about how they supposedly, despite the fact that they fought each other tooth and nail at the polls, are aware of their deep-rooted ties with the HNP and the AWB. There is, however, a difference in principle involved. We did not seek coalition. We did not seek an election pact with the hon member’s party when they disagreed with us, because they left the party on a question of principle—at least I accept that to be the case. We do not want to force people who differ in principle into a single election pact in respect of the same electorate. The NP is a party with an underlying principle. [Interjections.] We put up our candidates, and if people do not agree with us, they can put up their candidates. The hon member’s party could not, however, even conclude an election pact, a pact they wanted, with the group with which they disagree on only two principles—that involving the Indians and that involving bilingualism, which are not really important differences in principle. That is the difference. They could not even reach agreement with fellow Afrikaners who are as close to them as they avowed this afternoon, because they could not rise above the petty debate about how many seats each should get and where they would put up candidates. [Interjections.] That is why they cannot be trusted. Their ability to negotiate has been shown to be meagre and feeble, an inability to negotiate.

How many Blacks want to talk to you people?

Many Blacks talk to us. We are prepared to talk to them, as we do to that hon member’s party. [Interjections.]

Savimbi should come to your aid!

It is said that Savimbi should come to our aid. Is the hon member saying that against the background of the speech delivered by the hon member for Randfontein? Is he opposed to maintaining sound relations with a leader such as Jonas Savimbi?

I am in favour of that, but you people have politicised it.

Why is the CP then belittling it? They are playing a petty political game and are not interested in the real problems. The CP only has one goal in mind, and that is to hurt the NP, and what happens to the rest of the country, the CP does not give a fig at this stage. [Interjections.]

Both the hon member for Pinetown and the hon member for Lichtenburg spoke about education. By trying to analyse the figures they attempted to indicate that we were neglecting White education. Let me tell them that the first principle of a responsible government, whether a Ministers’ Council for own affairs or a Cabinet, is to do the budgeting and administration in such a way that it does not waste money on any specific function. Where it can rationalise, it will do so in such a way that it saves money and ensures that it does not spend taxpayers’ money on unnecessary luxuries. I do not think anyone could disagree with me when it comes to that argument.

*If ever we should make the mistake of overspending on a particular item, the opposition will be the first to tell us how we waste the public’s money. However, when we save without any decline in standards whatsoever we are attacked for doing so purely for party political purposes.

[Inaudible.]

That hon member, cannot show that the standard of White education has been adversely affected, nor, in fact, can any other hon member. We are proud of the standards we maintain. At the academic level those standards will still have to be increased if we want to remain competitive in relation to what is happening throughout the world. We cannot rest on our laurels on the strength of what we have already achieved. If, however, by rationalising here and rationalising there, we can work economically and, with great circumspection, get by with less than the increase in the inflation rate without adversely affecting standards, this bears testimony to good government, and then that should not form the basis of an indictment against us.

The basic theme of this debate, which we have repeatedly had a hint of, has been the denigration of own affairs, and this was done for two divergent reasons. The hon members of the PFP did so because they said that in essence this was racist and simply just another consolidation and entrenchment of apartheid. The hon members of the CP did so because they, in the words of the hon member for Brakpan—his voice gave a hint of this when he said it—believed that it had only one goal. Let him go and read his Hansard. He used the word “goal”. He did add, it is true, whether we wanted it or not. This goal is “to bring about Black majority government in South Africa”.

And both cannot be right.

I am not going to say today that both cannot be right, because the hon member for Overvaal said it for me.

You are very predictable. You always say it.

No, I want to analyse this more incisively.

In view of the composition of South Africa’s population, it is a logical and inevitable approach to account for the composition of that population and to take that into account. In regard to those subjects which constitute own affairs, but also in regard to the exercising of power in politics, our circumstances demand of us that those who have freedom should not be placed in a situation in which they would be deprived of that freedom. They are entitled to say that they definitely will not be dominated. Everything that this party does is aimed at maintaining the freedom that has been acquired and ensuring that the domination—by whomever, regardless of what any majority might look like—of those who have the freedom will not become a reality in this country. [Interjections.]

We on this side of the House, however, also have a second major goal in view. [Interjections.] There is a second major goal. This second goal involves not merely telling those who do not yet have their freedom, that we do not begrudge them what we demand for ourselves, but also helping them, from our position of power, from the point of view of the relative prosperity that we enjoy and from the relatively privileged position in which we find ourselves, to obtain what we already have. There is a great difference between these two approaches. This approach of “we do not begrudge others what we demand for ourselves, but they must go and look for their own place in the sun, go and find it for themselves” is specifically the approach we get from the CP.

That is not correct! [Interjections.]

We on this side of the House are prepared, within the framework of the realities of South Africa, to grant assistance, to help people, to put a shoulder to the wheel and to spend money so as to also help them to obtain what we already have. This must take place in such a way, however—and this is not the debate in which to argue that point—that we ensure that the basic, vested rights and freedoms we have acquired will not be lost … [Interjections] … that we will not land up on the slippery slope of dominating others or being oppressed by others. [Interjections.]

Let us debate whether, from the CP’s point of view, this is not an inevitable consequence. They ought to present their arguments to indicate why it could be an inevitable consequence. The CP, however, should stop trying to adopt the standpoint or to insinuate that we on this side of the House do not feel as strongly, or are not as sincere, about the freedom that Whites have in this country or the right of the Whites not to be oppressed in the country of their birth, the country in which they gained their freedom, not to be dominated by others.

How do you want to do that? [Interjections.]

For that we are prepared to sacrifice as much as any other hon member in this House. We can talk at great length about the constitutional models and focus on many alternatives, but the great test lies in this condition: If we do not succeed in bringing about the freedom of all the other people in this country—the Coloureds, the Indians, the various Black peoples arid also the urban Black communities who have severed their ties with their own peoples— having them feel and know that they can also come into their own in the country of their birth, our freedom can never be secure. [Interjections.]

In the same country?

If we do not succeed in doing that, revolution must inevitably escalate. [Interjections.] I cannot answer questions now; my time is unfortunately almost up. That is why it is our task to work just as hard to obtain freedom and opportunities for others as it is for us to preserve our own. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to speak after the hon the Minister of National Education. What he said has again made it very clear to me that in South African politics one must distinguish between realities and facts on the one hand and wishful thinking and idealism on the other, because these two different points of departure could, if one did not understand them and know where they emanated from, lead to perceptions that do not accord. The two opposing parties here today have those opposing points of departure.

The NP says that it deals with the realities and sees how we, with those realities in mind, can move forward towards the realisation of our ideals. On the other side of the House sits a party which has ideals, but fails to see the realities, or wants to adapt them to its ideals. That is not possible, and I think the hon the Minister of National Education did a very good job of examining that aspect. We shall continue identifying the realities in this country and acting accordingly.

That is why I was surprised today at the reaction of the Official Opposition’s spokesman on agriculture to the amounts voted for agriculture in the Appropriation. In a certain sense it is a bit of a shock to me that hon members can stand up in the House and, ignoring the figures, say that nothing is being done for agriculture in this country. Agriculture is important in our country. For a long time now the Government has granted assistance, but the prevailing impression left here, after the discussion on agriculture, is that the Government has thrown agriculture to the wolves and has not granted any assistance to agriculture at all.

I had another look at the figures in this Appropriation and came upon the interesting figure for agricultural financing. I am referring to the R335 million for farmers who are in difficulties. Over and above that, in the Additional Appropriation there is a further amount of R400 million budgeted for agriculture. This gives us a total of R735 million for assistance to agriculture. That is not mentioned by members of the opposition.

In looking at the assistance granted to agriculture in the past few years, I find that in the previous three years the Government gave more than R1 000 million in assistance to agriculture, but that is not taken into account. If I add the R1 000 million in assistance to agriculture to the guarantee given to co-operatives to enable farmers with the additional financing of carry-over debt— this amounts to a further R800 million—I am faced with an astronomical sum which is virtually beyond the financing capabilities of the Government. [Interjections.] This is not taken into account; no, it is just said that owing to the drought the farming community should be given more assistance. Notwithstanding the financial capabilities of the country, they must simply be given more assistance.

If we are now to give more money to agriculture, surely we must do so with some sense of responsibility. The country has a specific revenue and certain limits when it comes to paying, allowing it to grant assistance where necessary. Must we then pay higher taxes to give more assistance to farmers, in spite of the scope of the assistance already given? Must we take money away from education, because the money must come from somewhere? Must we take the money from education, our health services or the Defence Force? I agree with hon members in this House that we should allocate more money to agriculture. Hon members should also, however, indicate where the money is to come from.

I also had a look at what assistance had been granted to farmers prior to the past three years. When the 1979 drought commenced, the Government did not sit still or turn its back on the farmers who were in difficulties. A system was introduced in terms of which stock farmers were granted assistance by way of a rebate introduced on the transport of fodder. Loans were granted for the purchasing of fodder. When money grew scarce, subsidies were granted on those loans. Additional assistance was granted in the form of loan subsidies of up to 70%. When the crop-farming areas began to experience difficulties, a further scheme for stock-farmers in the crop-farming areas was introduced to assist them. No mention was made of these schemes, however, because according to hon members of the Official Opposition no assistance was granted to agriculture.

When water dried up, loans were made available for conveying water. When the irrigation dams ran dry and the farmers no longer had enough water for irrigation purposes, subsidies were introduced on the curtailment of water quotas: The less water a farmer obtained, the greater was the percentage of the subsidy. That was all done to keep farmers on the land. These facts are not mentioned, however. When the drought continued for years, money needed for sowing crops could not be obtained from previous crop yields, each year’s input costs were transferred to the succeeding year and the interest on that also contributed to the farmer’s burden, debt consolidating schemes of two plus 20 years were introduced, schemes in terms of which this debt was spread over a certain period so as to make it possible for the agriculturalist to pay his debts. That is not mentioned, however. I am now wondering whether the voters of hon members on that side of the House do not make use of these schemes. The voters of most of those hon members specifically survived due to the assistance granted to agriculture over the years.

As far as carry-over debts are concerned, there is the six-year and 10-year farmers’ assistance scheme. It is a pity that the hon member for Lichtenburg is not here, because surely his voters make use of this scheme. If it had not been for that scheme, what would have happened to agriculture in this part of the country? It is irresponsible to drag agriculture into politics in this way by saying that nothing is done for farmers. That will not solve the problems in agriculture.

I wonder whether hon members opposite, who criticize the Government so vehemently about its agricultural policy, have not ever listened to what other sectors outside agriculture have to say? Frequently it is the very opposite of what they say. What do the Chambers of Commerce and the consumers say, and what is the general view of the man in the street? They say that agriculture just has to cough and it is assisted by way of subsidies. This is already such a generally held view that farming is already depicted as a hand-to-mouth industry in which the farmers are always in difficulties and being kept going by the Government. Surely that does not accord with the CP’s allegations.

The action taken by the Government over the years has been responsible action. Within the capabilities of the State, the maximum assistance has been granted. The granting of that assistance has extended further than merely the farming sector. It has ensured the consumers in this country of top-quality products at the most reasoble prices in the world. It is frequently not realised that the assistance to the farming sector has also had this effect. If we had not pumped those millions of rands into agriculture, I wonder what the price of meat would have been today, what we would have paid for bread and for all the products which are so freely and abundantly available in our shops. That is not borne in mind, but it is an important quid pro quo for the assistance given to agriculture by the taxpayers.