laid upon the Table:

as Chairman, presented the First Report of the Standing Select Committee on Health and Welfare, dated 22 June 1987, as follows:

The Standing Committee on Health and Welfare having considered the subject of the Nursing Amendment Bill [B 65—87 (GA)], referred to it, your Committee begs to report the Bill without amendment.

Bill to be read a second time.

Mr Speaker, in terms of section 58 (1) of the Customs and Excise Act, 1964, I lay upon the Table, for consideration by Parliament, tax proposals in respect of a fuel levy on certain mineral products. It is trusted that everyone affected by these proposals—also those in the TBVC and the BLS countries—will co-operate fully in this matter. Work in this connection is in progress.

Mr Speaker, it is truly a formidable task to try to reply to a debate as wide ranging as this Budget debate was. To be able to distinguish between what and what was not relevant, and reply to it, is truly no easy task. There were one or two speeches requiring replies which will take several times the time it took to talk so much nonsense. [Interjections.] However, I shall do my best to try to elucidate the highlights of the debate. Before doing so, however, I should first like to avail myself of this opportunity to express a word of very sincere appreciation once again to the Director General of the Department of Finance and all his personnel, who assisted us in the two budgets we had to introduce this year and who, while my two colleagues and I were fighting the election, had to hold the fort alone on many occasions. They did an outstanding job of work and deserve the appreciation of all of us for it. At the moment Dr Stals is still abroad, on his way to address a gold conference. That is why we will not observe his presence here.

Mr Speaker, a few characteristic aspects emerged during the recent Budget debate. I want to refer to them briefly before I come to specific matters to which I should like to react.

†The hon member for Yeoville, in his response, referred to me—he had to withdraw the specific word—as someone who reminded him of a character from the Western United States. Well, Sir, all I can say to that is that if there is one person qualified to evaluate someone else in terms of that part of the world and its history it is indeed the hon member for Yeoville, because he has an unchallenged record of being a political and a commentating Lone Ranger. [Interjections.] An unchallenged record, Mr Speaker! Whenever the hon member for Yeoville joined a party a division was imminent. He was also, as far as his comments on this Budget are concerned, very much alone.

Lone Ranger on the side of justice.

There were a few other performances which reminded us a great deal of that part of the history of the USA. The hon member for Lichtenburg reminded me a great deal of a combination of Custer, who made a last stand—to hell with how reality had changed—and were all wiped out, and Wild Bill Hicock, who kicked open doors, and with blazing guns fired at all and sundry, regardless of what damage he did in the process.

The hon member was very skilfully supported by a person who reminded me a great deal of Billy the Kid; a person who gave us very good guidelines on CP policy from the back benches. This hon member, Mr Clive Derby-Lewis, began what was for me a very exciting policy on the part of the CP last Friday. When an error in the CP election document Kolskote was pointed out to him, he rose to his feet, admitted the error and immediately proffered an apology. Today I want to ask him to carry on meticulously with this commendable direction he adopted. He must keep quite a number of other apologies on hand for the end of this reply, because there are quite a number of things about Kolskote, etc, that he will have to explain to us and for which he will have to apologise.

Mr Speaker, among the many newcomers in this House we saw that we could look forward to a far larger number of speakers on economic and financial matters than before. We can also look forward to far more penetrating and knowledgeable discussions over a wider front than we had in the past. This is one specialised direction that was relatively impoverished in the past, but we have quite a number of new members who are obviously very knowledgeable, who went to a lot of trouble with the preparation of their speeches, and who augur well for financial debates in future.

As far as debating style was concerned, we very unfortunately saw a continuation of the style adopted by the Official Opposition during the election campaign. Their physical style of delivery is in some cases very seriously influenced by Mr Eugène Terre’Blanche, Esquire. It definitely received an input from somewhere as far as presentation as well—this is a perturbing matter—as content was concerned, because the irresponsible untruths and factual errors which they proclaimed from one platform to another and repeated in one pamphlet after another continued.

I want to confess something to the Chair, Sir. I really gave very careful thought, in preparing for this speech—I promise I shall concentrate hard on accomplishing this—to how to get past one unfortunate untruth. According to the Rules of this House one may not say to an hon member that he is telling an untruth and that he knows it; it is a very good rule. Nor am I going to do so, but I am going to say it is a very tragic day when, after we had repeatedly informed hon members of the CP in particular of several factual errors they had made, they simply paid no heed to that. In the end I had to ask myself how many times one must tell a CP member something before he understands and knows it. I shall prove every word of what I am saying.

Last year I told the then member for Sunnyside, who used to sit where the PFP are now sitting, that it was quite astounding how he was able to string together so many unrelated facts that it was virtually impossible to reply to them.

He strings totally irrelevant things together into something which on the surface appears logical, which goes down well on certain platforms and which is believed by certain people in their naivety, but which is fundamentally untrue. I made the point that that former member said those things for one purpose only and that was to have them placed on record in Hansard, thus enabling those things to be used in their pamphlets. That little tendency has continued, and I shall come to it again at the end of this reply today.

Nevertheless I want to say it is a tragic day when one is confronted by the situation that regardless of how many times one brings quantifiable facts to people’s attention, they simply ignore them and get up in this House and repeat things one has previously demonstrated to them to be false. They repeat these things because they want to reinforce specific impressions among their public on the basis of those things.

Their 16-page publication, Kolskote, is one distortion and untruth from the first word to the last, neatly signed by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. After having pointed out to him how many errors it contained and how he had allowed the hon the State President to be insulted in a publication signed by him, we want to know from him how it feels to sit in this House on the basis that people voted for him, while it was absolute untruths that persuaded them to vote for him.

You probably know very well.

Tell us about Dr Piet Koornhof. [Interjections.]

It is a blessed relief, but I must say I quite miss the former member for Rissik who always, in the past, when one began to speak to his leader, jumped in and began to make remarks. I see the hon member for Brakpan is doing it now, because he was always the “stunner” in our caucus after all. It was always he who first fired a canon shot and startled the members, and then the whole chorus chimed in afterwards to make a specific point in the caucus. [Interjections.]

You stop it and forget you were a teacher. [Interjections.]

Order!

We must pardon the hon member because he has not been in this House for a long time; he did not hear what fools his own colleagues made of themselves. It seems to me the propaganda machine of the CP trains its people according to the Goebbels concept—I am saying this with every iota of responsibility I possess—that the greater the lie and the more times the lie and distortion are repeated, the greater the chance that people will ultimately believe it. That can be the only reason why they pay no heed to the facts that one presents. Part of their style is to cast suspicion on every term the Government uses. The hon member for Lichtenburg, and some of his colleagues, referred very acrimoniously here to so-called minorities and the question of minority rights, that we had mentioned. All that one requires to understand what minorities mean is the ability to count.

That is elementary.

It is elementary; I am so grateful the hon member understands it. All one needs is the ability to count. One is saying nothing else about people—not whether they are peoples, population groups, communities or nations. We have also become entangled in that sickly old debate with the CP, which is so fond of playing with words, I do not know how many times. Minorities are quite simply a numerical concept, and to read anything else into it is not only unscientific, it is in fact nasty.

You are engaged in a lamentation.

During this Second Reading debate we had the benefit of listening to 17 maiden speeches, if I counted correctly. I think all of us who heard those speeches will agree that there were outstanding contributions. This year’s election did indeed produce a good crop; there is a great deal of promise here, and we congratulate all these hon members and welcome them very sincerely to the ranks of the speakers in this House. An exceptional feature of their speeches, too, was that many of them paid tribute to their predecessors, even though their predecessors had not necessarily been members of the same party. This was exceptionally fraternal and placed a fine stamp on the debate.

It is not my task or objective to give a summary of every speech, but out of recognition for their entry to this House, I think it is fair that I refer briefly to each one of them.

The hon member for Aliwal is an experienced public representative; he spoke very knowledgeably and with great fondness about his favourite subject, the merino, and about agriculture in general. He and I went through a terrifying experience together in a small aircraft, and there is a special tie binding us, for if it had not been that a few things had happened that day, he and I would not have been here today.

The hon member for Witbank—I wonder whether someone could not please tell him that I am talking to him, because I should like to react to his speech—spoke about his constituency and justifiably referred to it as a source of power for our country with all its power stations. He also mentioned the great expectations which exist in respect of exports. He held out the prospect of 80 million tons of exports by the year 2000. I should like to share his optimism, and I hold thumbs for him in the same way I hold thumbs for us that this will happen in South Africa. He will allow me to tell him that there are a few conditions attached to that export target. The one group of conditions have international significance, and that is that our exchange rate is favourable and secondly that we are able to retain our markets and do not lose them as a result of sanctions and boycotts. The internal political situation therefore reflects this country’s ability to preserve those markets. The ability to preserve national labour peace and to work skilfully with trade unions, because those labourers will always have to be there, is also an absolute condition for firstly the delivery, secondly the transportation and thirdly the loading and offloading of those quantities.

The hon member for Durbanville is a sturdy man in conduct and appearance. He mentioned the large number of voluntary workers who make their contributions in many spheres in our country. There is a great deal of truth in what he said.

†The hon member for King William’s Town will find agreement on his plea for emphasising the importance of good neighbourliness which he so eloquently stressed in his first address. I noted his remarks on inflation and the Budget.

The hon member for Simon’s Town came into this House after having fought an election in very trying circumstances. He spoke as one with long-standing family roots in that area. We welcome him in the House as well.

*The hon member for Benoni’s colleagues will remember him for the important point he made when he said that if we solved the housing problem, we would at the same time be solving a lot of other problems.

The hon member for Delmas spoke knowledgeably about agriculture. He made one extremely important point and with that, I think, put his finger on one of the most serious problems in agriculture today when he referred to the market-relatedness or otherwise of inter alia the maize price. Not only does it affect the market situation, but also the cost, including input costs, as well as what the farmer receives from his production. What he touched upon there is probably one of the most difficult things to achieve, when seen, too, in the national and international connection.

†I can say that we as colleagues admire the hon member Mrs Chait, not only for her personal charm and for the excellent presentation of her maiden speech, but also for having tackled so grave a topic and having dealt with it in as competent a manner as she in fact did.

*The hon member for Albany said he had a very consistent constituency. He also said a few kind words about the Budget, something for which I thank him. He has already made quite a number of representations to me in regard to his constituency, of which cognisance will certainly be taken. I shall nevertheless give him some good advice and ask him to repeat them when we come to the Vote discussions.

When the hon member for Cradock spoke, we not only listened to one of the country’s foremost farmers, but also to one of our great agricultural leaders. What impressed my colleagues and I was the fact that he adopted a macro-view on how things fitted together. He, too, is still going to make fine contributions in this field.

The hon member for North Rand has 34 000 voters in his constituency. A weighty task therefore rests upon his shoulders. He will find, however, that his colleagues have sympathy for him in this matter, and that they will support him in the ideas he expressed on conservation.

The hon member for Jeppe pointed out very interesting parallels between our situation today and that of Japan 20 years ago. He will received strong support for the idea that we should make increasing use of examples of that kind in our approaches and in our policy. †

†The hon member for Pietermaritzburg South displayed a sound understanding and in fact made a very correct assessment of the Budget. He pointed out an extremely important aspect, namely the very difficult and retarding ratio of management to the managed in South Africa. That is certainly a bottleneck that will have to be addressed in this country.

*The hon member for Ladybrand referred to the present achievements in, and potential of, his constituency, apart from all the other fine things there such as cherries and asparagus. He would do well to make use of some of our colleagues on his tasting panel. We shall help him to form an opinion of these commodities.

The hon member for Ventersdorp mentioned the great problems in his constituency. In particular I appreciate the fact that he, as an hon member of the Official Opposition, addressed a word of thanks to the Government for the measures. I want to express the hope that it will be possible for some of the young farmers whose cause he pleaded to be helped by these measures.

The hon member for Wynberg certainly impressed us all with his speech. In his speech he stood with one foot in Wynberg and the other in the Hex River Valley. He gave us very interesting particulars. It is interesting to know that he is the third generation of his family to be present in this House. That is certainly an outstanding achievement. It is also the first time that Wynberg is represented in this House by an NP member.

I am in complete agreement with the hon member for Algoa that we must make a success of the regional services councils. It is a new concept in taxation, namely the regional idea which can address the relativity among regions. This can certainly promote development on the one hand, and eliminate cross-subsidisation on the other.

†The hon member Mr Redinger infected his colleagues with his own excitement about our appointment with the future. He also made some practical remarks regarding certain things which we can and must do in order that this exciting future can come about for all of us.

*The hon member Mr Hattingh is firmly established in the business community, and we shall still reap the benefits of the contribution he is able to make here. He referred to the tremendously important role which the small business enterprise is playing at present and will play in the future of our country. This is certainly an area in which he will find other voices to reinforce his own.

When the hon member for Graaff-Reinet began to speak about what happened in his constituency 250 million years ago, we resisted the temptation to compare it to the mentality of specific viewpoints, and confined ourselves in a practical way to what he had to say about his constituency. When we were listening to him talking about the depopulation of the rural areas, one could not help asking oneself a specific question, and that was whether the process taking place there was not perhaps a rearrangement of the maximum number of people that could be supported in a specific environment at a high standard of living by that environment. If that is the case, it will not be all that easy to counteract depopulation.

Finally I want to say that the hon member for Winburg is a great asset as far as agriculture is concerned. Not only did he discuss the maize industry in a knowledgeable way, but he is also a person who is closely involved in co-operatives and who will also in that way be able to make a very knowledgeable contribution for us.

The first matter I want to touch upon, and to which quite a number of hon members referred, is the spectre of overspending. Overspending in a budget happens for quite a number of reasons. There are certain expenditures which no one can predict, and for that reason the Exchequer and Audit Act provides that the Budget may be exceeded.

With all due respect, Sir, I cannot associate myself with a mentality according to which one must, come what may, cling obsessively to one’s predictions which one tabled in March of a specific year, simply for the sake of having budgeted accurately, while one subsequently ignores the claims which might have arisen over the next 12 months in a country such as South Africa. Surely there is no argument that can be advanced in favour of that approach. The hon member for Lichtenburg and the hon member for Barberton referred to this.

What is particularly important is that they pay no heed whatsoever to that portion of the excess expenditure which we deliberately planned with a view to stimulating the economy. This also falls under “overspending”. The hon member for Lichtenburg even used words like “grotesque” and so on. I am pleased to see that he has at last read last year’s Budget speech. If he had read this year’s Part Appropriation and Main Budget speeches properly, he would not have made half of his speech, because the answers he asked for already appear in those speeches. I want to plead with hon members, particularly hon members of the opposition, if they want to quarrel with us about overspending, please to confine themselves to that overspending which they identify as overspending that we have caused to take place as a result of poor planning. The economy of this country, in its national as well as international context, is like a living organism which reacts continually to its environment. It is not like a business in which one can make an adjustment every month and can simply cancel certain things. The State machine is a large one, and the type of spending it does is spending which creates an obligation for it towards a community. If a specific service is being rendered by the authorities, one cannot simply cut off that service.

If one is managing a business, one can decide to cease trying to exploit a specific sector of the market, and then prune one’s budget accordingly. Surely it does not work that easily when it comes to the budget of the State. The hon the Deputy Minister of Finance, Dr Org Marais, pointed out very neatly the percentages of what is being spent in the Budget. He demonstrated how little one can actually manoeuvre within a budget.

We have no problem with being criticised. We simply ask that we criticise one another on the basis of the facts and the truth, and refrain from simply seizing upon something as if it happens willy-nilly. I wonder whether the hon member and his chief spokesman are trying to present an argument against me today that in those cases in which we overspent with certain specific objectives in mind, we should simply have abandoned them merely for the sake of adhering to our figures.

Are you of the opinion that you underspent?

Is the hon member saying that we should have underspent on other things?

I am asking whether you are of the opinion that you underspent?

No, I am not of the opinion that we underspent. After all, I have just said that there is very little room for manoeuvre within a budget—in terms of the Exchequer and Audit Act one is only allowed to exceed the Budget by 2%—in order to react to one’s environment.

I am now referring to the stimulatory package of last year. Why did the hon member not include it in his calculations? I could quote many figures to the hon member, but I think I shall leave the matter at that.

Why are you so cross…?

I am not cross; I am deadly serious. [Interjections.] The economy is a serious business. [Interjections.]

At last! [Interjections.]

The second aspect I should like to touch upon deals with the question of current expenditure which we are financing by means of loans. This has a bearing on the fact that our deficit before loans this year amounts to more than 3%. We said at the beginning, more than two years ago now, in all our speeches that the 3% was not a magical figure. It is an average figure which one should try to maintain over a period. It is a very sound guideline for State finances.

I also said emphatically that our advice was that we could very well exceed the 3% considerably in view of the circumstances in which we find ourselves this year. Surely hon members can see that we are in the difficult position that on the one hand we are stimulating the economy by means of State expenditure…

Overexpenditure.

Order!

We are stimulating the economy by means of specific spending which seeks not only to breathe a little life into basic industry such as the building industry, but also, at the same time, to bring relief in respect of certain of the pressing social problems, namely housing. In the process we have inevitably caused a momentum to develop.

What we should like, the moment when it appears possible for the private sector to revive, is that we should not dominate the scene, but should leave. That is why we are very careful with our stimulation of the economy. We should not like to lapse into the so-called stop/go position by doing too much and then having to apply the brakes. That is why we want to get the economy going gradually and give it a stable growth rate over a period. Time and again during the past two or three years we have encountered serious frustrations which we could not, with the best will in the world, have foreseen. Time and again, when we thought during this process that the private sector would take over the driver’s seat, it did not happen. It seems to us as though at this stage this year there is a certain upswing in this connection which is beginning to look promising to us.

We did have a choice. Taxation can be imposed or lifted in an instant, and takes effect immediately. State expenditure does not work that way—as I pointed out a moment ago. For that reason we used a combination of the two.

†The hon member for Yeoville made a remark about the supply side. I think we have given a fair deal of attention to the supply side of economic stimulation through the tax concessions that we made. Obviously, we as a political party gave as much as we could at the beginning of this year. The hon member will argue that it was for political reasons and I shall not completely deny it. However, I want to say too, that it was the prudent time to do so in order to achieve our objective of stimulating the economy.

*If the hon members maintain that we should not make a habit of allowing the deficit before loans to exceed 3%, they have a good argument, but that is not our intention at all. However, to attack it as a planned measure of policy and to allege that things are completely out of control now is perfectly nonsensical.

If one experiences a large deficit before loans, as we have at the moment, what does one do then? If one wishes to reduce it, one must levy taxes and we decided against that for two very sound reasons. The first reason is that we did not want to reduce any further the relatively low disposable income of people by thrusting our hands even deeper into their pockets. The second reason—as I indicated in the Budget—is that we are on the verge of beginning to consider a new tax system. That is why we did not do it. There is even a third reason. Our advisers told us that we should rather fill the gap at the moment with loans since no problems are at present being experienced with the liquidity of the market. We have already obtained most of that money.

The hon member for Lichtenburg condemned us for allegedly having borrowed back our own debt. It is untrue that it is debt. Not all of that amount is debt. Does the hon member believe that?

Yes.

He believes it. I therefore accept that we will not again encounter that nonsense in their pamphlets and speeches that that enormous amount is ostensibly all public debt. I am very pleased the hon member has reacted to my appeal that we quantify these things which can be quantified and agree on them, because these are the facts.

In any event we have an obligation—I said this in my Budget Speech as well—to take up that money in terms of the debt standstil agreement. We keep the money in South Africa. It may not leave the country. We have an obligation to take it up. We pay interest on it in any case. But that hon member condemns me when I say that we are utilising it to finance State expenditure. It is the equivalent of a foreign loan and for years it has been the practice to utilise foreign loans, as well, for the financing of the State Budget. Yes, our deficit before borrowing is therefore higher than is normally the case. We planned it that way. It is tenable. It is financable without exerting abnormal pressure on the market. Yes, we said ourselves we were financing current expenditure with the aid of capital. I also explained what our dilemma was as far as the definitions were concerned. We also find it tenable in regard to the long-term development of our finances.

The next point I want to raise is the question of the growth rate repeatedly not being achieved.

That was probably planned too!

Mr Speaker, I wonder whether hon members on the opposite side really think the economic growth rate in a country is something one can quantify in advance, come hell or high water. One assesses a whole series of variables on the basis of econometric models—a whole series of variables operating in the economy, and which cause one to arrive at a specific growth rate.

When it happens that an open economy such as ours is detrimentally affected by foreign perceptions or by foreign trade conditions, one does not attain one’s planned growth rate. That is how simple it is. At the same time the fact of the matter is that if certain things happen internally, things which counteract one’s predicted growth rate, one can do whatever one likes; one is not going to attain that growth rate.

If the hon members had said that certain of the causes were within our control, I should very much have liked to have heard what they were. We can debate the causes with one another. However, merely to allege that we were too stupid in the first place to predict them as we did in fact do and, in the second place, when we saw that it was not going to happen, were even more stupid in that we could not succeed in bringing the economy back on course again, is totally nonsensical. I simply cannot understand arguments of that nature. I must say, Sir, it has been a long time since we last had such fun…

As we did today!

… as we did when we had to listen to the speech by the hon member for Lichtenburg the other day. There were more red faces over that speech of his than I have seen for a long time in this House or anywhere else for that matter. I want to make it clear today that I am ashamed that that speech is going to be read in Hansard all over the world. All over the world, yes. I am ashamed of it. It was absolute nonsense the hon member spoke.

You cannot reply to it! [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Lichtenberg must contain himself.

Mr Speaker, it was virtually a repetition of what we always had to listen to earlier from the former hon member for Sunnyside. We always had a terrible struggle replying to the stuff he said. He was always speaking about things which did not exist at all; every time he devised his own new kind of economy. Then, too, we always had to listen to his accusation that we could not reply to him. The hon member for Lichtenburg is doing precisely the same thing. [Interjections.] Yes, he is doing precisely the same thing.

Mr Speaker, I want to deal with the next subject. Not unnaturally the question of job creation goes hand in hand with this. When the economy does not grow, one does not find the degree of job creation in the private sector one would like to have. We on this side of the House say that in South Africa the State is not the primary creator of employment opportunities. The State will lend a hand and provide people who are really in trouble with emergency aid when the economy finds itself in the extremely difficult times in which it finds itself at present. However, the State cannot in the long term accept responsibility for providing every individual with employment. To the extent therefore to which job creation per se is a function of the private sector, one is able to determine whether one has adopted a socialistic course or not. Hon members opposite accuse us of socialism. However, they complain that under the circumstances of low economic growth job opportunities are not being created. What do they expect from us? I tried to tell them a moment ago—cryptically and succinctly—that the Government cannot simply bring about a high economic growth rate artificially. The Government simply cannot do that.

The Government cannot therefore create circumstances in which the private sector can accept its responsibility in respect of job creation. Since we do not have a socialistic approach to policy, we are not prepared to accept the responsibility for the State having to create all the job opportunities either, or most of them in the long term. How is this accusation that we are pursuing a so-called socialistic policy arrived at?

As far as public debt is concerned, the hon member for Lichtenburg had a vast number of things to say. Incidentally, I just want to point out to the hon member that he did not rectify his Hansard, because in his Hansard he made the statement that public debt would reach the amount of R50 million this year. We simply accepted that he probably meant billion. I had the matter gone into today, but it had not been corrected. Consequently he did not read his Hansard properly to make certain that the figures which he had wrong in the first place, were at least correctly reported according to what he said.

The hon member for Lichtenburg attacks me because we express public debt in dollars. In what does he want us to express it?

You express it in dollars when it suits you; when you want to create the impression that it is a small amount.

We always express our country’s debt—I am now referring to the debt abroad—which is a combination of public debt and private sector debt, in dollars…

Prior to the election.

We have always done so!

Order! I was in the Chair when the hon member for Lichtenburg made his speech, and the hon the Minister almost never interrupted him. The hon member for Lichtenburg must stop interrupting the hon the Minister now. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Mr Speaker, we express it in dollars because as much as 80% to 85% of our foreign transactions are in dollars. This is normal procedure.

Everything is American.

It is the international criterion. However, our country’s foreign debt can be ascertained in the quarterly bulletin of the South African Reserve Bank. There it is expressed in rands, for those who are really interested. Consequently there are no ulterior motives in the practice of expressing this country’s foreign debt in dollars. I have heard this question asked in various places in this country. It has been said that we are misleading the people by expressing it in dollars. Surely that is untrue.

It is also being insinuated that our country has overborrowed.

Surely that is true.

I am sorry, Sir, that such an enormous piece of wisdom should orginate in your part of the world (uit u kontrei) because it is absolutely untrue.

Order! Did the hon the Minister say “uit u kontrei” or “uit die kontrei”?

We shall let the “u” suffice, Sir. [Interjections.]

Our country’s foreign debt is assessed according to its gross domestic product and the percentage of its export earnings necessary to service that interest. The hon member does not even listen when I am telling him something. Over an average period it requires, in the times we are now living, only 10% of our foreign earnings on our exports to service our debt. This is the truth; it is a quantifiable fact. If one therefore compares this with the particulars with comparable countries, we find ourselves in a very healthy position. We are not overborrowed as a country.

There was only a whole series of insinuations that we were engaged in all kinds of obscure machinations.

†The first one I want to refer to is the insistence of the hon member for Yeoville on obtaining information about the five-year plan. I find it sad that the hon member did not take a courteous “no”—a temporary “no”,—in fact—for an answer. I wonder why we should always advance to a stage of near aggression as far as that hon member is concerned.

While you are talking of aggression, you should listen to yourself.

I replied to the hon member with all due courtesy in the standing committee and told him that a time would come when I would recommend to the hon the State President that we release the details. It is the hon the State President’s committee; it is his right eventually to decide whether he wants to release those figures or not. I told the hon member that a time would come, but I also pointed out that one does not invite someone into one’s kitchen to sample a cake before one has cleaned the kitchen. As far as the five-year plan is concerned, these are early days for us. We are not yet ready.

Having only just constructed the five-year plan, we had already to start adjusting it. The hon member did not accept my courteous “no” but went ahead and subjected officials to questioning; I do not know whether I should not call it interrogation. He pressurised them into divulging certain information to him.

That is absolutely untrue!

If it is untrue, I shall withdraw it. I do not want to ascribe anything harsh to the hon member. I would, however, like to know how it is that he can quote to the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development a figure which he regards as totally inadequate for growth in real terms in the health budget.

I asked courteous questions via the committee. That is not pressurising.

I do not think officials were supposed to divulge that information and I concluded that they would only have done so if they had come under considerable pressure.

Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order regarding a question of a possible breach of privilege. It has been alleged that an hon member of this House exerted undue pressure on officials in order to extract answers. Such an allegation would imply that the member has acted in a way which is not proper.

If that is alleged, I ask you to consider whether it is prima facie a question of privilege and I will ask for a select committee, because the whole of the committee was involved in it. The chairman would not have allowed undue pressure and his own colleagues were there. To allege undue pressure on officials by a member is certainly alleging absolutely improper conduct on the part of that member. The hon the Minister knows that what he is saying is not correct.

Order! The hon member for Yeoville is raising a point of order in regard to a possible breach of privilege. He is not supposed to make a complete speech on the issue. Has the hon member finished with his point of order?

Mr Speaker, I am raising a question of a possible breach of privilege, not just a point of order.

Order! That is not a point of order because if the hon member wants to raise the question of a possible breach of privilege against the hon the Minister, it must be done by way of a substantive motion.

Sir, then I move a motion—I raise it now—that a select committee be appointed in order to investigate a question of privilege.

Order! I am not accepting the hon member’s motion as such. The hon member may move it in a proper way as a substantive motion. The hon the Minister may proceed.

The point I am trying to make, is…

You are a wicked person. [Interjections.]

Order! What did the hon member for Yeoville say?

I said the hon the Minister was a wicked person.

Order! The hon member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister knows what he is. I do not have to tell him.

All I am trying to say to the hon member for Yeoville is the following: Right at the beginning of the sittings of the standing committee following the Budget, the hon member asked me for information on the five-year plan. I told him that the five-year plan was the property of the hon the State President and the hon the State President’s Committee on Priorities. I also said that when the time came we would consider giving him the information. Yet, I repeat that the hon member did not accept a courteous no.

Why should I?

He went ahead and asked other people for the same answers.

What is wrong with that?

That is why I say that I do not think it was the right thing to do and he cannot argue that point in the right perspective.

I would say that he should abandon his inquisitiveness as far as the five year plan is concerned until such time as we can make it public in a proper way and have a proper debate on it. That will be our recommendation to the hon the State President.

This is the second year of the plan.

We are talking about State finance and a five-year plan of a country with a very substantial Budget. We are not a penny ha’penny country; we are talking about a very complex situation and about sorting out priorities in a time when we have a rapidly growing need for security expenditure. At the same time there is a very rapidly growing need for social expenditure as well. These are the circumstances within which we have launched a five-year plan. Now the hon member for Yeoville thinks that we should divulge everything to him right at the beginning. I am not ready to recommend that to the hon the State President.

This is the second year so you can tell us about the five-year plan now.

I want to refer now to the insinuation made on Friday about the kind of conduct that an hon member is not supposed to have. I find it difficult to deal with the situation now. After the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central had made certain allegations on Friday—he has apologised for his absence today—he received wide coverage in the media. Across the floor I was asked to divulge certain information. I said that there was no way that I was going to break the confidence of the caucus of the Labour Party. I did address the caucus of the Labour Party on the issue of the stimulatory package last year. However, following the publicity that this matter enjoyed—it died mysteriously before the weekend papers got hold of it—I decided to speak to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council of the House of Representatives, our colleague in Cabinet, and he gave me permission to divulge the information that is required.

Last year, after having tabled the Budget, we received the figures for the first quarter’s economic performance in South Africa. It was quite clear to us that the economy had lost some of the impetus it had shown towards the end of the previous year. Then we decided that it was time again to consider trying to revive the economy by means of State expenditure or to consider certain tax concessions in order to put more money into the people’s pockets so that they could spend it and stimulate the economy in that way. We carried out thorough studies in this regard. We calculated that an amount of R1,2 billion had to be pumped into the economy somehow or other. Our econometric models and other advice that we sought eventually showed that we had two choices. The one was that we could recommend a reduction in GST from 12% to 10% without reinstating GST on food again. That would have cost the Treasury R1,2 billion in lost revenue. The alternative was to construct a package and to spend that money in certain specific areas of activity. Eventually we chose the latter option.

Subsequently—the hon the State President opened this occasion which I think was on 12 June last year—we had a meeting here in Cape Town with top personalities in the financial and industrial world. We also discussed the matter with them to find out what their views were and what role they could play in stimulating the economy and applying our combined efforts to get the economy going again. They were in agreement with us that our second line of attack was better, namely that we should increase State expenditure.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Representatives gave me permission to say that without the knowledge of the Labour Party caucus, which had apparently given their support under the leadership of the Rev Hendrickse to certain amendments to the Sales Tax Act, the hon member for Schauderville moved a motion in the House of Representatives to reject that amending Bill unless GST was decreased from 12% to 10%.

By the time—this is important in terms of the allegations made by the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central—that motion was tabled, the construction of the package had long since been finalised. Then, all of a sudden, we were hit by this amendment. I approached my colleague immediately and said to him that it would be necessary for me to explain to his caucus—I was not aware of the fact that that had been done without the knowledge of the caucus—what the implications were of their amendment, which I did, Sir. I told them it was necessary to stimulate the economy. We could have done it by reducing GST, but that was not the desired approach; the other would have been better. Having chosen that avenue of attack, if we should abandon the stimulatory package in favour of a reduction in GST, R400 million and all the other moneys that would still accompany it, could not have gone to the Housing Trust for low cost housing, and that whole project would have had to be shelved. Another R350 million of low cost housing and other millions in other areas would have had to be abandoned. Those were the implications of the fresh information I was able to give that caucus.

Mr Hendrickse told me this morning that I could say that at the insistence of that caucus Mr Charles Redcliffe had to withdraw his amendment, because in the first place, says Mr Hendrickse, it was not in accordance with the wishes of the caucus, and secondly, they understood the implications.

That is the one side of that despicable allegation made by the PFP.

On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Is it in order to allege that an allegation made by the PFP is “despicable”? [Interjections.] Sir, I asked you for a ruling and not 15 members of the NP.

Order! I am considering the hon member’s point of order. I can look after myself. Thank you for the advice. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, they are still interjecting. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Minister may proceed.

When that hon member made the allegation which he levelled at me, I was able to defend myself in this House and, on the decision of the Chair, the hon member had to withdraw his allegation. Call me to order if I am on dangerous ground, Mr Speaker, but I do not know how the implication in regard to hon members of Parliament of another House can be remedied, because if anyone bribes someone else, as was alleged, it is not only a reflection on the briber, but it is also a terrible reflection on the people who were supposed to have been bribed. [Interjection.]

Order! The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central was requested by the Chair to withdraw his implications which he refused to do and he was ordered out of the House. Under those circumstances I do not think the hon the Minister should proceed along those lines.

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

I think the one leg of that allegation is perfectly clear now, namely how things developed and what actions I took. I did not believe it was in the interests of Parliament that there should be a motion in one House based on incorrect information. [Interjection.]

Secondly, I believe that the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central can take up the whole question of the funding with my colleague the hon the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology, so as to clear up the legal aspects of the funding. As far as we are concerned, there are no uncertainties between himself and myself and it is absolutely clear that everything that was done, was done lawfully.

I only hope that having given the House the facts this matter will now come to rest.

Not at all!

Before I leave that topic, however, I want to quote from the Hansard of the House of Representatives when Mr C R Redcliffe, the hon member for Shauderville, said the following (Hansard, House of Representatives, Monday, 16 June 1986, col 4212):

These are the facts. They are simple and there is nothing, but nothing at all, underhand in the whole affair.

[Inaudible.]

I want to say a few words about this so-called redistribution of wealth. I want to ask the hon member for Barberton to tell us, the next time he rises to speak in this House, how he arrives at his statement that the redistribution of wealth is the policy of the NP. He must rise to his feet and tell us that. While he was speaking I asked the hon member across the floor of the House what he regarded as the level of taxable income for individuals on which maximum taxation ought to come into operation. By way of interjections we agreed that an amount in the region of R140 000 would be a good level. I want to ask the hon member whether he agrees that it is reasonable to pay 45% tax in certain circumstances when a person’s income reaches that level, which he says is a good level. I must accept that the hon member agrees with me on this point. Or is the member of the opinion that there should be a single tax percentage? I want to rephrase my question. Is the hon member for Barberton… Incidentally, I omitted at the beginning to congratulate him on his new status. At least it was far better listening to him than to his predecessor.

Just leave Jan van Zyl out of it.

I have every right to say that I appreciate this hon member’s contribution far more than that of his predecessor.

And I appreciated your predecessors more than I do you.

It was a better contribution. I want to ask the hon member for Barberton whether he is in favour of a progressive tax system. In other words, is he in favour of having people who earn more relinquish a larger portion of their salary?

One taxes a person according to his ability to pay.

Thank you very much. I really appreciate the hon member having told us that. The hon member said one must be taxed according to one’s ability to pay. That is a fundamental point of departure of a redistribution of income. [Interjections.] Oh please, listen to the economists on that side!

Listen to the economists on that side!

I want to ask the hon member a second question. Was the CP, according to their main spokesman, opposed to our purchasing land with public money and giving that land to Black peoples?

No, we were buying our freedom.

The hon member is fundamentally in favour of a redistribution, not of income in this case, but of existing wealth.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, Sir. Land is one of the fundamental sources of wealth. [Interjections.] In every civilised country there is a progressive tax system which is the beginning of a redistribution of income, because it makes people who earn more, pay more tax, something which is justified.

In every civilised country, and particularly in a developing country such as ours, one finds the situation that people are very heavily subsidised. According to the information available at the time the per capita subsidy in respect of the White first-class train commuters of this country was proportionally greater than that of the third-class commuters. This is a redistribution of wealth; a redistribution of income.

The fact that all school children receive a specific per capita expenditure on the part of the State, and the fact that owing to a diversity of reasons we in this country are striving to make the per capita expenditure in respect of all children the same, represents a redistribution of income. I want to ask whether the hon member is opposed to that.

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon the Minister whether, in the argument he has just used, he draws a fundamental distinction between the division of wealth and the redistribution of wealth? [Interjections.]

A division of wealth implies that there is a lot of wealth which one divides up among people, but once a portion thereof has belonged to other people…

Like the school books!

I did not interrupt the hon member when he was speaking. When he opens his mouth, he cannot hear at the same time; so what use is it replying to him? [Interjections.]

In his speech the hon member for Bethal asked my colleage, the hon the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, to correct him if he was wrong. I shall do so on behalf of my hon colleague. My colleague spoke about a sharing of welfare. He debated the point that we in South Africa should create opportunities so that everyone can share in the welfare. This whole question of a redistribution of income and a redistribution of wealth or assets, or however we want to phrase it, is a useless debate, because in the days when two of the hon members on that side of the House were members of the Cabinet, they did not adopt a standpoint opposed to this matter. On the contrary they adopted a standpoint in favour of it. The hon member for Lichtenburg and the hon member for Waterberg, who is now the hon Leader of the Official Opposition, were both involved in the Ministry of Education and Training at that stage when, without any assessment of productivity, a start was made on closing the wage gap.

The hon member for Lichtenburg sees to it that every time he rises in this House and discusses these matters, he fulminates against them. I now want to ask him what he did when he was Minister of Black Education and approved the closing of the wage gap. What did he do to ensure that productivity was increased? After all, it is he who is preaching to us. [Interjections.] What did he do? What did the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition do in connection with increasing productivity? Nothing, Sir, nothing! So what wonderful ideas do they now have to couple this matter to an assessment of productivity? How does one measure productivity?

I shall tell the hon member what a cardinal point is in increasing productivity. A cardinal point is that there should be enough man-agers. Did the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition not object to Black attorneys opening offices in the central area of Johannesburg? He rejected it. Will he reject it again if he comes into power?

Yes, I shall reject it.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition says that if he is governing, he will not allow Black attorneys to have offices near to the magistrates’ courts.

That is not what he said. [Interjections.]

But of course; what did he say if not that? [Interjections.] A prerequisite for increasing productivity is the presence of management and the control which management must exercise over workers. I want to ask the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition whether he, if he has to govern this country, will reintroduce job reservation. [Interjectons.]

It is their policy.

The hon member says it is their policy.

Do you want to debate the matter? You know you cannot do so.

It helps, though, if one can just get an indication, because we are having such a hard time getting replies from them. [Interjections.] May I now put this cardinal question to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition? If he is governing this country, will he allow people of colour to exercise control over Whites in regard to managerial positions?

Ask Arrie! [Interjections.]

When we come to a cardinal question concerning what will happen to Black people in that partitioned Boerestaat of theirs, we do not get any answers.

Sir, I now want to come to this pamphlet. I courteously request the attention of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, because he appended his signature to these Kolskote. He signed the 16 pages. I do not know whether this matter has been dealt with in this House already, but I made enquiries at the SABC. They gave me the verbatim broadcast on the basis of which these Kolskote of Die Patriot stated: “Los erfenisse, sê PW”.

This text from the SABC has no connection with the verbatim speech which I received from the office of State President. I did not tell him that I was going to deal with the matter here, and he therefore did not ask me to do so; I just want to make this clear.

In the first place, therefore, a fault crept in which the SABC made in their report on the speech of the hon the State President. But it is such a drastic inference this publication makes by saying that the State President allegedly said that we should do away with our fatherland—here it is—our language and culture, our Christian heritage, the importance we attach to identity, to our freedom and independence, to our own residential areas and schools; these are all a heritage from the past. This report stated that the hon the State President had said we should abandon all these things.

A disgrace!

This is so drastic that I would have thought, if one had wanted to be associated with the truth in a responsible way, one would have had the courtesy of asking for the speech so that one could examine it. [Interjections.] That did not happen. I want to ask this hon member whether he is satisfied with that report. He cannot reconcile it with his conscience to be satisfied with that report. Today, with all the seriousness at my command, I want to beg him to do one thing.

I am making this plea on the basis of what happened in my constituency. The second Sunday before the election a respectable elder of the NG Kerk—he serves on our divisional committee—phoned me and asked me please to let him have the contents of Mr Speaker’s prayer. [Interjections.] By this time I know Mr Speaker’s prayer off by heart, and I wrote it down in English as well as Afrikaans. After that I verified it with the former Speaker, Mr Johan Greeff, and sent it to the elder. What happened then was that a person known to be a supporter of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition’s party—he is a deacon—saw fit to say the following prayer that morning after the worship service in the consistory—the words were more or less to this effect:

[Interjections.] If that had been an isolated case one could have said that the fellow had gone astray. I discussed with my hon colleagues in this House—they are colleagues whose names I do not want to mention now—the fact that the other day a young minister spoke words to this effect from the pulpit. The wife of a very well-known person in our country, who is a deeply dedicated Christian, did not vote for the NP because we had removed the name of Jesus Christ from our proceedings. [Interjections.] I want to blame this on the CP, because it originated in that quarter! [Interjections.] According to the former Speaker, Mr Greeff, it is the truth—all of us have experienced it—that the name of Jesus Christ is used every day in this House. In the House of Representatives the name of Jesus Christ is used every day in the prayer. In the House of Delegates, in which to the best of my knowledge there are only two Christians, they only pray to the end of the second last sentence of the prayer. On the basis of our Constitution and on the basis of religious convictions, one cannot quarrel with their not being forced to utter the name of Jesus Christ.

How do you reconcile that with the Preamble to the Constitution? [Interjections.]

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

No, Sir, I do not want to answer any questions now.

The hon member for Roodepoort made a sound of protest from the back benches when I said that I did not think it was in the interests of either religion or the spirit of the Constitution, which guarantees religious freedom, that the House of Delegates would be forced to use the name of Jesus Christ in a prayer. I think it dishonours the name of Christ to even consider doing that.

That is not what he said.

I want to place on record that the hon member for Roodepoort made a sound of protest when I stated that point. [Interjections.] If the hon member wishes to clarify this matter, he is at liberty to do so.

There is a question I want to put to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. Every time we have to deal with this atrocious matter in our country, we find that it emanates specifically from the right wing, and more specifically from the ranks of the CP. [Interjections.] I want to ask—even if it is only for the sake of that particular voter; we know he is a CP supporter—the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition please to rise to his feet in this House and quash that story. Would he then please issue instructions for his speech to be published in Die Patriot.

Do hon members know what prayer that young man prayed that day? He uttered a lie when he spoke to God. It is a lie which is being spread by the CP in my constituency. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, is the hon the Minister prepared to reply to a question?

No, I am not prepared to reply to any questions now. We shall discuss this matter later. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Minister does not wish to reply to a question now.

No, I shall reply to it later. First of all I just want to ask the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, if he is interested in eradicating this thing, which is a deplorable phenomenan in our country…

I said so in public!

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition must say it again! He must write in in Die Patriot, and keep on writing it every week until all the CPs hear it! [Interjections.]

Order!

I come now to a few more of these so-called “kolskote”. Here it is stated:

In the first place the amount is wrong.

How much is it then?

It varies from day to day, but a date must be added to that amount. If one understands these things, one knows how to write about them. At the end of last year it was R60 billion. They could have made a far better point if only they had understood these things better. [Interjections.]

The impression is being created here that our total foreign debt is public debt. At the end of last year we caused a calculation to be made, and 45% of the outstanding foreign debt was public debt, and 55% was private sector debt. Public debt in general, internally as well, as a percentage of GDP, is showing a downward tendency, but they do not say that. Public debt as a percentage of foreign debt is displaying a downward tendency. In his speech the hon member for Lichtenburg hurled terribly distorted amounts across the floor of this House. I just want to tell that hon member that it is an untruth to say that that total amount is public debt. It is untrue.

In the second place it is stated here that merely the interest on this enormous amount of debt totals R5 233 million this year. It is untrue. Once again the amount is quite wrong.

Thirdly it is stated here that South Africa had to borrow money abroad to pay the interest on its debt. By now the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis owes me a third apology. Here it is also stated that we had to borrow money abroad to pay our interest. After we had paid all our interest in 1985, we had R5,9 billion left over. After we had paid all our interest in 1986, we had R7,2 billion left over. Consequently we had R13 billion left over in these two years, but the CP said we had to borrow money abroad to pay our interest. Surely that is untrue. [Interjections.]

Here is another priceless story. It says here: “Toe PW oorgeneem het, het Suid-Afrika se groei opgehou.” They then mention growth figures, such as that we maintained an average growth rate of 0,4% from 1980 to 1985. This is the umpteenth arithmetical error that can be pointed out in this newspaper. I want to ask them please to make use of the calculations of our office; we shall gladly let them have the information. We do not mind letting them have the truth. They alleged that the average growth rate over a period of six years was 0,4%. I asked economists from head office to calculate the growth rate and they came up with a figure of 0,7%. [Interjections.] This is not wonderful, but 0,4% is wrong. Listen to them laughing now.

I asked these economists to establish how the CP had arrived at their 0,4%, because it is more important to find out how their minds work. Let me tell hon members how they arrived at the 0,4%. They took the percentage for every year, added them together, and divided by six. [Interjections.] Who is laughing now? The hon members are welcome to come and learn from us how to calculate these percentages.

After I had explained it in detail here last year, the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis again alleged that certain mines were not paying tax. He mentioned the names of specific mines.

He is nodding his head.

Yes, he admits it. I shall make all the information available to that hon member, but he will not come and fetch it, because it does not suit him. [Interjections.] I discussed this matter in the House of Representatives last year and explained how conduit companies work. They all understood it. [Interjections.] Subsequently I explained the matter across the street in the House of Delegates, and they all understood it as well. I then explained it repeatedly in this House, but the CPs still do not understand it. [Interjections.] Not one of them can understand that dividends are taxed in the hands of the one which generates the profit and are then taxed again in the hands of the final recipient. This has always been the case. The hon member is now pretending to understand it, but that is not apparent from his questions. All those companies, with the exception of two or three, are investment companies.

Give us the names.

I shall give him the names with pleasure.

That is what I asked for.

I have a whole file here which I shall let the hon member have. The hon member put questions to me in this House to try to prove that our pamphlet was wrong. He still owes me an apology for that. One of these days he will have to ask for the privilege of the half-hour, simply to apologise. [Interjections.] The hon member asked us certain questions in the House of Assembly, and we gave him the answers. Now he is trying to prove that our pamphlet was not correct.

Your advertisement was incorrect.

There is another thing the hon member does not understand either. He must come to us so that we can explain it to him. We shall explain it to him very carefully. We shall make sure he understands it, and that will help him to debate properly. [Interjections.] There are such things as mining leases. These must also be included. Here I have the information in front of me. This poor hon member is proved wrong on every statement he made. Here I have the file in front of me. I shall make all the particulars available to him if only I can get hold of him so that I can give it to him.

So we can continue, Sir, in regard to one aspect after another. Time and again, however, we reach an impasse.

I should like to conclude. I should like to put a question to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition.

[Inaudible.] [Interjections]

Order!

Mr Speaker, I shall give Mr Derby-Lewis the figures. I do not have the time to do so now, but I shall do so later. Then he will rise to his feet in this House and apologise to us. After all, he apologises for all their mistakes. [Interjections.]

I want to put a question to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. The other day he gave us a lecture on partition. This creates the impression that we on this side of the House have turned our backs on the question of separate development. All we say is this: To the extent on which his play on words means partition, the process which the Government brought into existence with the co-operation of those hon members—this includes the four independent and six self-governing states—is being maintained. That process is being maintained. There is only one question remaining. That is the question of what we must do with the Black people who cannot be accommodated there physically or politically.

That is the major question. The hon member for Overvaal did those of us on this side of the House an enormous favour, Mr Speaker. He did us an enormous favour by admitting that partition did not mean the complete relocation of Black people out of White areas. By telling us that, he gave us an insight into the way that party thinks. The simple truth is—in fact it was stated repeatedly here—that if the CP cannot guarantee the complete relocation of all Black people out of the White areas, it means that the people who remain are either going to be oppressed or that power will eventually have to be shared with them in one way or another. Surely that is an inescapable fact. [Interjections.]

Last year the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition did me the favour of telling me, in reply to a question across the floor of this House, that he was not a racist. The other day, when an hon member on this side of the House was talking about a young Black man who had no work, the hon member for Carletonville said by way of an interjection, “he does not want to work”. I want to know from the hon the Leader of the Opposition whether he does not think that is a racist remark.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: You have ruled on more than one occasion that no cross-examination may be conducted across the floor of this House because it may be provocative. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Brakpan is addressing this House on a point of order. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Speaker, I just want to bring it to your attention that it is customary, when a point of order is being put, for hon members to listen in silence to the hon member who is speaking.

Order! The hon member need not tell me that. I have already said it to this House.

I thank you for that, Mr Speaker. Now, however, I just want to ask you for a ruling on the question of whether an hon member may cross-examine another hon member, as the hon the Minister of Finance is now doing. In the past it was ruled that this may not be done because it elicits debates and because it is provocative; and is consequently not conducive to proper debate.

Order! I think the hon the Minister should perhaps limit his cross-examination somewhat. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Mr Speaker, in this case I shall make a statement to which the hon member for Carletonville could react later. I put it to him that if that is not naked racism, I do not know what is. If the hon member on this side of the House had been speaking in his speech about two young White persons who were unemployed, the hon member for Carletonville would not have made that remark. [Interjections.] No, Sir, he would not. [Interjections.]

However, there is another aspect which very clearly discloses the contempt hon members of the CP have for people of colour. We need only read the speech made by the hon member for Lichtenburg. If the CP should come to power, the hon member said, they would ban all trade unions, and then productivity would soar again.

No, that is not correct!

Oh yes, it is correct. Go and take a look at his speech.

Black trade unions!

Oh, I beg your pardon! Black trade unions. [interjections.] I am referring to Black people. [Interjections.]

Order!

I want to thank the hon member for correcting me, for it brings me a great deal closer to his racist argument. [Interjections.] It is as though one were saying to a Black trade union: “You have no right to exist!”, to which they will reply: “Sorry, master, but we shall still work until we drop.” They will still work until they drop, because that hon member has promised increased productivity once he has banned Black trade unions.

I want to tell the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition that this kind of remark, like those made by the hon member for Carletonville, is nothing but naked racism. The attitude revealed by statements made by the hon member for Lichtenburg can leave us, and the voters who are genuinely interested, with no other impression but that they cherish racism in their bosoms. What I am now about to say is true. If one is guilty of radicalism and of fomenting racial hatred, one is not right wing, one is doing one’s own people and one’s own country a disservice. The hon member for Carletonville may as well learn that lesson, because it comes from his own leader. For that reason, until such time as we receive unambiguous statements from that hon member—the hon member for Waterberg, the leader of the CP, the Leader of the Official Opposition—concerning the lies being disseminated in connection with his pamphlets—lies in regard to the prayer in Parliament—and a repudiation if people are guilty of racism and racial hatred, we on this side of the House cannot but believe that that is in truth what that hon member is striving to achieve. I want to tell him that that speech of his was a cold speech with no warmth or sympathy or understanding of the reality, because the reality of South Africa is that there are millions of people who are going to remain in South Africa for ever, and they are going to ask for political rights.

Motion on appointment of select committee on alleged breach of privilege

Mr Speaker,…

Order! Before giving the hon member for Yeoville an opportunity to address me, I wish to give the following ruling.

During the course of the hon the Minister of Finance’s speech I ruled that the word “despicable” was parliamentary. However, I have reconsidered my decision and I now rule that the use of the word is unparliamentary.

Mr Speaker, I would like to raise two points. The first is that in the circumstances the hon the Minister should withdraw it.

Order! I have considered that procedure and because I allowed the hon the Minister to proceed, I am not asking him to withdraw it now. I trust that all parties on both sides will accept my good intentions in this regard.

Mr Speaker, I also rise on a point of privilege, as I indicated earlier, to move:

That is myself—

I am having copies circulated to the other parties so that they will be aware of it and I think, Sir, that you have a copy in your possession too.

Mr Speaker, I draw your attention to Standing Orders Nos 25 and 44 in regard to this question of privilege and also the matter which was dealt with by you, Sir, the other day when a question of privilege was also raised.

Standing Order No 25 and…

Standing Order No 25 reads as follows:

In Standing Order No 44 it is provided that no notice need be given. Therefore, I move accordingly and I want to motivate what I say.

What the hon the Minister said is clear in the minds of yourself Mr Speaker and other hon members of the House. I also want to make it very clear that this is an allegation which not only affects me but also every member of that committee as well as the chairman of that committee who therefore by implication was a party to allowing officials to be pressurised into giving information. Therefore, it is a matter of grave seriousness.

As far as the allegation is concerned, I obviously deny it; it is without any substance whatsoever. The evidence of the officials and the questions that were posed were actually recorded, and they are available in a recorded and typed form for everyone to see. That will show clearly that there was no pressure.

To my mind, the hon the Minister made the allegation recklessly, without regard for the truth, without having made any endeavour to establish whether or not it was true and, in the circumstances, cast a reflection on a member of Parliament in that if such a member were to act improperly towards officials by pressurising them, this would reflect upon his status as a member of Parliament.

Order! I had very short notice of the hon member’s intention to move his motion and received a copy of it only a few minutes ago. I have enquired into the matter very briefly and my first impression is that there was no breach of privilege as alleged by the hon member. I am not prepared to grant precedence for such a motion at this stage.

Mr Speaker, may I then raise the matter as a point of order? Is it proper to allege that a member has pressurised an official? In other words, even if there was no breach of privilege, can such an allegation be accepted as a parliamentary expression?

Order! There are other rules which the hon member can consult and in respect of which he can approach me if he wishes to take the matter further. I do not, therefore, think that the member should belabour this point of order.

Mr Speaker, may I draw your attention to the fact that a point of order may be raised without notice and receive precedence? I therefore ask you to rule on this, Sir.

Order! The hon member is welcome to raise a point of order.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: If, as you have ruled, you say that it was not prima facie a breach of privilege, is it then parliamentary for a member to allege of another member that he pressurised officials?

I shall give my ruling on that point of order tomorrow.

Question put: That all the words after “That” stand part of the Question,

Upon which the House divided:

Mr Chairman, I request the privilege of the half-hour although I assure you that I shall not be speaking for half an hour. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, having just listened to the speech by the hon the Minister of Finance I am sorely tempted to reply to his non-reply.

Order! The hon member must please not give in to the temptation.

I do not intend to, Sir.

What I find interesting is that it has now apparently become necessary for Government speakers and especially hon Ministers when they must reply to arguments advanced in this House not to try to reply to them with their own standpoints but to try to score points by provoking reactions from hon members who are not speaking but sitting in their benches. I really think we are all old enough to realise that this little game does not work any more. [Interjections.] No, Sir, I will tell you why it does not work.

We are dealing here with the Administration: House of Assembly Budget. I want to associate myself with an allegation made by the hon the Minister of Finance when he attacked the hon member for Yeoville on what he—the hon the Minister—referred to as his conduct on the standing committee. He alleged that when the hon member for Yeoville had questioned him on the so-called five-year plan, he had told him that they had got as far as the kitchen in the process of putting their house in order and that there was no time to reply to the question. The hon the Minister’s memory deceived him a little. I questioned him on the formula for dividing up the own affairs cake among the separate Houses in accordance with section 84 (a) of the Constitution—the five-year plan was not at issue at that stage—and he told me that when one was putting one’s house in order by cleaning one’s kitchen one did not invite the neighbours over to watch. He did not say that to the hon member for Yeoville; he said it to me.

Order! The hon member must not tell me that he is not going to give in to the temptation, and then do so.

With all due respect, Mr Chairman, you are missing the entire point of my speech. I am talking specifically about the formula according to which money is made available to the Administration: House of Assembly by the Treasury in accordance with section 84 (a) of the Constitution.

My reply to the hon the Minister was that we were in the kitchen now and wanted to know how he was putting the kitchen in order. This remains a secret, however. The hon the Minister then informed us—I do not want to put it more strongly than that, because the hon the Minister did not tell us it was a secret; he simply does not invite people in from outside to inspect the kitchen—that if we had any further questions on this matter we should put them to his officials on the standing committee the following day. That is what we did. When the hon the Minister was there himself, he did not tell us at any stage that it was such a dreadful secret. The next day we learned from the officials—and I think I am correct in saying this—that this matter was a sensitive Cabinet and Ministers’ Council decision and that his officials were not authorised to disclose the contents of those decisions to us. That is why those of us on this committee, which is supposed to discuss this Budget, are completely in the dark as to how and on what basis—we are not discussing the other two Houses now—allocations of finances were made or will be made to the Administration: House of Assembly. That is why we are not dealing here with a Committee Stage of a Budget in which the actual Budget is being discussed. As far as the so-called own revenue of the Administration: House of Assembly is concerned, we find that compared to the total amount which is being appropriated to be spent, it is in fact minimal, and to tell the truth, it points to a relatively significant decline for the year which lies ahead for this Budget.

What we do find, however, is that in real terms there is no increase in the amount which is being appropriated to be spent in the coming year on the Votes which fall under the various Ministers. In nominal terms the increase is only 8%. One can of course twist and turn and argue as much as one likes, but in real terms it signifies a decline. I should now like the hon member who follows me to prove to me that I am wrong. Surely one can arrive at no other conclusion but that in real terms less money is being appropriated for the so-called White own affairs for the present financial year than was appropriated for the previous year. This is the case in spite of the fact that in his Budget speech the hon the Minister wanted to create the general impression that this Budget had increased by 125% over a period of two years. In nominal terms this is true, but considerable shifts have taken place, especially as regards education which was not previously included but which has been included since last year when education was taken over by the Administration: House of Assembly with effect from 1 April 1986. In real terms the hon the Minister’s Budget for this year is less than that of the previous year.

We are being told that the White’s right to self-determination is now being given proper consideration here. That is being said while the White legislature, as far as its own affairs are concerned, no longer has the power to determine taxes and has limited financial resources of its own. The Whites, inasmuch as it is now being maintained that they now have the right of self-determination over their own affairs, have to go hat in hand to the hon the Minister of Finance of the general State administration for the financing of those own affairs.

Are we not in a position to judge whether the amount which is being voted for White own affairs is fair, seen against the background of the expenditure in its entirety? Now, however, we are on the eve of a new era in which the Government has accepted as policy that besides the so-called self-determination over own affairs for Whites, Coloureds and Indians and joint decision-making or power-sharing in respect of general affairs, there should now be an extension of its policy according to which that has also become the Government’s policy for Blacks. Concomitantly the minority rights, in the application of the new policy, will also be guaranteed in respect of the Blacks.

The first question I therefore want to ask the Government is that if they want to argue, as they so often do, that each group—they are now so fond of the word “group”—is a minority group in relation to all the other groups, are they then referring in their approach, when the Blacks are being referred to, to each ethnic group or people as a separate group, or do they see all the Blacks in this country as comprising a single group? I should like to argue that the hon the Minister would like to regard each Black people as a separate group. If he differs with me I should like to hear it.

For own affairs or general affairs?

For own affairs. I am still coming to that point. We now find that in the so-called second-tier government—if one can still call it that—where our White provincial councils and White executive committees have been replaced by the new multi-racial executive committees which exercise authority and take decisions on general affairs, Whites, Coloureds, Asians and now Blacks as well are represented on the executive committees. If it is the Government’s policy that the various Black groups should enjoy protection as separate entities on that level, why do we find that in a province such as the Transvaal, where the Zulus are a small minority of the Blacks, a Zulu represents the Blacks of the Transvaal on the executive committee and not a Tswana…

He is an ANC man.

… not a Sotho, not a Swazi or a Venda, but a Zulu of all people, who is in no way representative of a single one of the larger Black entities in the Transvaal. That is why we say that the Government in this regard is not being true to its own point of view…

Is he a Zulu citizen?

That hon member must not ask stupid questions now.

… unless the Government, in its future approach, wants to consider the Blacks outside the national states to comprise one large Black group. If the Government wants to do that it must not accuse the CP of racism. If the Government were to do that, it would have only one criterion, and that would be to place all Blacks in one group, regardless of national and ethnic differences.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member how he defines the Whites in this country?

That is not a subtle question. I shall give the hon the Minister an answer. White South Africans are rapidly becoming a single people.

Hear, hear! [Interjections.]

I want to go further. The Government talks about the representation of the various minority groups, Blacks included. In this connection I should like to take a look at the proposed regional services councils which are now reluctantly getting off the ground. How is justice going to be done to the Black minority rights—forget about the Whites for a moment—of the separate ethnic groups in those regional services councils, or are the ethnic differences among Blacks on the regional services councils, which are now in contrast with second-tier government floating somewhere between third-tier and second-tier government, not going to be reckoned with at all?

I do not know any more where own affairs fit in. I do not know whether the House of Assembly, which has legislative and executive powers as well as a Ministers’ Council for own affairs, is still a first-tier government or a kind of government between the first and second tiers. I would say it was no longer a first-tier government. The NP told the voters of South Africa that they are going to negotiate with Blacks, especially with those outside the national states, in order to give them self-determination in respect of their own affairs and joint decision-making in respect of general affairs now. My question is whether the Blacks are in that regard going to be viewed and treated separately as ethnic groups, or are going to be regarded as one large Black mass alongside the Indians, Coloureds and Whites.

The Government is so fond of putting questions to us. They are the government of the day. During the recent general election they told the voters of South Africa that they were asking for a mandate, and we on this side of the House asked: What mandate is the NP asking for? Time and again we simply got the answer: We are merely asking for a mandate to negotiate. They received a mandate to negotiate, but we are asking them what they want to achieve. What are they aiming at?

They have told us ad nauseam in this House that there is not going to be a fourth Chamber, but that the Blacks, as far as collective affairs are concerned, are going to have a say in joint decision-making up to the highest level—both executively and legislatively. They should therefore tell this House and the voters of South Africa that they are going to scale the present Parliament down to a subordinate legislative body.

If the Government maintains that they are not going to bring in the Blacks by means of a fourth chamber—I have already heard the hon the Minister saying in various debates that there are too many ethnic groups; that it would require seven or eight chambers—I want to repeat that only one of two alternatives can be true. Either the tricameral Parliament is going to disappear and be replaced by one multiracial Chamber, in which all groups will have representation, or the legislative power of the House of Assembly as a component of the Parliament of the Republic of South Africa is in future going to be subordinate to that of a new sovereign legislature. We are seeking those answers from the Government and from the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, who is so fond of asking us questions.

Why are you so sensitive about these questions? [Interjections.]

Finally, I find it very interesting that something about which the Government is terribly sensitive is the issue of the President. It was so obvious to me when the hon member for Langlaagte was speaking last Friday and questioning the hon the Minister about the issue of a possible Black President, on which the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs had expressed an opinion.

Order! There is nothing in the Votes under discussion about Black or White State Presidents. I cannot allow the hon member to proceed along those lines.

With all due respect, Mr Chairman, in debates on the House of Assembly Vote in the past a general political debate was allowed.

Order! I appealed to the hon member at the outset. I allowed the hon member to illustrate the point as regards the division of available finances between the general affairs and own affairs departments, but I really cannot allow a constitutional debate.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I want to make an urgent appeal to you to reconsider the ruling you have just made because we are in fact referring only to the debates of the past since the new dispensation came into existence. The debate on the House of Assembly as far as own affairs is concerned is as wide a debate as the general debate on the Budget itself. Under those circumstances we ask you to reconsider your ruling.

Order! The debates on general affairs to which the hon member is referring are not Committee Stage debates as this one is. This is a Committee Stage discussion on specific Votes. I cannot therefore allow a wide, general debate. I have in fact given the hon member for Barberton ample opportunity to illustrate the difference between appropriation for own affairs and general affairs. The hon member may proceed along these lines.

Mr Chairman, I should like to assume that in the future dispensation a State President will be the head of the executive authority and will probably have the most important say in the allocation of funds for each separate administration. In view of that fact it is of particular importance who that State President is going to be. He is going to be the most important man. Therefore I want to conclude with what the hon member for Langlaagte said. He said that many new models had developed and that we could develop them through a system of devolution of power. We are of the opinion that we cannot have a Black President in a unitary state such as the one we have at present because the President at this stage still has too much power. [Interjections.]

We are accused of being racists yet the hon member said that we could not consider making a Black man President in the present dispensation because he would have too much power. The hon member is prepared to give that power to a White man, but he said that because the State President had too much power he could not give it to a Black. [Interjections.] Those hon members must never again accuse us of being racists. They have made their true colours too obvious.

Order! Before calling upon the next hon member to speak I wish to inform the Committee that it has been brought to my attention that agreement was reached to put Votes 5 and 6 jointly. At this point, therefore, I again put Vote No 5 and in addition Vote No 6.

Because the hon member for Barberton is the Chief Spokesman of the Official Opposition I also permitted him to dwell on the principle of dividing finances between general and own affairs. I am not prepared to permit a general debate on this issue. I am prepared to permit one hon member of each party to discuss this aspect, but not each hon member of every party.

Mr Chairman, I want to address you on your ruling, because the issue of the formula as to what people will obtain in the different Houses is material in regard to the money which is to be spent, so I assume you will allow the formula, the principles and the method of apportioning the money to be discussed, because that is the whole basis of what we are dealing with.

Order! That is exactly what I have just indicated. I will allow that, but I cannot allow each and every hon member to dwell at length on that point. That point may be canvassed by the principal speaker of each party, and after that I expect hon members to confine themselves to the Schedule before us.

Mr Chairman, that is what I want to address you on. It should not be just one hon member who is allowed to do this, because the whole concept of where the money for this Vote comes from and how it is apportioned is fundamental to this Vote. This hon Minister is in charge of the Ministers’ Council, and therefore this is where the Ministers’ Council is debated. That goes to the root of the whole of the debate. If I may use the precedent, it is like discussing the Vote of the hon the State President or the Vote of the Prime Minister under the old dispensation. With great respect to him, in this context of the House of Assembly, this Vote is the same as that which used to be the Vote of the Prime Minister and is now the Vote of the hon the State President. I would therefore ask you not to apply that ruling in a wide fashion, but to apply it in a narrow fashion.

Order! I appreciate what the hon member has said. I shall listen carefully, but I cannot allow this debate to become just another constitutional debate. Then the debate will miss its whole purpose. The hon member may rest assured, therefore, that I shall not unduly restrict hon members. On the other hand, I cannot allow a general constitutional debate either.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: You made mention of a constitutional debate. However, I wish to associate myself with the hon member for Yeoville in the sense that we are dealing here with the Budgetary and Auxiliary Services Vote, which is the responsibility of the hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare. That, Sir, is why a broad political debate is conducted during the Committee stage, as is the case in regard to the State President’s Vote—it is not necessarily confined to constitutional affairs but, besides finance, may also deal with the broader field of politics. I call upon you to rule accordingly.

Order! In so far as the discussion of the politics of own affairs is concerned, the hon member is correct. Nevertheless I cannot permit a general constitutional debate. That is why I said that I would listen carefully to each hon member and use my judgment, and when I am of the opinion that an hon member is exceeding the limits I shall avail myself of my right to call him to order.

Mr Chairman, may I please request the privilege of the half-hour.

At the end of his speech the hon member for Barberton put a question to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. He wanted to know who was going to be the next State President.

No, that is not what I asked.

Yes, the hon member used those words.

I want to give the hon member one assurance and that is that the next State President will not be a CP member. Not for the foreseeable future either, for the simple reason that the hon member and his party are at this moment, within the context of South African history, a geographical phenomenon of a temporary nature. [Interjections.]

In the Second Reading debate the hon member for Barberton presented the same arguments on the formula for the allocation of funds as he did today. With all due respect to the hon member, I think the hon the Minister furnished him with a comprehensive reply in that regard. Nevertheless I can understand that the hon member wants to raise this aspect and discuss it again. I am sorry to say that the hon member reminds me of a fountain. He spews water into the air and then sucks it in again. There is nothing new. The hon member will pardon me if I tell him that I think the time has come for us to tell the opposition party to come forward with a few new ideas which are more relevant to the political issues in this country.

The hon member referred—he specifically said that he hoped the next speaker would be able to give an answer to this—to the 8,8% increase which in fact represents a decline in real terms. I cannot differ with the hon member on this point because it is true if one views it in that way.

What is the actual question? What is it really concerned with? It is concerned with whether the Whites are contributing to taxes for what the State is spending on this group. That is the question. I merely want to quote the figure for the 1983-84 financial year because after that the figure remained more or less the same. In the 1983-84 financial year 20% of the taxpayers paid 70% to 75% of the taxes.

When one then calculates on that basis what the Whites are paying per capita and one takes into account what the State is spending per capita one finds that the total State per capita expenditure on Whites is approximately equal to that paid by the Whites. If one takes into consideration that 80% of the White taxpayers pay approximately 20% of the taxes it follows logically that 80% of the Whites simply do not make good through taxes the State expenditure incurred in respect of them. That is the important point which the hon member does not raise. [Interjections.]

The hon member says we are in the dark as to the way in which funds are being apportioned to the various administrations. In fact, he insinuated that the Whites were ostensibly at a disadvantage because the White budget is subordinate to the general budget. According to him it means that we are, for budget purposes, subject to the approval of the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates.

The question is whether it is at all possible to compartmentalize the economy of a country and its tax revenue according to population groups. The hon member Mr Derby-Lewis is shaking his head, and I can understand why the hon the Minister of Finance becomes annoyed with the hon member because he apparently does not understand. The economy is an integrated economy. It is not possible for the OK Bazaars in its general sales tax returns to keep a separate record of or pay over separately the sales tax paid by Whites, Coloureds and Indians. [Interjections.]

Order!

If we now take a look at the taxes which were paid by Whites we see that in 1985, 94—we can round it off to 95%—of the personal income tax was paid by Whites. The ability of the other groups to pay taxes has improved to such an extent from 1985 to the present that the percentage paid by Whites has declined to 88%. Surely it is in our interests and to our advantage that this happens.

Let us take a further look. The Whites are paying R7,7 billion in personal income tax. As far as general sales tax is concerned it is obviously impossible to make an exact calculation of how much sales tax is being paid by each population group. It is impossible to make such a calculation if it is calculated on disposable income which also relies on an estimate. For the purpose of the argument let us not rely on exact figures. The Department of Finance says that approximately 40% of the R8,9 billion which is being paid in GST is paid by companies on the purchase of capital goods with a view to job creation. The remainder one can divide into approximately 50% for the Whites and 50% for the rest of the population. If one were to use that calculation for the purpose of the argument it means that the Whites are paying approximately R2,67 billion in GST. It means the Whites are paying R10,3 billion in direct taxation. The hon member Mr Derby-Lewis is nodding, because he agrees with my argument.

If we then take the R10,3 billion and all the budgeted expenditure paid for White own affairs, we are spending R5 billion. Half of the Whites’ money has then been spent. It has been “blown”. At that stage not even half a cent has yet been spent on general affairs.

If we now leave White own affairs aside for a moment and we were to assume that we used the Whites’ tax revenue to pay only for security services and for the legal system which accompanies it, we are spending R10 billion. If we were to pay for the security services and the legal system and everything which goes with it and we were to use the White taxpayers’ money then nothing would be left. We would then have to take money from the other population groups in order to pay for White own affairs. The reverse can also happen. If we pay for the White own affairs budget from White money, only half of the revenue is left to pay for general affairs.

The hon member for Barberton who wants to make a fuss here about formulas and how they are in the dark about how the money is being allocated, should ask himself whether the Whites are being prejudiced in this dispensation. The answer is that the Whites are not being prejudiced.

Let us take another interesting aspect, namely excise duty. Excise duty contributes approximately R3,5 billion. It is collected in a variety of ways but I only want to refer to the excise duty on alcoholic beverages. The greatest earner of this duty in the liquor industry is beer. Of that, 80% is consumed by Blacks, and therefore Blacks are already paying 80% of the excise duty on alcoholic beverages.

The Minister of the Budget makes an important contribution on the Cabinet Committees such as those on Economic and Financial matters because he has representation on them. The Minister of the Budget also makes an important contribution on the Priorities Committee of the State President where priorities are determined and where it is decided how much is going to be allocated to them. The macro-economic policy of the Government is formulated on these two committees and the Ministers of the Budget have a say there. It is important to emphasize the point that the Minister responsible for an own affairs budget not only deals with own affairs but also has the ability to bargain for a more beneficial portion of the financial cake on the level of own affairs.

I want to conclude by telling the hon member for Barberton that in his reply to the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning as to how he defines the Whites of South Africa he made a basic mistake. He spoke of White South Africans that were becoming a people.

Becoming one people.

They are becoming one people. The hon member is using the wrong word however because they are becoming one nation. The South African nation consists of various peoples, population groups and communities. It is not possible to describe the Whites as a people. There are only White groups, peoples and population communities.

The hon member for Barberton has not succeeded in coming forward with any new arguments. As far as his initial arguments on the formulas are concerned the hon the Minister will do a thorough job of providing him with answers.

Mr Chairman, just for the purpose of the record I should like to point out that it is the tradition of this House that the privilege of the half-hour is reserved for the opposition. I am sorry that the hon member for Caledon, probably inadvertently, ignored that tradition but I hope that it will be respected in future.

May I start off by indicating that I think the hon member is right in saying that we have to look at the whole economy of South Africa in order to assess this particular own affairs Budget. That is why the inflation figures that were announced today which indicated that the inflation rate has now gone up to 17,3% and that the inflation rate for food is now 25,8%, must be of great concern to every South African. I want to stress that South Africa cannot afford to have an inflation rate in respect of food of 25,8%. It is strangling our people, particularly the poor and the lower income groups in South Africa and is, in fact, a destabilizing factor.

I believe that unless this Government takes some action in order to deal with inflation, it is itself responsible for acting as an instrument of destabilisation in South Africa.

Another interesting point which was raised by the hon member for Caledon in responding to what the hon member for Barberton had said, was the question relating to own affairs having its own money and the question of whether the Whites were paying taxation which was being used in order to assist other race groups in South Africa. That, Sir, is most relevant to this own affairs Budget in a very real context. The reality is, however, that the moment we created this own affairs concept we actually opened the door to this kind of argument because, if we treat South Africa as a whole, taxation and the resources of the State have to be applied to the community as a whole for the benefit of the community as a whole. This is why, when we deal with individual aspects of priorities and with real growth in South Africa, one has to look at the situation as a whole. One has to look at the needs of people. We are falling into a dangerous trap in South Africa in which people are beginning to say they are paying, either individually or as members of a group, a certain amount of taxation and they want it back. To my mind that has never been the basis of taxation. Taxation is levied for the benefit of the people as a whole. When one pays old-age pension one pays it to people who are in need, and taxation is paid by those people who do not have that need. The moment we begin to get into this sort of ball-game, I believe we are treading on dangerous ground.

The one who treads on such dangerous ground, Sir, is unfortunately not here at the moment. I am referring to the hon the Minister of Finance. I should like to quote what he said. He said:

That, Sir, is as racist a statement, as incorrect a statement in regard to taxation policy as anything that has ever come from the CP. [Interjections.]

Where do you find racism in that statement?

Where do I find racism in that statement?

One cannot decide that one is going to have rural people as one category of people in the White community or the Black community and urban people as another category of people, because the moment one says that, the moment one says that Tant Sannie of Koekenaap should not pay to subsidise the commuter in Johannesburg, then according to that logic we in Johannesburg should not be paying for the people in Koekenaap. It is nonsense!

But where do you find the racism in that?

If you do not see the racism, my friend, just look at yourself in a mirror, then you will see it. [Interjections.]

The question was then put to the hon the Minister: “Do you think it is fair that Tant Sannie living in Westdene pays for the farmers’ subsidy in Koekenaap?” The Minister’s answer is: “Well, if you have a tragedy like they are experiencing now, Tant Sannie can invest in having food next year and the year thereafter.” In other words, we are not just entering a field of taxation based on race, but of taxation based on separate regions in South Africa. I want to say that we are treading on dangerous ground; we are, in fact, exposing South Africa to principles which are completely unacceptable.

I tried during the Second Reading debate to get from the hon the Minister some idea of his priorities, but I still do not have the priorities which really exist in regard to his particular portfolio. I would ask him to come back to this whole question.

There is also the question of the five-year plan. The hon the Minister here is also concerned with the five-year plan because he is a participant in this plan. Now I am sure that you, Sir, will not allow me to pressurise the hon the Minister into giving me information. I am sure you will not allow me to do that, and he does not look like the kind of person who gets pressurised. However, I would like to ask him a few questions about the five-year plan, because I think they are very relevant. Is it intended that there will be any real growth in the Budget for own affairs over the next five years? That is a fundamental question, and it comes back to this issue which we debated at the Second Reading, namely whether the Whites are prepared to make sacrifices for their future. The hon the Minister has told us that he is prepared to make sacrifices, but then he has to be frank with us and he has to tell us what the standards are that are involved.

Let me give hon members an example. It is the intention, in respect of Black education, that there should be equality in education within ten years and that the rate of real growth will be approximately 12%. The overall real growth for education as a whole in South Africa insofar as general affairs is concerned, is 4,1%. With those two pieces of information in mind I ask the question: What is it intended the real growth will be in respect of education for own affairs under the House of Assembly?

Let me ask another question in regard to pensions. It is intended that civil pensions will have a real growth of 6,5% in the five-year plan. What is it intended the real growth in respect of social pensions will be in the next five years? I want to say something here, and I ask the hon the Minister to correct me if I am wrong, and I do not think that he can, namely that I think there has actually been negative growth in respect of social pensions for some years, because the increases have not been commensurate with the rate of inflation.

That is why, when I refer to the increase of 25,8% in the price of food—this is the current figure which was announced today—I should like the hon the Minister to tell us how the social pensioner can afford the necessities of life on this year’s meagre increase which is well below the inflation rate. I believe I am entitled, therefore, to ask what it is intended the real growth in respect of social pensions will be.

I also want to ask a question about housing. According to the information given us, South Africa is short of 800 000 houses. This figure applies to the situation today and does not take the increase in the population into account. Of those, the White community is short of 19 000 houses. This is a very small part of the total, but may I ask the hon the Minister what it is intended will be done in regard to that shortage of 19 000 houses? What, if anything, is planned to solve that problem, bearing in mind the real growth in this regard as well. As I see it, that information is vital if we are to be able to determine where we are going.

Let us return to the question of the formula. We have been given some rather contradictory answers in this regard. On one hand we were told that it was related to the population and on the other we were told that it was related to the following factors:

Those are the words of the hon the Minister of Finance, whatever they may mean.

I should like to ask the hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare to tell us if the formula is, as has been said, related to population; I think it is. Secondly, is it related to the needs of the people within that group for a particular service? In other words, if there are more people in a particular group than in others who are in need of assistance for housing or for pensions, for example, will the amount be pro rata or will it be fixed?

Order! I regret to have to inform the hon member that his time has expired.

Mr Speaker, I just rise to give the hon member the opportunity to complete his speech.

I thank the hon member.

†Is it intended to take the particular needs of that population group into account? If so, it will be found that the formula cannot simply be related to the population numerically. It will then be related to needs and population will merely be a factor in that formula.

We need to be told the answer to this question, because the evidence that has been given suggests that some very strange courses are being followed in this respect.

I should like to quote another set of factors mentioned by the hon the Minister:

*Again I am quoting the hon the Minister of Finance—

†In other words, to achieve this formula one uses as ingredients the population group, the need and the need to bring about parity. When we look at that situation and the position as a whole, I believe that in creating own affairs we have created a monster, because we cannot actually get an equitable distribution here which is going to satisfy everyone. The truth is that what one needs to do in any country is that when one provides social or medical services, one provides these services for the people in need of it, irrespective of their race or colour. The moment one gets involved in this own affairs and general affairs situation, one gets oneself into an unbelievable state of chaos.

I do not exactly pose as an expert on agriculture, but I want to give hon members an example as to how this chaos arises. I have here the annual report of the Department of Agriculture and Water Supply of the House of Assembly and I find it fascinating. It says here that one has to have an investigation into the determination of the value of agricultural land in the RSA. How can it refer to the RSA and call it an own affair? If hon members told me that they were dealing with the determination of the value of agricultural land owned by Whites, it would be an own affair, but they are dealing with South Africa.

In the report there are pages and pages covering a whole series of research programmes dealing with external parasites, biotechnology, fish and poultry diseases and diseases caused by blood parasites. Are these own affairs?

White parasites! [Interjections.]

I am told there are only white and red corpuscles. There are no corpuscles of other colours in the blood. I also understand from my colleague, the hon member for Parktown, to whom I must acknowledge this, that the best colour in the human body is the grey matter in one’s brain. According to him that portion of one’s brain that is white, is not so good.

Is that not blue blood?

No, if that hon member cuts his veins he will see that the colour of his blood is not blue! [Interjections.]

I can give hon members another example. At the end of this report there is a whole series of institutions for research in South Africa, for example soil and irrigation research, botanical research, citrus and subtropical research and many more.

White flowers!

Are oranges white? What are we talking about? We are playing a stupid game. The reality is that South Africa cannot afford to have duplication of research facilities. [Interjections.] There is no such thing. We cannot afford to play this stupid game. With great respect, one of the other things which might interest the hon the Minister is that not even all the people in the pictures in this report happen to be of the group with which this Committee is supposed to concern itself. We really are crazy. What we are doing is crazy!

I would like to give hon members another example. In the Auditor-General’s report that I have here there is a report which deals specifically with two things I find fascinating. The first is Groot Constantia. Why is Groot Constantia an own affair? As far as I know everybody can go to Groot Constantia irrespective of whether they are White, Black, Coloured or Indian. Visitors from overseas go there. Is it an own affair? Are we going to tell the visitors to whom we show one of the things that we are most proud of that it is a White concern that they are coming to look at? I think it is crazy!

While we are talking about Groot Constantia, let us go back to Simon and Willem Adriaan van der Stel. What they did was their own affair, but it was not a White affair. [Interjections.]

With great respect I want to say that I think we are playing a stupid game.

Let us look at another example, the Michaelis Collection. Is that a White affair? Surely it cannot by any stretch of imagination be regarded as being a White affair. We are really making ourselves look ridiculous and foolish in relation to this issue.

If I may, I would also like to touch on some specific financial matters which relate to this particular department. I would like the hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare to tell us why in fact in the financial year ended 1986 there were so many items in his administration where there were irregularities and losses of money. What was it due to? Was it because there was a period of changeover, or was it because of a lack of control? If I read the Auditor-General’s report correctly there is no doubt that rules, instructions and regulations were not obeyed. I think the hon the Minister is required to account to this House for the administration of that department and to see that this department is run properly. I find it disturbing that there are so many reports of rules and instructions not being obeyed in the department under his administration.

Mr Chairman, I do not intend providing the hon member for Yeoville with answers but I would like to refer to something he mentioned at the beginning of his speech. I especially want to react to his remarks on the increase of 25% in the price of food, something he mentioned when he referred to inflation. I am not quite sure who is responsible for that increase but I must say at the outset that I am quite sure it is not mainly the farming community’s fault.

*Having dealt with this matter, I now wish to begin with my own story. Hon members who spoke before me digressed a great deal and talked quite a lot of politics. However, I wish to revert briefly to an aspect relating to the Agriculture and Water Supply Vote. I should like to say something about agricultural financing with reference to the report of the Department of Agriculture and Water Supply which we have before us. The report covers the period 1 April 1985 to 31 March 1986. In the second place I also wish to refer to agricultural financing, with reference to agriculture in general and the problems of South African agriculture. In this regard I want to make an unabashed plea for the Western and Southern Cape. Bearing in mind the overall agricultural problems of our country I should like to say that it is with real gratitude that one mentions the exceptional assistance one obtains from this department, and specifically from the branch, or rather the directorate for financial assistance. One is particularly grateful to the Agricultural Credit Board in Pretoria and its officials for what they are doing up there and I wish to convey a special word of thanks to the local agricultural credit committee, which does this work as an unselfish labour of love. Looking at this report, to which the hon member for Yeoville also referred, there are a few things that give rise to concern, apart from those things that trouble him. On page 57 under the heading “Granting of assistance” it reads as follows:

It is further mentioned that there are schemes that have been terminated and others that are continuing. We know now that some have since then been re-introduced, and that is cause for gratitude. However, the point I wish to make, Sir—this refers to the Budget as such—is that in the first place I think that the department has too little money, and in the second place—it is with hesitation that one says this, but experience shows it to be true—too much of the money is being spent in certain parts of the country. Now there are other parts of the country that are feeling hardly done by.

The idea has arisen that if one farms in Natal, the Southern Cape or wherever, there is no money available, because the total amount allocated from the Budget is too small and this amount is then allocated to other parts. According to the new terminology in the House of Assembly one calls this concept “perception”. One does receive complaints, not only from farmers, but also from members of agricultural credit committees, that applications are simply not passed. It is pointless arguing about this because this idea or perception does exist. I wish to state that it will be an evil day when we have two things in South Africa. The one is when one farmer distrusts the other, or when one farmer sets himself up against another, wherever he may live in the country. The other is when other sectors turn their backs on the agricultural sector. I do not wish to dwell at this point on all the aid programmes and other Votes or whatever relating to aid for industry or commerce or anyone else, because agriculture does not express an opinion in that regard. My problem is that the other sectors are so quick to make statements about what is allocated to agriculture.

We in this country of ours must accept that agriculture is subject to fluctuating product prices and climatic conditions, and that is why it must be afforded assistance. For that reason I want to make an unabashed plea for the region that I come from. We are farming on the same basis as the old farmer who retired to the town—I think you are acquainted with the anecdote—and bought a hammer for R5. The next day he bought three hammers; the next day he bought seven. When the shopowner then asked him what he was doing with all the hammers, his reply was that he was selling them. The shopowner responded that that was ridiculous; people could buy them from him. The farmer replied that he was selling them for R4. When the shopowner objected that in that case he was losing on the transaction, the farmer’s reply was that that was indeed true, but that the farmer was still not losing as much as when he had been farming. [Interjections.] The State argues, and justifiably so, that a farmer can withstand just one setback. I say to hon members that in view of the production costs, and the prices of products that do not keep pace with them, one can no longer do so. In my part of the world we farm without topsoil (bogrond) or subsoil (ondergrond); only with background (agtergrond). [Interjections.] This causes us many problems. It is like the three fellows who were asked what they would do if they inherited a million dollars. The first said that he was an industrialist and that he would extend his factory. The second said that he had seldom had a holiday in his lifetime, and that he would buy a yacht on the Mediterranean and load it with liquor and girls. The third said that he had been farming his whole fife long; he would simply keep on until the money had all been used up.

That is our problem. Therefore there is just one thing that I am appealing for. It is that we obtain more finance from the Budget for this agricultural credit, that it be available everywhere, and that the interest rates should always be affordable. I know that this does not fall under this hon Minister; he should just see to it that we get enough money. In the process we can develop this branch of financial assistance into something that will really mean a great deal to our agriculture and will benefit pur country as a result.

Mr Chairman, the interests of Whites are prejudiced by the effect the new dispensation has on the total utilisation of finance and tax revenue received from Whites in that, firstly, they have already lost the right to self-determination; secondly, power sharing has deprived them of the right to decide on how money should be spent; and thirdly, the movement away from separate development has contributed substantially to the fact that the White taxpayer is not allocated his fair share if what he receives is compared with what he has to pay. Therefore, Mr Chairman, I trust that you will permit me to emphasise these three aspects.

The CP says that the NP Government has not yet found any acceptable alternative to separate development or spelt out to the people of the Republic of South Africa the full consequences of their present policy, and that the NP is gambling with the political future of South Africa in such a way that the Whites are always the losers.

An example of this is the surrender of the Whites’ sovereign right to govern themselves and the acceptance of a structure in which one loses one’s self-determination and in which the Government can no longer give any guarantee at all that each group’s claim to self-determination can be sustained in a mixed Government. This must, as far as we are concerned, be regarded as an absolute myth. There cannot be a sovereign executive authority with a second or even a third sovereign power or group.

The concept of sovereignty presupposes the idea of a unit. It can never accommodate more than one homogeneous group as a sovereign power, and it can never be pluralistic and function on such a basis. After all, joint responsibility can never be or imply joint sovereignty. The logical outcome of this was that the right to self-determination, which was established in a previous Parliament, is now divided into three. Because it is now divided into three, we have lost not only our right to self-determination but also our White sovereignty. The NP has replaced a previous Parliament with a homogeneous unitary structure with one that has a heterogeneous, pluralistic structure. Between these two structures or constitutional developments lie great differences—culturally, conceptually and in principle—especially with regard to the Indians. The NP has already accepted the fact that a homogeneous basis of common interest is no longer relevant or necessary for the establishment of a stable form of government in the Republic of South Africa. In contrast with this, the previous Parliament was an orderly, stable form of government which arose from a basis of common interest and was based on communal principles of life and concepts from Christian and Western culture, principles and legacies in which it was rooted.

This brings me to the point at which I am obliged to tell the Government that the NP is not politically honest in its statements of policy. As I have tried to explain, the statement that Whites will retain their right to self-determination in the new dispensation is incorrect; on the contrary, conflict is built into the entire system. The groups will make more and more political demands which not only will make such a situation unattainable but will also place it far beyond the financial reach and ability of the State—to the disadvantage of the White groups, that will have to bear the financial brunt. That is why I believe that the NP coalition government is turning its back upon the Whites and upon the Afrikaners in particular. The Government is gambling with the development patterns of the Whites, and the new structures are being questioned seriously by the voter. If we were to say that the NP Government was gambling with the future of the Whites, the Government would deny it strenuously.

Order! The hon member must really deal more specifically with the Votes.

Mr Chairman, as I have already said, I should very much like to give a brief outline of the three things which, in my opinion, prejudice the position of the Whites.

These clear differences among the partners are not conducive to a credible Government. It is extremely frustrating for both the leftists and the conservatives. If one part of the partnership accepts it and the other rejects it, no consensus can be reached among partners who do not represent the majorities in their respective groups. Where in the world can one find another country where Whites or groups alter constitutions so that power-sharing with people of colour…

Order! The hon member cannot continue in this vein after I have appealed to him to deal more specifically with the Votes. The hon member must really make an effort to relate his speech to the Votes.

Mr Chairman, I apologise for contravening your ruling but, as I said at the beginning, I should like just to emphasise these three points. I should like to quote from an NP document according to which separate development is succeeding, because we believe that the Government has moved away from separate development. For us as Whites, this has brought about…

Order! The hon member has a prepared speech which he is simply delivering, regardless of the ruling from the Chair. I really cannot allow that.

Mr Chairman, may I address you on this matter? This is a debate dealing with the own affairs Budget of the House of Assembly. With the greatest respect, Sir, there is, as far as own affairs are concerned, no other sphere in which those matters which affect Whites in particular can be discussed. A short while ago, for example, the hon member for Wellington spoke about agriculture. I should like to submit that that is a field which falls under this Budget. If I had entered this debate, I would have been able to discuss local authority matters, for example, because they are entirely relevant to the field of own affairs. Anything to do with money for the survival of the Whites, including the Government’s policy in respect of its new constitutional set-up and anything affected by it, is just as relevant. We are dealing here with money, Mr Chairman, and I wish respectfully to submit that what he has to say is, in fact, permissible and that you can therefore permit the hon member to elaborate on the point he was dealing with.

Order! The hon member for Soutpansberg will concede that the matters which the hon member for Nigel has been dealing with are in fact matters which are laid down in the Constitution, and that whether or not the Constitution should be amended is surely a general affair, not an own affair. I cannot, therefore, permit the hon member to proceed along those lines. If the hon member can relate his arguments to the Votes under consideration as other hon members have done I shall allow him to proceed, but I cannot allow him simply to advance constitutional arguments under these Votes.

Mr Chairman, with respect, I accept what you have said, but may I take it a little further? As far as constitutional affairs are concerned, we are now in a turbulent situation. There is not yet any clarity regarding the final objective of this constitutional situation.

Order! The hon member for Soutpansberg must really not misuse the time allocated to the hon member for Nigel and use a point of order to make a speech.

As you please, Sir. Regarding this matter, I should then like to submit that the constitutional system towards which this country is being steered has not yet been finalised, and that what the hon member for Nigel says is therefore still relevant.

Order! No, it remains a matter which should be discussed under general affairs. The hon member for Nigel may proceed.

I am sorry but, since my time has expired, I shall not go any further.

Mr Chairman, I should like to draw the attention of the House to Vote No 3, “Education and Culture”, and specifically to programme 2 which, in my opinion, is more appropriate to this debate. If we examine the annual report of the Department of Education and Culture, we shall see, among other things, that the central theme of 1986 was the unification and establishment of education as an own affair. The result of this was that the divided control of White education, which had applied for the 76 years since Union, was done away with. I should like to refer more specifically to the report of the Natal Education Department. I wish to quote the section dealing with specialised education on page 110 of the report, as follows:

One of the four schools is situated in Newcastle. Using it as an example, I should like to single out specific financial problems which, I believe, face these schools not only in Natal and in my part of the world, Newcastle, but possibly throughout the country.

The goal of specialised education is to enable pupils who, for one reason or another, have fallen behind to create new opportunities for themselves. This applies not only to pupils with learning problems arising from their intellectual ability but also to those whose problems are the result of domestic circumstances in particular which have an inhibiting affect on their development.

The broken family unsettles the pupil, retards his progress and brings about his need for specialised education. Such education is therefore directed towards the individual in order to cater for his particular problem.

Since he has already fallen behind, instruction has to be more career-oriented and thus of a more practical nature, as the pupil is often to old to take up an academic career. The subjects therefore include panelbeating, automobile repair work, welding, metalwork, woodwork and hairdressing.

It has already been proved in my own area that it is in fact possible to succeed with such pupils in these schools and that it is therefore worth the effort in order to make them useful citizens instead of burdens to the State.

Although no official examinations are written at these schools and they cannot, therefore, be assessed in the usual way in terms of the achievements of their pupils in relation to those of other schools, there are nevertheless many areas in which they can be proud of what is being achieved.

The introduction of the Std 8 group, in other words the opportunity pupils are being afforded to return to school after having attended this high school for the full four years—year levels 2, 3, 4 and 5—and take the ordinary Std 8 course on the lower level seems to have been a great success. The figures attained in this regard in respect of Tugela High School in Newcastle prove that there is a very healthy growth tendency in this connection. The growth in the number of pupils shows very clearly that there is a definite need for the course. The reason for this is that the pupil is more mature after a further year at school and that it improves the pupil’s self-image to realise that he can, in fact, pass Std 8.

These pupils are therefore given the opportunity of obtaining employment which they would not have obtained without Std 8. Since the Std 8 course is of a more academic nature, compared with the year levels which are of a more practical nature, it enables the pupil to follow an N course at a technical college.

Considering the general financial situation which exists in this country and, more specifically, in education, this side of the House has a sympathetic attitude to the hon the Minister in view of the financial challenges he has to face. However, I should like to put forward a plea for the special high schools, which have unusual financial circumstances in that they do not, in the true sense of the words, have their own parent communities. In the case of Tugela High School, more than half the pupils come from areas outside Newcastle. Pupils now come from the whole of Northern Natal, and there are even pupils from Johannesburg, Durban, Piet Retief, Greytown and Volksrust.

Another aspect I should like to emphasise is that the largest percentage of pupils referred for specialised education come from families in financial difficulty—in other words, the lower-income group. The school funds of Tugela High School, for example, amount to only R30 per child per year, and only 35% of these funds are collected annually. In view of the factors I have mentioned, I should like make an urgent appeal to the hon the Minister to take these circumstances at the special high schools into account when funds are being allocated, especially the so-called “community funded services”. I am thoroughly aware of the fact that these services must be financed by the community. I trust, however, given the circumstances of the special high schools, that arrangements can be made as and when money becomes available.

I emphasise again the fact that these schools do not have local parent communities to rely on.

Finally, I should like to convey my sincere thanks to everyone involved in specialised education. On behalf of this side of the House I should like to express our most heartfelt gratitude to all these dedicated men and women.

Order! I have been informed by the Whips that they have now agreed that all the Votes in the Schedule to the Bill under consideration, the Appropriation Bill (House of Assembly), should now be put together.

*I now, therefore, put all the Votes in the schedule for joint discussion.

†Is there any objection to our putting all the Votes together?

It is in order.

No objection? Agreed to.

*I then put all the Votes together.

Mr Chairman, with respect to the hon member for Newcastle I should like to return the debate to the broader issues of financial and political policy which underline the Budget which we are examining today.

I believe we have to view this Budget against the backdrop of the times in which we live. We accept that we live in troubled times with outwardly a semblance of peace being maintained under a state of emergency. Externally we are experiencing deteriorating foreign relations with sanctions and disinvestment as the order of the day. I mention these points, because I believe in evaluating this Budget we have to view it against that background. We experience a fragile economy with many of our people leaving. One asks the question if this Budget represents a step in the direction of restoring faith in this economy. Alternatively one can ask to what extent this Budget contributes to the solving of these problems. These questions cannot be considered in isolation, but must be considered in the context of the total political and economic equations. Our history is one of unequal opportunity with the resultant unfair distribution of wealth. Racial differences have been exploited by the apartheid policies of this Government and one does not need to search far to see the manifestations of this. The Black system of education is inferior to that for Whites with enormous differences in educational facilities. Yet in 1986 we spent R2 100 on the education of a White child and R303 on the education of a Black child.

In many instances Blacks who have been part of the economic system for generations have not been allowed to own their own homes and today are still required to pay rent. Over the years some have paid for their homes many times over. In addition group areas legislation has dictated who may live where. The allocation of land in the Cape Peninsula clearly reveals the extent to which Whites have been favoured. Many Coloured people have been forced to leave their homes in areas such as District Six and Harfield Village in Claremont. Today Black people who have lived for many years in Hout Bay and the Noordhoek Valley and who are gainfully employed in these areas are required to move to Khayelitsha many miles away where they have no prospect of getting work.

Policies of influx control for Blacks and labour preference for Coloureds have failed and have had to be abandoned or in many instances modified. Black labour advancement in commerce and industry has until recently been blocked by the system of job reservation.

Order! I would appreciate it if the hon member would deal more specifically with the Votes.

I mention that background because the key question when looking at this Budget is: How does the Government propose allocating scarce resources among its partners in the tricameral Parliament and Blacks in terms of the undisclosed or secret formulae? What priorities are set in the five-year plan which no one except the Government has had sight of?

How do they propose to close the gap between pensions paid to the various groups as well as the gap in expenditure on education that I have touched on? How do they propose to deal with the enormous backlog in Black housing? How is equality to be achieved, and at what cost and to what standard? These are fundamental questions to which we must receive answers, for if we do not have the answers we cannot objectively evaluate this Budget for White affairs only.

The hon member for Yeoville has asked the Government to come clean with the voters and to take all South Africans into their confidence. I echo this call because if we do not address these issues we are deluding ourselves and are not addressing the realities of our country. We then stand accused of avoiding the real issues at a time when South Africa so desperately needs solutions.

I do not believe it is sufficient to say that differences will be resolved by equal opportunities in a growth economy which allows for free enterprise. Far more needs to be done to address the inequalities which are already inherent in our system. We are not all starting off from an equal base. Those inequalities have resulted from discrimination over many years.

The word “reform” has been mentioned a great deal but I believe insufficient attention has been given to its meaning. Under pressure certain changes have been made to legislation but it is to be noted that that was legislation which this Government was largely responsible for introducing. However, nothing like enough has been done to redress the imbalances. Vast social, economic and political differences remain.

Fundamental reforms, for so long fought for by people like the hon member for Houghton and many, many other people, have suddenly been discovered by this Government and introduced as some inspired creation of their own. Very rarely does this Government acknowledge that the need for such reform stems from the policies of apartheid of the past.

Order! The hon member must come back to the Votes.

Mr Chairman, the reason why I deal with these issues is that they form the basis from which we must start in order to redress the imbalances which exist.

If this Government is now serious about redressing these imbalances it has to take all South Africans, particularly the White voters, into its confidence. I believe that real reform is going to require sacrifices to be made. The distinction between the haves and the have-nots in our society is a very clear one—and it is the haves who are going to have to make sacrifices.

I believe that White people have to be convinced that the prospect of a brighter future involves the need to make sacrifices now and that this option is a better one than pursuit of a co-option policy which will inevitably lead to further confrontation and conflict. Sacrifices need to be made now, and that requires courage and a common vision, namely that we as South Africans have to negotiate a future in which we all can share.

I believe that because of racial discrimination and unequal opportunity many Black people cannot see their problems being resolved under a capitalist or free-enterprise system. They are, therefore, turning to a form of socialism as being a better bet…

Communism.

… and why should they favour a system which has enabled the South African economy to grow and to prosper, but with little benefit to themselves? It is not difficult to convince them that a different way might offer a better future.

For these reasons I believe that this Government has an enormous challenge to face. It has to convince White South Africans that they will face a brighter future by making some sacrifice and by sharing, and it has to convince Black South Africans that their prospects under a free enterprise system are better than under a socialist one.

The private sector has an important role to play but it is not free to do so until Government removes the shackles of apartheid, particularly the strictures imposed under the Group Areas Act.

I want to conclude by saying that the policies on which this Budget is based inspire no confidence in the Government’s ability to meet the challenges I have outlined. To evaluate in isolation a budget dealing with White affairs only, without knowing Government plans and the basis on which funds are to be allocated, is an exercise in futility.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Pinelands certainly ranged very widely in his speech, particularly in his reference to the large gaps in the funding of education among the respective race groups. It was interesting that he did not mention anything about the rapid strides being made to close those gaps. He conveniently tried to forget about that. Regarding the hon member’s party, I can understand his concern about the people leaving this country, particularly those “Packing For Perth”. His own party has recently been experiencing precisely that problem in the Johannesburg municipal by-election. [Interjections.]

Regarding the subject of this debate, Sir, I intend to address you on Vote 3—“Education and Culture”—cultural affairs—with particular reference to the Portuguese members of our community and the Diaz Festival.

I would like to pay tribute to the fantastic relationship we have with the foreigners in our country. The Jeppe constituency is a kaleidoscope and a teeming metropolis of different people living, working and sometimes also playing together. In this regard, Johannesburg is setting an example and is a model of co-operation.

With regard to the Portuguese community, we are indeed proud to be closely associated with the various clubs of the Portuguese community in Johannesburg and particularly with the Directorate of Portuguese Affairs which is an organisation that is playing a very important role on national level as well. They have done much to improve relations in this country.

To stress the importance of the Portuguese community, I should like to remind hon members that they are the third largest White community in this country.

According to estimates there are about 650 000 Portuguese in this country and they are here to stay, come what may.

*The Portuguese community in South Africa is represented in all sectors of our economy. Indeed, the old idea that these people were mainly involved in the agricultural and vegetable industry is proved totally wrong by the facts. The time of “guavas” and “grenadillas” is gone for good.

The umbilical cord and the cultural links of the Portuguese with their fatherland, whether the mainland or Madeira, are indissoluble. The fact that relatively few Portuguese apply for South African citizenship creates a mistaken impression of his loyalty to this country. I can give hon members the assurance that the Portuguese have an great love of this country and that it is necessary to think twice before tampering with their links with their home country. In the future development of our policy, attention should perhaps be given to the possibility, if dual citizenship for other population groups is ever considered, of affording this opportunity to other population groups as well, inter alia the Portuguese. If the Portuguese could only be permitted to retain their Portuguese passports, many of them would indeed apply for South African citizenship.

During 1988, by way of the Bartholomew Diaz festival, we shall be commemorating the day, 500 years ago, when he set foot in this country. The discovery of the sea route around the Cape and the historical landing on 3 February 1488 are certainly comparable to man’s first landing on the moon. The caravel on which Diaz and his crew undertook this epic voyage was less than 24 metres long. It was a very dangerous vessel to steer, but it could sail against the wind and for that reason it was ideal for visiting the dangerous coastal regions of Africa. To commemorate this historic landing, the local community, in co-operation with the National Steering Committee Diaz 1988, give instructions for the building of a replica of the Diaz caravel. This caravel will be known as the Bartholomew Diaz. Like its predecessor 500 years ago, it is being built from timber from the same forest as…

Mr Chairman, is the hon member dealing with any Vote that is now at issue?

Can the hon member indicate under which Vote he is speaking?

Mr Chairman, I should like to refer the hon member for Pietersburg to Vote No 3: “Education and Culture”, and specifically programme 7, which relates to cultural affairs. In last year’s Budget, money was voted specifically for the Diaz Festival. I believe that that is relevant.

The hon member may proceed. [Interjections.]

Thank you, Sir. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Can we please ascertain whether you or the hon member for Yeoville is chairman of this committee? [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Jeppe may proceed.

This caravel has a rudder of 500 kilogrammes made of indigenous timber from Knysna and Mossel Bay. It is at present being conveyed to Lisbon by a yacht that is making the journey to Lisbon unaccompanied. In November this year, the caravel, like its predecessor, will leave Portugal from the mouth of the Tagus River and journey to South Africa via the Cape Verde Islands and Madeira. On 3 February 1988 it will arrive at Mossel Bay where they will disembark. The arrival of the caravel in Mossel Bay will be the culmination of the festival there, which will continue to 6 February. Subsequently the festival will move to Kwaaihoek. Port Elizabeth will be next in line and from there it will journey to Cape Town to coincide with the Cape Town Festival.

I can give hon members the assurance that we in Johannesburg will not allow this occasion to pass. We are profoundly grateful for this opportunity which is being created by the Department of Education and Culture. Johannesburg is the largest concentration of Portuguese and therefore we shall certainly wish to participate in the festival together with the rest of the country and commemorate this event. We shall even build an internal harbour at Wemmerpan and hope that the possibility of taking the caravel there, too, can be realised.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member whether he can indicate to the committee what this festival is going to cost the taxpayer?

The eventual cost will be more than R1 million but since the hon member for Losberg is so profoundly concerned, it seems to me as if this situation at Wemmerpan may be a challenge to him, in that they may establish an inland harbour there because on the basis of their policy and its development, they will in any event not carry on more foreign trade from there than from the Durban harbour. [Interjections.]

I want to emphasise that this is a South African festival and not a Portuguese festival. We urge everyone to become actively involved. If we see the voyage of discovery in its true perspective then we regard Diaz as one of our forefathers who in fact discovered the South African coast, just as Columbus discovered the American coast, and we can commemorate him as such. Once one has made a closer acquaintance with the Portuguese community, eaten prawns from Mozambique, sipped wine and listened to the nostalgic “fado”, I am sure that one will never be the same person.

Mr Chairman, it appears to me there is some confusion among hon members about the nature of this debate. After referring to last year’s Hansard it was apparent to us that the debate had covered considerably more ground. I saw very clearly now that the hon member for Jeppe made use of a deficiency here to speak about something which falls under the Education and Culture Vote. With all due respect, if one discusses culture it does cover a great deal of ground because even politics are considered to be a cultural expression of mankind. For that reason I also want to appeal to you to allow hon members to speak more widely under that item than merely on the Vote.

Mr Chairman I shall try however to abide by your ruling and to speak on Vote No 7, “Welfare and Pensions”. Since this is the first time that the hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare has to deal with the portfolio of Welfare and Pensions I should like at the outset to wish him everything of the best in the implementation of this extremely important task. Here we are dealing with the care of our aged in homes, the infirm aged, the aged in institutions, recipients of social welfare pensions as well as those who, due to advanced age or poor health, are not able to be self-sufficient. It is even concerned with neglected children or children in need of care. Furthermore it is also concerned with corrective services such as social emergency services in drought-stricken areas and so on.

Mr Chairman, it does seem strange to us on this side of the House that Welfare and Pensions, which is so closely associated with the health services of own affairs, has now been taken away from the Ministry of Health Services of the House of Assembly and falls under the Minister of the Budget and Welfare. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

The hon the Minister said that that was not correct. Well then, he must tell us what is. In the budget documents I noticed that it is only in the case of the House of Assembly that Pensions and Welfare fall under the Minister of the Budget.

It is an own affairs department. The Minister has two functions.

Oh, the hon the Minister has two functions, has he? In the other two Houses Welfare and Pensions fall under the Minister of Health Services and Welfare. I believe that is correct.

Mr Chairman, I should like to ascertain from the hon the Minister why it is only in the case of the House of Assembly that this matter is dealt with so differently to that of the other two Houses. Actually it is quite conspicuous. In the excellent 1986 annual report of the Department of Health Services—at the time it was still Health Services and Welfare—the following is reported on page 2 under the heading “Decentralisation of the Payment of Social Pensions and Allowances”:

Allow me to admit at once that my personal experience has been that there has certainly been an improvement in the processing time of applications. In the debate on this same Vote last year, the hon the Minister—who was then not yet the hon the Minister of Health Services—reacted in the following way to petitions from this side of the House and others that social pensions ought to be increased before 1 October every year, and I quote from his Hansard of 21 May 1986 (Vol 15, col 6143):

White social pensioners have again received an increase of R20 per month, but once again it only comes into effect on 1 October. With an inflation rate of between 15% and 20% over the past two years we now have the situation of the social pensions for Whites year being increased during the previous by slightly more than 8%, and this year by approximately 10%. Over a period of two years social pensions have therefore been increased by slightly more than 18% in total while the cost of living has risen by between 30% and 40% this period. It is therefore obvious that our social pensioners are gradually being placed in an increasingly unenviable position.

By way of example I need only mention post office facilities of which the elderly make frequent use, as well as the transport tariffs and the chain reaction which that causes in terms of the general cost of living of our elderly. That reaction occurs in the first half of the year and the poor pensioner has to grit his teeth and hold on until 1 October of that year in order to gain some relief. That is why I want to appeal once again to the hon the Minister and suggest that it should surely be practicable, with this computerization, to grant these annual increases earlier in the year.

I also maintain that the increases which have been granted over the past two years have very definitely placed our elderly people in an impoverished position. We find every day that the people can no longer afford their taxes, their service fees their basic necessities of life from the meagre pension of R198 per month, which becomes R218 per month only with effect from 1 October.

I therefore want to make an urgent appeal to the hon the Minister to set this matter straight and, as the previous Minister in fact promised to do, cause the White pensioner’s increase to keep pace with the inflation rate.

With the rising cost of living, social pensioners in this country are being negelcted in a dreadful way. For example larger concessions should also be made in respect of the interest on investments and the savings of the elderly, so that there can be the necessary incentive for the economically active person to make this kind of investment for his old age. As matters stand at present, he is in fact being penalised by taxes because he tries to make provision for his old age. In this attempt to become self-sufficient he often falls just outside the limits which the means test applies to him, and his attempt not to become dependent on the State is in fact futile. We must give urgent attention to assising those who want to make provision for their old age, and encourage them to do so, so that that burden on the national economy does not become increasingly heavier.

Sir, I want to turn to a matter which falls partly within the area covered by the hon the Minister of Health Services. I am glad that he is in the House because as I said at the outset I think these two things are very closely connected and ought in my opinion to fall under the same portfolio. This matter is of essential concern to social pensioners and that is why I am now broaching the subject here. As a result of the fact that pensioners are being provided with personal health services by the Administration: House of Assembly, the services are no longer rendered by district surgeons but by provincial hospitals instead as agents of the Administration: House of Assembly or by part-time medical practitioners who for example obtain part-time appointments at old age homes in order to provide their own health services to the Administration.

Order! I am afraid the hon member’s time has expired.

Mr Chairman, I am rising merely to give the hon member an opportunity to complete his speech.

It now happens, Sir, that district surgeons continue to pay visits to smaller outlying places such as Bergnek and Haenertsburg in our region. The district surgeon who has been taking care of these people for years, who knows their ailments and who has given them prescriptions, continues to come to these places. He may not however, see Whites there. Now he is only there to see Blacks. The medical services of pensioners living on remote farms and who in many cases have no transport to get to our towns have therefore summarily suspended. I have received many complaints and letters, even from district surgeons who would like very much to render that service. It appears to me that the same situation is even presenting itself even in the other two Houses, which also have their own administrations for health services. I heard a member of the House of Representatives complaining about precisely the same thing on the standing committee. I therefore want to ask that the hon the Minister—in this case, both hon Ministers—to investigate the situation, if only to ensure that that established service which is being rendered to remote communities either remains unchanged or is resumed so that those people can render the service.

In many cases physicians who have been treating these elderly people for many years, people who suffer from chronic ailments such as high blood pressure and other chronic illnesses are now prohibited from treating them. Now those physicians may only treat Black people at those clinics. This medical care which was being rendered to a specific sector of our elderly was cut off just like that. Therefore I want to tell the hon the Minister again that we should look into this matter very seriously. Both the hon Ministers who are present here should look into this matter very urgently.

There is another matter I want to raise. I am raising it with the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development, also in his capacity as Minister of Health Services. Sir, I do not think politics should play a role in this debate. I want to tell the hon the Minister that politics have no place in this debate. I want to tell the hon the Minister in a very friendly way that during the election he sent circulars to the elderly people in his constituency of Ceres. The hon the Minister will know what I am talking about. Apparently he sent circulars with their names on them to all the elderly people in which he said inter alia that it was the NP Government that increased pensions annually. [Interjections.] He said it was the NP Government that subsidised old age homes. With all due respect I want to submit that that is not correct. Nor is it acceptable to do something like that. That money is after all public money and I do not believe the NP can lay claim to it. The NP should also not create the impression among the people that if they do not vote for the NP those increases or that subsidy might be jeopardized. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister of Finance kicked up a fuss about certain statements made on this side of the House. I also want to mention that during the election we often found that poor old people had practically been threatened with their pensions being taken away from them or that their stay in an old-age home would be terminated if they did not vote for the Government. [Interjections.]

Finally, I want to return to another matter which I also mentioned last year during this debate and which I see has simply become a bigger problem. There is an enormous difference between the amount budgeted for disability benefits for pensioners of this House and those of the House of Representatives.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No 19.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.