Mr Chairman, I request the privilege of the half hour.

A few things have happened since we dealt with this Vote last year. The first is that since then Mr Harry Hattingh has taken over as Director-General of this department. We should therefore like to take this opportunity to congratulate him very sincerely on this great achievement, and also to wish him well for the future. We should also like to express the hope that his time in this post will be most fruitful and meaningful, and that he will make a really great contribution to the promotion of agriculture in South Africa.

Since the last debate on this Vote, we have experienced conditions in South Africa which serve to illustrate the diversity and uncertainty which can be encountered in the climatic and agricultural conditions of this country. This has happened on a scale seldom equalled in history.

What was possibly the worst drought in the history of this country was brought to an end—it seems to have ended, and we hope this is the case—by a flood which left the entire population stunned. This flood damaged the land so badly at certain places that it will be centuries before the scars have completely healed.

On the one hand the flood damage, which is currently estimated at R360 million, illustrated the might of nature, and on the other it revealed, as we have seldom seen before in South Africa, the insignificance and defencelessness of man and his impotent achievements and structures.

In that respect, the Government acted promptly to relieve the plight of those in distress. I think it is a fact that in the circumstances the Government did everything that could possibly be done. We on this side of the Committee would like to put on record our appreciation for what the Government did.

There is a prospect of great benefits flowing from these events when the blows which were suffered and are still being suffered as a result of the floods have become something of the past. The earth in those areas is now saturated. The underground moisture has been replenished. The underground water level has risen dramatically. In all probability the veld will respond profusely in the coming summer and, where farming lands have survived, the farmers will start the season with an underground moisture level equal to that before the drought.

Today I think we should also ask where we stand at the moment in regard to agriculture. We hope that the dry cycle has passed. In general the harvests this year have been better than they were in the past few years. In addition there is more grazing than there has been in recent times.

The fact remains, however, that there has been no income so far—that has still to come. Yet one thing is very certain and that is that the farmers have taken heart once more, and their morale is high again. In addition, they still have high expectations. This is so in spite of the fact we have not yet received money from the harvests and in spite of the fact that very large harvests are not in fact expected this year.

In the area I come from, the North-Western Transvaal, we have had droughts over a period of six years, beginning in 1982. The first drought was in 1982. It is estimated that this year’s harvest will yield 0,1 million tons less than the first harvest of the drought. For us it nevertheless feels as if something fantastic has happened, and we have taken fresh heart in spite of the fact that the harvest is not in fact a very big one. That is the first phenomenon—we have taken heart again.

The second phenomenon is that the mountain of debts has reached record heights. It is simply not possible to farm away this mountain of debts. Furthermore, input costs have risen much faster during the past few years than produce prices. The fact is that we are now at a point at which we have to produce in order to clear away these debts, while input costs are unprecedentedly high. It is a simple fact that we are now going to make much less profit than we did before the drought with harvests of the same size. I think that the redemption of interest and capital will be the great problem facing the agriculturist in the years ahead. Meanwhile, interest rates are still at a high level and all the indications are that they will rise again in the near future.

Inflation is still at a much higher level here than it is in other countries which export agricultural products. Last year certain Government spokesmen said that it was a problem about which nothing could be done, but since then the Government has in fact decided to confront this problem. I think the Government decided correctly. The Official Opposition also advocated this in the past and told the Government that the problems of agriculture could not be solved as long as the inflation rate raged on at such a high level. I also want to congratulate the Government on listening to the Official Opposition a little and beginning to tackle this problem. However, we still have our misgivings as to whether the measures the Government has taken against inflation will have the desired result.

Another phenomenon we encounter when we try to analyse where we stand is that, on account of these increased input prices, we find ourselves in the position, in respect of most products, of not being able to compete against the other export countries on world markets.

It is also a fact that the damage as a result of the drought is seven times greater in financial terms than the flood damage, even though everyone was more affected by the damage the floods caused.

In view of what happened, aid measures were introduced, and the Government also introduced aid measures in the past. The existing short-term measures include measures which make provision for production credit to farmers—as well as the six-year and ten-year carry-over schemes. I believe that these schemes served a useful purpose and should not be curtailed at this stage, because it is only now—we believe things are going to improve now—that they will show their true worth. The chances of success are better now than they have been during the past six years.

We now have new short-term schemes, the most important of which is the scheme which the hon the Minister announced on 28 March. This is the production subsidy package of R120 million for the drought-stricken areas, consisting of a production subsidy of R100 per hectare for the 1987-88 harvest, and also interest subsidies to the co-operatives, cash credit loans of ten percentage points, which they get from the Land Bank, and an interest subsidy of 5,5 percentage points on the carry-over debts of farmers.

We are of the opinion that this is a step in the right direction. It is also in line with what we advocated last year, namely that in order to have greater effect, the subsidies should not be applied at the end of the production process, but rather at the starting point in order to make their effect felt throughout the entire production process.

Secondly, we said last year that the problem was the tremendously high interest burden borne by the farmers, and that is why we think these are steps in the right direction. I am of the opinion that the future will probably show that these are the schemes which are of the greatest value. The fact is, however, that it is also CP policy to subsidise production at the starting point and in fact on a hectare basis. I want to congratulate the hon the Minister on beginning to take over the Official Opposition’s policy. He cannot go wrong if he accepts that policy. [Interjections.]

We note that the Government is taking over the Official Opposition’s policy in more than one respect, and I think they should persist. The problem is simply that they are doing so half-heartedly. [Interjections.] They are not going far enough. [Interjections.]

I want to remind hon members of the fact that on the day on which it was announced that levies were going to be imposed on diesel, for which we would have to claim, the hon member for Delmas said on our behalf that this should be done through the co-operatives. It turned out that we were right, and the authorities are now doing so. [Interjections.] The Government should really listen to us sooner. [Interjections.] They should not wait so long; if they were to listen to what we say immediately they would not make mistakes.

I would like to tell hon members that although I think it is a step in the right direction, it is very limited. It is extremely limited because it is restricted to the marginal drought areas, it is available for one year only and, when one sets it off against the interest obligation for this year, it is less than 5% of the total interest obligation. This measure which the Government is taking is therefore a limited one. The most important aspect, however, even if it is very limited, is that the measure is being applied at the right place.

In this respect I want to know—I hope that the hon the Minister will be able to give me an answer in the course of this debate—what the position of the irrigation schemes is as far as the production subsidy is concerned. Previously certain schemes were subject to quotas as a result of water restrictions, when they simply could not be supplied with water. That led to the complete curtailment of production, which, in certain cases, was probably below the production target of 40% in the past four years in comparison with eight normal years. Do such schemes also come into consideration and, if so, on what basis?

Secondly, since the hon the Minister has now announced the scheme, I hope he will provide hon members with more details of the practical implementation of the scheme during the course of this debate. The hon the Minister said that payments would start after 1 July. I assume that applications will have to be made soon, and we would like to have more details about this. How should applications be made, how will they be dealt with and how long will that take?

When the hon the Minister announced the R400 million scheme last year he said it would be finalised within six weeks. It is now clear that the necessary administrative machinery did not exist. If there had been 3 500 applications, the department would not have been able to deal with them. As far as this scheme is concerned, therefore, I want to know if precautionary measures have been taken so that applications can be processed and dealt with quickly, because that subsidy or credit will be used chiefly to repay debts and thereby enable farmers to obtain new production loans.

In the long term the Government’s land conversion scheme also has potential. In recent years farmers with an integrated livestock factor have been better equipped to resist the drought than those without. In the long run the land conversion scheme will have benefits, such as stability and a reduction in risk, for the grain areas of South Africa. There will be other advantages in the sense that if a crop fails, the plant residue can still be utilised by the livestock.

In the short term, however, one must realise that because this scheme will take time to put into practice, it will not solve the financial problems of farmers. Nor do I think, therefore, that we should expect too much from this scheme. This scheme might be overrated in the long term because, in the first place, we do not have 1 million hectares of poor agricultural land—maize land—under cultivation today. I do not think there are 1 million hectares.

Secondly, it would be fatal to convert land of high potential and plant grass there if one cannot process maize through livestock successfully. The crop with the highest potential yield is maize silage. If one cannot …

At a price!

Granted. It would be at a price. However, if one cannot achieve success that way, it will not pay to plant high potential land to grass and then think that one is going to make a success of that.

Thirdly, one should not be too optimistic. Hon members heard the other night on television that one calf could be produced on one and a half hectares. That was completely overoptimistic, and I must warn against basing calculations on such figures. One can come badly unstuck that way. I do not think the potential is that high. If it were that high, it would require high fertilisation and also the use of sophisticated implements. Then we would be precisely where we were with the maize industry; merely with a crop which cannot deliver the same yield. That is why I want to say that this scheme has its advantages, and I think that it will work in the long term.

However, I do not think that this is all we should undertake. As far as the maize industry itself is concerned, I think the greatest restructuring can take place within the industry itself. That must be encouraged too.

It is also true that in the history of the maize industry there have been only four years during the past few decades in which an average of more than two and a half tons was produced per hectare. I think we should also strongly propagate planting for optimum profit and production rather than for maximum yield and maximum profit.

The interesting results of the efforts of a study group, involving 91 farmers in the Eastern Transvaal, have become available. Those farmers were divided into three categories. The first group produced an average of 2,3 tons per hectare. The second group produced 2,6 tons and the third group, 3,2 tons. The direct costs, which included things like seed, fertiliser and fuel—interest, implements and capital redemption were not taken into account—of the farmers who produced 2,3 tons per hectare amounted to R242 per hectare. The costs of those farmers who produced 2,6 tons per hectare amounted to R322 per hectare and of those who produced 3,2 tons, R422. Their costs were therefore R180 higher for 3,2 tons per hectare than for 2,3 tons per hectare.

The interesting thing is that the margin above the costs of this particular outlay was R248 per hectare for those who produced 3,2 tons per hectare, while it was R286 for those who produced 2,6 tons; the margin of those farmers with a lower yield was R38 per hectare greater. But the advantage is that the input costs are lower and that the risk is smaller. Therefore I think the question of optimum production as opposed to maximum production is also a matter which ought to enjoy serious attention, because it was said in the past that the single factor that correlated most closely with profitability was the yield per unit. In my opinion, therefore, those two aspects should be connected. We will not be able to solve the problems in the maize industry merely by taking one approach; I think both these approaches are necessary to solve the problem.

As far as the Budget is concerned, I think it is clear that the Government still does not have its priorities straight. The amount of R610 million voted for industry subsidies and assistance under programme 6 of Vote 17 last year is to be reduced to R211 million this year. This is chiefly attributable to the reduction in the subsidy on basic staple foods. It is happening in a situation and at a time of reduced profit margins for farmers and of falling consumption of such products. This subsidy is being reduced at a time when we have experienced the worst drought ever. Before the NP came to power, it was traditional in South Africa for the difference between the producer price and the consumer price to be made as small as possible in order to keep staple foods as cheap as possible. This had a ripple effect on other agricultural products—on milk, eggs, meat and many others. It helped to keep the cost of food lower than it would otherwise have been.

It had a second effect too, in that it helped combat inflation, because wage demands and so on are not so drastic when food prices are not all that high.

The Government is cutting this subsidy in this Budget, and at a time when the other countries with which we compete in world markets are adopting extraordinary measures to prop up their agriculture. In West Germany 9,4% of last year’s budget went to agriculture. Last year the USA stabilised the farm income in maize producing areas by $135—that is R270 or more—per hectare.

That is why we advocated last year that the subsidy should be applied at the starting point on a basis which we suggested here. The hon the Minister has now taken the first small step, but I want to tell him it is time for him to take a drastic look at this situation. It is the one effective way in which we can help combat inflation in South Africa, because food, drink and tobacco make up 35% of the consumer price index. Food alone makes up 23%. If we can make a breakthrough there, we can actually beat inflation. I ask the hon the Minister again to treat this matter with the greatest earnestness. If he follows the CP’s advice again, he cannot go wrong.

In conclusion I want to say that just as in the disaster areas, where we believe the drought has passed, the drought has had its advantages too. In the first place we have now learnt to cut our coat according to our more limited cloth. In the second place the soil has rested and will probably reward our efforts tenfold in future. A third benefit is that we now appreciate the rain, and also the gifts we receive from on high, more than we did in the past. Our hearts bleed for the farmers who have fallen by the wayside, but I believe that those who have survived will be better farmers and better people than they were before. We believe that we have come to the end of this testing time, that good and golden years lie ahead for South Africa and that things will go well with agriculture again. We also believe that our fields and our land will flourish again and that the animals will thrive.

Mr Chairman, I should like to join the hon member for Lichtenburg in congratulating the Director-General, Mr Harry Hattingh, on attending his first debate in this House as the Director-General. [Interjections.]

I almost imagined that the hon member for Lichtenburg had shown a touch of responsibility in an agriculture debate. [Interjections.] I am really grateful for that. I think that if one were to overlook certain parts of the hon member’s speech, a certain emphasis on CP policy which will ostensibly be adopted by the NP, one could listen to the hon member. I am grateful for that.

I have a feeling that the Government, and the CP, can hold a meaningful debate on agriculture in this House. It is surely not necessary for us to use this debate to try to score petty political debating points off one another. I want to prove what I have said. Why was it necessary for the hon member to remark in respect of Programme 6 that there was a reduction from R610 million to R211 million, and that this reflected a failure on the part of the Government to maintain an industry like the maize industry? If he had made that remark out of ignorance, I could easily have forgiven him.

Surely the hon member knows just as well as I do why that amount of R610 million has been reduced to R211 million under Programme 6. Let us take one example in that programme. Hon members know that R134 million was used in last year’s budget to support the maize industry. However, it was not used this year. Why? The Government announced on a previous occasion that the maize industry would not only be assisted to the tune of R134 million, but would be assisted to the tune of R200 million by means of export costs.

Now I say it was malicious and wilful of the hon member to want to pass judgement on Programme 6 and not single out this specific point. Let us rather leave this petty politicking out of the agriculture debate and let us talk to one another as farmers. I think we have a great deal to say to one another.

I would like to refer briefly to the estate duty which has been adjusted in such a way that representations from the agriculture sector and, since the hon CP member referred to this, specifically from the NP agriculture group that at least two economic farming units should be exempted at agricultural values from estate duty, were complied with. With the assistance of our hon Minister and the department, the Government and the hon the Minister of Finance agreed to comply with these representations.

In consequence of the accusation which is frequently levelled that the Government accords agriculture too low a priority, I should like to comment on this. In this regard everyone will surely agree that when priorities are decided on for a national economy there are certain aspects in the South African situation which we dare not lose sight of. There is defence and military expenditure which I do not think any of us would argue should receive less priority. Because of these realities the hon the Minister of Agriculture, his department and the Government are, financially speaking, not always able to do as much as they would wish. Even when this is borne in mind, the priority which the South African Government accords agriculture, compares very favourably with that of the rest of the world. I want to mention a single example here. A certain criterion, namely the producers’ subsidy equivalent, is used by an internationally recognised organisation, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation, as well as by the Department of Agriculture of the USA to ascertain to what extent the agricultural industries of the different countries are supported by the respective governments. If this criterion is applied, something very interesting comes to light. It then transpires that as regards the maize, wheat and sugar industries, for example, agriculture in South Africa is in a better position than many other countries.

As regards the wheat industry, at present South Africa is in a better position than, for example, India, Argentina, New Zealand, Canada, the EEC, Mexico and the USA. As regards maize, South Africa is in a better position than Argentina, Canada, the EEC, Nigeria, the USA and Mexico. An opinion has been voiced regarding the amount of assistance which the South African Government gives agriculture. However, the farmers of the RSA should take cognisance of the fact that the Government fares better in respect of this assistance than all these other countries I have mentioned. South Africa’s taxpayers will have to accept the fact that in a highly competitive world the South African Government will, where necessary, have to protect and maintain agriculture by means of direct subsidies. As far as I am concerned the question therefore is not whether there should be direct State support to agriculture. The question is in what way this subsidisation and support should take place. However, this State assistance can usually have a direct effect on the producers’ approach to the basic production factors, land and capital.

For many years now the subsidising of interest has probably been the most important way in which the State has supported agriculture. The next point I am going to make may possibly not be very popular, but I should like to make it. The approach to the subsidising of interest may result in the farmer not remaining sufficiently aware of the fact that money itself also has a market price which may fluctuate. If this price of money, which is called interest, is therefore subsidised too heavily or too frequently, this can lead to the rash or injudicious utilisation of capital. It is open to debate to what extent the subsidising of interest has given rise to unrealistically high land prices, over-fertilisation and the ploughing of marginal lands.

In simple language we can therefore ask whether the farmers do not incur debts too readily, because money has in a certain sense been made cheap through the intercession of the State by the subsidising of interest. Recently the hon the Minister and his department, with the co-operation of organised agriculture, have started to adopt a new course as regards the way in which State assistance is being used in agriculture.

The new assistance scheme in the emergency drought areas is aimed at ample subsidising of the input costs which have already been incurred. In this regard the scheme compares favourably with the water quota subsidy, where compensating for input costs is also retrospective.

I am therefore appealing to the hon the Minister to continue with and develop what I feel is a fresh approach in the agricultural economics policy of South Africa. I ask myself whether it would not be better to use the large sums which accrued to agriculture in the past to subsidise interest to lessen the debt burden of farmers instead. Of course such an economic policy adjustment would have to be introduced slowly and in consultation with organised agriculture, but it could eventually help to lessen the debt burden of farmers.

I am therefore asking that assistance be more problem area-orientated and less generalised. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Fauresmith has talked about the priority that agriculture enjoys with the Government and has asked that politics be kept well out of an agricultural debate. I would agree with him—as far as possible.

I, too, would like to join in wishing Mr Hattingh luck in his new position. It is nice to see him sitting in the bay and handling his first debate of this nature.

Trying to take an objective view of the South African agricultural industry at the present time is almost impossible, because the intricacy of the problems that confront farmers is confusing to say the least and the complexity of the farmers’ financial difficulties sometimes seems to defy solution. Certain sections of the industry can only be described as disaster areas whereas other sections such as the wool industry flourish in relative prosperity.

Our climatic ups and downs are vast. Only last year we debated agriculture in relation to an ongoing and crippling drought situation. Now we are debating the question against a background of damaging floods in some areas. It tends to be either a feast or a famine.

Marketing problems associated either with overproduction or, in some instances such as the red meat section, undersupply, are continually with us and, in many cases, answers do not come easily at all. It seems to me that the Government are to a certain extent now reaping what they have sown in terms of incompetent controls and regulations in the past. The problems have escalated to the stage where in some sectors there just do not seem to be any answers at all.

Before I become critical of Government action, perhaps I should give some praise where it is due and I would like to congratulate the hon the Minister and the Maize Board on announcing the 6% cut in the selling price of yellow maize while the increase in the selling price of white maize is only 3,9% which, although regrettable, is relatively small. If we are going to fight inflation, increases in commodity prices must be restricted as far as possible. Specifically, maize is the staple diet of a large percentage of the poor and underprivileged sections of our community, and raising prices can only have serious social implications and can, in fact, politically be very damaging as well.

Huge sections of our community live very close to the breadline—to starvation level—and any increase has serious implications for them. It is regrettable that there has had to be an increase in the white maize price as this is generally preferred for human consumption, but holding the yellow maize price is significant in respect of agricultural feeds and should enable chicken, egg and meat producers to hold their price levels.

Of course, it is only the Government’s undertaking to cover part of the expected export costs which has made this possible, and Government assistance must again come out of the taxpayer’s pocket, so we are not moving towards solutions to the whole dilemma of maize production. I would say that something like 80% of the debts of maize farmers have very little prospect, if any at all, of ever being repaid under present circumstances, in spite of the good rains and better crops, because even good crops will not put the farmers in a position where they will be able to repay their debts. Even at best it will be a tremendous struggle to keep up with interest repayments on debts.

I am one of those who believe that high interest rates have not only been one of the prime causes of inflation but have also damaged, perhaps irreparably, large sections of the economy, including the agricultural industry. The President of the South African Agricultural Union, Mr Kobus Jooste, has said that a 1% increase would mean an extra debt load on the farmer of nearly R140 million, and this neutralises the R152 million budgeted for by the Government for interest subsidies. The 1% increase will undoubtedly tip many farmers over the edge towards bankruptcy, and if it is more than 1%, the results will be incalculable, and I think it is likely to be more than 1% over the next year. I would like to hear from the hon the Minister just exactly what he proposes to do in these circumstances. I will be very surprised if the future holds only a 1% rate increase.

A great responsibility rests on the shoulders of the hon the Minister and this Government—his persuasive powers with this Government. If interest rates to farmers do go up, another wave of bankruptcies will result in a further section of our agricultural community being destroyed, and I want to know what plans are afoot to prevent this. What are we going to do about it? In parts of the summer grain areas interest costs are currently the largest single cost item in agriculture, and even if inflation is controlled in respect of other input costs, higher interest rates will be the last straw.

I have already congratulated the Government and the Maize Board on keeping maize prices down to a realistic level. My other congratulations go to the hon the Deputy Minister on his announcement that a meeting has taken place to complete a draft ethical code which will contain guidelines for the humane treatment of animals used in experiments. There is no doubt that there has been considerable malpractice in the treatment of laboratory animals in certain institutions, and I believe that this ethical code must be backed by legislation as a matter of urgency. Exactly how this is to be done, I am not quite sure. The Animals Protection Act exists, but it is not comprehensive enough in that there are no guidelines as to exactly how laboratory animals should be treated. I think that most South Africans deplore the whole idea of any experiments being conducted on animals but realise that it is important and necessary for the saving of human lives. They would like to be sure that such experiments are conducted with a minimum of pain and suffering, and this ethical code could be a step in the right direction.

In view of the fact that certain malpractices are undoubtedly taking place at the present time, I would urge for a speedy conclusion to discussions and immediate legislative action, and I want to stress the necessity for urgency in bringing about legislation to enforce this code of practice. I think that it is a good action and a good thought on the part of the Government, however, and they are to be congratulated.

Having passed on the bouquets, I should perhaps now return to our problems. It is horrifying to me that it should be necessary for us to be importing both chickens and red meat, particularly in the case of chickens, where the major portion of feed is maize, of which we have a surplus. I cannot believe that the local industry could not organise better.

It has been said that foreign producers have an advantage because they pay less for maize than our farmers do, which enables them to produce chickens more cheaply. I believe, however, that this could be resolved by a more intelligent approach to marketing by chicken farmers and that we must forget the rigid approach to feed prices which brings about a situation in which we would rather export maize at a loss than feed it to local chickens which are needed for our market.

I may say that the quality of the chickens imported leaves a lot to be desired and is far below the quality of the local market. I may say too that I conducted certain experiments myself on birds imported from France and sold at what appeared to be cheap prices at our local supermarkets. The water content once those chickens had been defrosted was an average of round about 20%, whereas the water content of the local product was generally less than 10%—sometimes even as low as 5%. Prices which appeared to be cheap were in fact, on defrosted weight, higher than the local product. The whole marketing campaign conducted by these supermarkets, I believe, was dishonest and the whole operation was a total rip-off.

I want to ask the hon the Minister whether there are any regulations which govern the allowable water content of frozen chickens. If there are not, why not? In reality, when defrosted, these chickens were not anywhere near the weight paid for and they were tasteless as well compared with our local product. It escapes me entirely that our industry should not be in a position to meet market demands especially when they are confronted with a product which is marketed in a fraudulent manner, because I regard 20% water content as being nothing less than fraudulent.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Bryanston has made a very interesting speech. I should like to come back later to one of the points raised by him, viz the issue of high interest rates.

*I should also like to congratulate the hon member for Lichtenburg. In the debate on the Agriculture and Water Supply Vote I reproached him and said he had broken faith with himself. Nevertheless, I want to congratulate the hon member today. He was more or less the old Ferdie Hartzenberg we used to know. [Interjections.]

I should like to talk about input costs in agriculture. Now it is well-known that input costs in all sectors of our economy rose extremely sharply in the eighties. The reasons for this are also well-known. One need only think of exchange rates, inflation, low productivity, and so on. These are only three of the most important factors, however. Unfortunately they are all too frequently used as an excuse to make unfair profits.

In the process, I believe, agriculture probably suffered the most of all the sectors of our economy. We say agriculture suffered most. One must, after all, immediately remember that the other sectors did experience major problems, particularly when one thinks of the smaller business man and the smaller industrialist. Now the problems of the farmers have been exacerbated by a seven year drought. Other factors which exacerbated these problems were the floods, as well as product prices which did not keep pace. One of the most important reasons for this deterioration was of course the ruinously high interest rates, to which the hon member for Bryanston also referred. In many cases this still applies today.

Then I also want to make a very serious appeal for us to take another look at the Usury Act and its application. We must make timeous amendments to the Usury Act before another round of usurious interest rates sink South Africa’s agriculture once and for all. I think the time has also come for us to hold discussions with our banking sector regarding the many cases still existing today in which these tremendously high interest rates are levied, simply because these people, according to them, are high risk cases. In many cases, specifically because of their interest rates, that sector gets their capital back within a matter of four years in any case. However, in the process they ruin the farmer economically. As a matter of fact they totally destroy him.

What is more, I feel we should decide for ourselves what the term “market-related rates” really means. If it means what I think it means, I believe that matters are not going to go very well for agriculture in future.

Without belittling the efforts of any other persons, organisations and sectors, I nevertheless want to express my conviction that agriculture made the biggest effort in the fight against an increase in input costs. To give an example I shall indicate the efforts of the Co-operative Board of the SA Agricultural Union which monitors prices of 110 inputs of 22 co-operatives here in South Africa. At the same time purchase centres question all price increases. These strategies are still yielding positive results.

The first reports—perhaps that was to be expected—indicated that the prices of imported goods rose most compared with the prices of locally manufactured goods. At the moment the alarming trend is for the prices of locally manufactured goods to rise most, while imported goods are frequently declining in price. Time prevents me from going into details, but I nevertheless want to give one or two examples to illustrate how late in the day it is. The price of PVC pipes—these are ordinary plastic pipes—has increased by 36,8% in the last seven months. I want to read out the reason for this given in the Sunday Times of 3 April:

I think this is a disgraceful standpoint. This report, as I have said, appeared in the Sunday Times. Now there are further repercussions in the sense that it is the major suppliers who are the culprits and should be reprimanded.

A further major problem cropped up, namely the surcharge on imports. We always believed that this was introduced to prevent unnecessary imports and to protect local industries, but in neither of these two cases does this really apply. I feel that the third reason—ie that it is a source of revenue—is the only reason nowadays.

The fact of the matter is that nowadays an ordinary large combine harvester carries a surcharge of R12 781, which means all the taxes on that combine harvester add up to R34 385, or rather to the price of that combine harvester in 1979. Far worse is the case of the smaller vineyard tractor. It is imported engine and all because ADE does not have that kind of engine. Its landed costs are R31 543. There is an excise duty of 20%, which amounts to R6 308. The surcharge at 10% amounts to R3 145. These taxes push up the price of this little tractor to R40 996. A tractor costing approximately R31 500 now costs almost R41 000 as a result of the extra tax. The tax adds up to as much as the tractor itself cost five years ago.

The plea by agriculture is therefore very simply that, in the first place, we should take a look at the Usury Act and, in the second place, that we should abolish the surcharge on imported agricultural machinery. Thirdly their plea is for us to take a very serious look at large suppliers as parties and organisations which sometimes use their monopolistic position to exploit people. Let me say that if there is no change in the attitude of these big suppliers, the next time we make a speech we shall mention all their names and say precisely what they are doing and what they are up to.

We are appealing to the hon the Minister to broach these matters we have raised with his Cabinet colleagues and take the matter further so that we can eventually free agriculture from this stranglehold of high input costs.

Mr Chairman, I take pleasure in associating myself with the concern expressed by the hon member for Wellington with regard to the right of the farmers to exist and the things threatening this right. I should like to quote from the Government’s White Paper on the Agriculture Policy of the Republic of South Africa in which an appeal is made for the maximum number of economically self-sufficient owner-occupier farmers, and for optimum resource utilisation which includes capital, labour as well as such natural resources as land and water. It also appeals for effective market-orientated production and marketing of agricultural products.

Against this background, and also in consequence of what the hon member for Lichtenburg said about subsidies, I want to ask this afternoon whether the call from the private sector and even recently from organised agriculture for the phasing out of subsidies is feasible. Can we afford this in South Africa’s agriculture? It is a wonderful ideal, but this afternoon I should like to look at this matter in its correct perspective.

We must specifically take into consideration that the total amount used by the EEC, the USA and Japan to subsidise and protect agricultural production in those countries is double the national budget of South Africa. There is import protection, which we are not accustomed to in this country. Those states say categorically that they do this in the first place to create employment opportunities and in the second place to ensure that they are self-sufficient with regard to food because food is a strategic resource and raw material.

For that reason I want to ask whether we must now sacrifice South Africa as a guinea-pig in this competitive, highly subsidised world. I doubt it. If the solution has not yet been found elsewhere in the world, how can we suggest this as a solution for South Africa’s agriculture. However, I am not suggesting that I am a great advocate of subsidies.

I prefer to move on to the second aspect I want to discuss, namely the structural changes in agriculture which will lead to acceptable corrective steps and strategies. Let us take a quick look at what the State President’s Economic Advisory Council recommended in respect of the reconstruction of agriculture. They said agriculture’s problems were the high risk in respect of cash crop cultivation; the overutilisation and misallocation of resources, which again included natural resources as well as capital; maladjusted farming systems and an inability to compete in the market place, and the weakened ability of South Africa’s agriculture to make its contribution to a meaningful pattern of development in the rural areas with regard to national and regional development.

The problem actually lies in the fact that in the past we did not have a total farm approach. Greater emphasis must be placed on management, ie on the decision-making process on the farm, to bring about stability in respect of the utilisation and protection of this natural resource.

The Government came up with a plan to make these adjustments. Now fears are being voiced the moment it is said we are going to change over from one industry to another. Then the meat or the wool industry expresses its fears about this. The co-operatives say their turn-over is going to decrease and they are going to lose their rights of lien. On the other hand the farmer says he is afraid because this change-over calls for thorough planning on his part. He tells us that R130 per hectare and R50 per hectare for the next three years—for a scheme which lasts eight years—is inadequate. This does not give him sufficient funds to make this change-over, because he also says that this scheme does not include a sum of money enabling him to purchase livestock.

I think to a certain extent these statements are unfounded. I would like to see these adjustments supported by bridging assistance—the Government is involved in this—which will not send signals to the farmer to overreact and without allowing this assistance to be discounted in farm prices or in resource prices.

It is of the utmost importance for us to do market research and to provide the policy-maker in this country, the producer who must make the decision, the business sector and the consumer with guidance. They will, in fact, be able to make well-informed and responsible decisions in consequence of this research.

There is no industry which reacts as quickly to market signals as agriculture. Future-orientated, meaningful planning is therefore important. When one is talking about structural changes, these changes cannot be only in the hands of the Government or the man undertaking the marketing. One will also have to go to the farm. The management on the farm—the entrepreneur—will have to change his attitude and this will have to filter through to the marketer and the processor of agricultural raw material. This will have to filter through to his marketing organisations, and to the consumer too. It will have to be established in all these sectors.

I submit that we must stop complaining about agriculture and the poor position it is in, we must get out of this stereotype rut we are in and we must come up with creative ideas to bring about this change in attitude in agriculture. Structural changes follow in the following spheres and cannot be confined to the producer. One must investigate the slumbering grain market which exists both inside and outside the country. What does Africa look like? Has it really been exploited? Has import replacement and the processing and upgrading of our agricultural raw materials been investigated? Is there proper and effective co-ordination between different industries or even in the same industry in this country? That is why this diversification must take place within the managerial ability of the manager on the farm if one is advocating structural changes. This is important. He is going to determine the future progress and survival of agriculture.

These matters will lead to a balanced farming system emerging, to a balance being attained between supply and demand and to animal protein being produced in a more competitive price category of grazing. I therefore want to congratulate the hon the Minister this afternoon on the fact that in the space of six and a half months he and his department have succeeded in finalising 972 applications under this scheme and that 77 642 hectares have already been offered for the establishment of grazing. This shows that the farmers are enthusiastic about this idea.

Today I want to tell the Official Opposition that the Government will carry on implementing the objectives of the White Paper in a responsible way. The CP’s dream of writing off debts is a thing of the past. This cannot happen. We must cease plunging this industry into bankruptcy, and complaining that the successors in agriculture or the other sectors will not be interested in this industry. We must not raise false expectations in agriculture. We are applying this policy successfully because during the past three years, in spite of what has been said, only 1,6% of South Africa’s farmers have been sequestrated. I ascribe this to the successful agriculture policy of this Government.

Mr Chairman, the hon member who has just resumed his seat thought it fit to end a very good speech with a dig at the CP. I want to tell him that the Government has often accepted advice from the CP in respect of agriculture, as I am about to indicate. What he has just referred to in respect of this advice from the CP will eventually also take shape in the policy of the Government.

We are grateful for the good rains which have fallen throughout the country. We are also grateful for the aid programme which the Government has announced for flood-stricken farmers. In my constituency, which was very dry and which also suffered flood damage, we share the gratitude of the rest of the country.

We all looked forward with a degree of optimism to the approaching season, which will hopefully give agriculture the opportunity to rehabilitate. I am now concerned about future prospects—I share this concern with the hon member for Wellington—in the view of the imminent rise in interest rates.

This increase is not merely imminent; it has already taken place, and further increases are being envisaged. As far as I am concerned, this is thoroughly disturbing. If hon members were to ask me what the bigger contributing factor was in the current crisis in agriculture, the drought or interest rates, I would say that it was the interest rates. Many farmers would have been able to survive the drought, but the interest rates brought them to their knees.

That is why I want to tell the hon member for Wellington that I am glad to hear this being referred to from his ranks as well. While the other side had a dig at us, Sir, allow me, rather than having a dig at them, to point out a fact, namely that we have to ask where these high interest rates come from. I must then refer to the hon the Minister of Finance, who said in 1984 that he would not interfere with the rising interest rates because he wanted them to put a damper on inflation.

I am glad that the hon members now agree with us. I am also glad about the fact that they have taken the CP’s advice. As there is already a threat of further increases in the interest rates, I want to appeal to them and their hon Minister to talk to the hon the Minister of Finance and not to allow a repetition of what has happened already. There are farmers today who are still paying interest rates of 16% to 20%. If the interest rates are going to run rampant again, I do not even want to contemplate the state of agriculture in a year’s time. I want to tell the hon the Minister of Finance that he must address this problem very soon and very seriously. We know that once interest rates start rising, it is impossible to get them to stop. At the moment the prime lending rate is already 14%, and it could rise to a maximum of 22%.

Together with that, the hon member referred to another matter, and this is something else which adds to the burden on farmers—I want to endorse what he told me—namely the question of price increases which have probably added a good 10% to 15% to farmers’ costs since the beginning of the year.

If it is true that the economy is overheated and has to cool down again, I think the Government should bring this about in some other way than by simply allowing uncontrolled interest rates.

I again want to refer to something which the hon member for Wellington said. I do not know whether we are like fools today, in that we do not differ. All I want to say is that we have the example of the Usury Act, which pegged the interest rate at 12,5% for many years. This had the positive result that investors, rather than letting their money work for them in the bank, actually invested their money in the sector which could be called the entrepreneurial sector.

I shall now refer more specifically to my own constituency and to all those drought-stricken areas in which farmers now have to sort themselves out and get going again after the drought. Many of the farmers in those drought-stricken areas have to start from scratch by replenishing the livestock on their farms with livestock. The unit livestock prices of the Land Bank and the Agricultural Credit Fund are not in line with market livestock prices at all. I think a large stock unit, according to the Land Bank, is worth more or less R600 at the moment. I am not sure of that, but that is what they told me. I want to tell hon members that it is not easy to get even a weaner for R600 at this stage. This means that those buyers are dependent on the banks for the additional financing of their livestock purchases. Here again the interest rates become a factor. There are certain crop farmers, in particular those who had more permanent crops, and who have to replant parts of their orchards, who are faced with precisely the same problem.

I want to refer next to the conversion of low potential grain lands to pasturage. I think that the idea is sound, and that we must get away from overproduction. It does not apply only to maize.

On the television news programme we recently saw how the green revolution was taking place throughout the world. We saw how the greater part of the Third World, excluding Africa, was experiencing a green revolution. I feel this should be a warning to all grain producers. For me the most striking example is what is currently happening in India and communist China, and that is indicative of just one thing, namely that grain exports will probably diminish in future.

If our pasturage strategy is going to result in an overproduction of red meat after five to seven years, I must ask, in that regard, whether the department has made projections and what its contingency planning is. We can learn from the experience of the European Economic Community, which faces a big problem in this connection. However, I think their problem involves dairy products more than meat. I think that by monitoring the situation properly, the department might be able to determine a tendency to overproduction and then motivate the farmers, let us say, to switch from meat to dairy products. Even better, as far as cattle are concerned, there should from the outset be greater concentration on dual-purpose breeds. Milk, butter, cream and cheese must be restored to their place of honour in our refrigerators.

Order! Is the hon member now going to breed dual-purpose Bonsmaras?

I actually do not believe in selling milk through a separator. I would rather sell it through a nice fat calf, but there are Bonsmaras which are very good milk producers. While we are on that subject …

Advise the Chairman to buy Bonsmaras!

No, I do not want to advise the Chairman to buy Bonsmaras. [Interjections.]

I want to tell the hon the Minister that only cattle are being referred to with regard to this pasturage conversion. I think there are probably parts of the pasturage area which could be very satisfactorily stocked with mutton sheep, and wool sheep too. With this particular temporary Chairman in the chair, I should point out, though, that people have been put off wool sheep so badly that they do not even think of starting with wool sheep. They cannot meet the prices of wool sheep. [Interjections.] I want to suggest quite seriously that we should not place so much emphasis on cattle, but should also consider wool fanning on these reclaimed pasturages.

In conclusion I want to touch very briefly on another point, and that is the labour problem of our farmers. We hear from all quarters that farmers are experiencing serious labour problems. I think one of the causes is to be found in the unemployment support offered by the Government, including assistance to the independent neighbouring states. As a result, the farmer is obliged to mechanise and, once he has done that, he does not go back to manual labour. I am concerned about this tendency in a country like ours, with its oversupply in the labour market. The South African farmer is one of the biggest providers of employment, but he does not have the ability to compete with unemployment allowances. I think this is a matter which should also be discussed by the hon the Minister. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, in his characteristic way the hon member for Soutpansberg today turned good news into bad. He was speaking about the good rains, for which we are grateful. Then he spoke about the upswing in the economy, for which we are also grateful. He also discussed the overproduction of red meat. These are all good things, but then he said that the good was cancelled out by the interest rates, and that the Government should exercise control over the price increases, inflation and other problems he saw in agriculture.

The hon member spoke as though it were very easy to control this supply and demand of money in a growth phase in the economy and place a damper on it. If the hon member has any good suggestions in this connection we shall gladly listen to them, because we admit that the high interest rates are having a serious effect on the farmers. All the hon member need do is to give us suggestions as to how to solve the problem instead of merely referring to it indirectly.

In regard to the conversion scheme of the hon the Minister, which we are all very pleased about, the hon member spoke as though only cattle had been mentioned. No mention was made of cattle. The hon the Minister made repeated reference to the present high wool price. This is one commodity we shall not easily be able to oversupply in South Africa, and not in the world either. You will be aware of this, Mr Chairman. I just want to demonstrate to hon members what has happened during the past few years. In 1948, for example, there were 46 million wool-bearing sheep in South Africa. Ten years ago there were 36 million and today there are only 26 million. There are not as many serious hazards in promoting this industry.

The hon member said there was an over-production of red meat, but I do not think it will happen all that quickly and easily. However, we shall probably have to take a few steps in respect of this problem. If we look at what is happening at the moment we see that the prediction by the Meat Board is that there will be a shortage of 80 000 to 90 000 tons this year. To counteract this shortage, 2 000 tons of factory meat per month are being imported at the moment, and this has been the case since 1986. In addition 500 tons of hindquarters and 200 tons of biltong meat are being imported per month owing to major shortages.

The hon member for Bryanston referred to chicken that is being imported. I am also upset about this, but it proves to me that the ratio between red meat and white meat has deteriorated to such an extent that there is a heavy demand for white meat. The people want it because they have grown accustomed to it. That is why I would like those of us who are in the meat industry to take a look at a few problem areas in the industry.

I want to congratulate the Meat Board and its General Manager and Deputy General Manager sincerely on their new initiatives. I really admire them for having said that we have a very good product and that we are going to promote it. They linked up very successfully with the “Trim Week” and the “Fitness for Fun” campaign of the red meat industry. Eleven million people were reached by this programme, and 300 towns are participating. The motto is “The quality of life can be improved”. Red meat was associated with fitness and as far as the nutritional value of red meat is concerned—after all it is alleged that red meat is a health hazard—tests have now been carried out at a university in Australia in which it was proved that beef cuts contained 50% less cholesterol and fat than chicken. The American Heart Foundation found that red meat was essential and that it was also nutritious. The Meat Board therefore accepted the challenge and said that they would co-operate with certain organisations in carrying out tests to see how red meat fared. Red meat fared the best, and that is why I want to congratulate the Meat Board.

With red meat the two most important considerations are price and quality. We must really all co-operate to see about the price. There must be no recriminations, because if we are going to price ourselves out of the market, it is the consumer who is ultimately going to pay the heaviest price. Prices are determined by supply and demand and the present shortage is no secret. Consumer resistance is already building up against red meat.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: I do not think there is a quorum.

Order! Would the Secretary please establish whether there is a quorum.

Quorum

The attention of the presiding officer having been called to the absence of a quorum, the division bells were rung.

A quorum being present, debate resumed.

Mr Chairman, as far as quality is concerned there are matters such as grading to which we must give thorough attention. For example the red meat industry is being criticised for having too many grades and it is being proposed that there should perhaps be only four grades. Housewives are not very knowledgeable about the grading system.

We must try to reduce prices in the long term and therefore the supply must be increased in the shortest possible period. The present dealers must also absorb part of the price increases. There are 6 000 retail meat merchants in South Africa and we must ask ourselves whether there are enough retailers and outlets. If this industry is compared with the white meat industry, it appears to be lagging behind.

Mr Raymond Ackermann of Pick ’n Pay has stated that there are dealers making 72% to 93% clean profit in the meat industry. We must give attention to that. We must try to retain the buying power of Blacks and their preference for red meat. We must once again produce meat per hectare from the veld, because the cheapest way of producing red meat is by means of good grazing, and that is why we support the conversion scheme.

We must give attention to inspection and re-inspection fees. There are constant complaints that municipalities charge re-inspection fees. This practice is continuing without steps being taken against them. I want to point out that the farmers receive a floor price based on supply and demand, but 15% of their price goes towards a transportion, agents, commission, grading, slaughtering costs and insurance. For that reason we say that costs must be reduced.

There are complaints that levies are too high and must be lowered. In the case of cattle, for example, the municipal levy is at present R12,50, the contract fee is R4 and the levy R10,39. All these factors cause a reduction in slaughtering, thus reducing the amount of beef available which ultimately leads to price and cost increases.

Finally I want to say that the Meat Board consists of 13 members. They serve for a period of three years and are appointed by the hon the Minister in order to furnish him with advice. The Marketing Council also advises the hon the Minister. The Eloff Commission singled out one aspect and said that the Meat Board’s lines of communication with its producers were not what they should be. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is a great pleasure for me to speak after the hon member for Vryheid. It is interesting that the hon member spoke about red meat and that the red meat producers’ congress which is being held here in Cape Town at the moment. I am not going to elaborate on what the hon member said because my time is unfortunately too limited, but I must point out that it is tragic that in an agricultural debate here in the Committee we have to have the bells rung to summon hon CP members back to the House so that we can have a quorum. [Interjections.] The hon member for Schweizer-Reneke is a new member in this House who has an agricultural constituency which, to the best of my knowledge, is experiencing great difficulties, but that is the problem with the hon members of the CP! [Interjections.] They have succeeded in inculcating negative attitudes into the farmers. When the hon member for Lichtenburg takes the floor, he speaks about the North-Western Transvaal as if it were South Africa, and if the farmers in the North-Western Transvaal are having difficulties, then all the farmers in South Africa are having difficulties! [Interjections.] That is how that hon member speaks about agriculture in this country.

I do not want to doubt for one moment that there are farmers in this country who are having difficulties. Yes, Sir, there are many farmers who are having a very difficult time of it. There are even industries which have had a difficult time of it, but for each of those farmers and for each of those industries a scheme has been established, so much so that I think that at times we are suffocated by all the schemes that exist to assist the farmers. In this green file about 18 to 20 schemes are listed, but those hon members refuse to read this file, and it was very clear in the previous debate that they do not have the faintest idea of what this file contains.

At one stage the hon member for Lichtenburg said here that the majority of farmers in South Africa were going through a very bad patch, and that only a small group of them could continue to survive. Then he said that I had misheard him, but he should consult his Hansard, because there it is stated very clearly. On 15 June 1987 the hon member for Lichtenburg said the following (Hansard: House of Assembly, 1987, col 1469):

Today I want to reverse that statement and say that I think that things are going well for the majority of farmers in South Africa and that there are a small group of farmers who are really having a lean time, and those hon members do not have to concern themselves about that, because the hon the Minister of Agriculture is ensuring that those farmers will be kept on their farms.

Things are going very well for farming at the moment, and I am saying that this is specifically the case because the Government has done its duty as far as the farmers are concerned. I want to quote a few figures which have come to my attention over the past few days, figures which indicate in what a really good position agriculture is at the moment. The first official crop estimate indicates an overall maize crop of 7,33 million tons, as against 7,004 million tons for 1987-88. That is an increase of 4,6%.

As far as the winter-grain industry is concerned, the latest estimate of wheat purchases by the Wheat Board is 3,004 million tons as against the estimate of 2,836 million tons during LANVOKON 88.

In the potato industry the total crop for 1988 is estimated at 75 million bags as against 71,5 million bags in 1987. Since we are now speaking about the potato industry, I receive the prices from the fresh-produce markets every day. Let us look at today’s market prices, and this has virtually been the trend for the past few months. Johannesburg: 35 000 bags offered, grade 1 large—R12-14, grade 1 medium—R10-13; Pretoria: 34 000 bags offered, grade 1 large—R13-14, grade 1 medium—R11-14.

You people are really coining it!

Yes, Sir, we are really coining it! I do not doubt that for one moment, because things are going well for the potato farmers in this country, but that is so because the Government has helped them.

So I could continue. Let us look at the dried bean industry. The crop is estimated at 77 252 tons, as against the 65 806 tons in 1987, an increase of 17,4%.

As far as the grain sorghum industry is concerned, the crop for 1988 is estimated at 562 971 tons, as against the 595 505 tons in 1987, which means a higher yield per hectare for 1988.

So I could continue. I could refer to each of these industries individually. Let us focus attention on the meat industry, however, which the hon member has just spoken about. During February 1988 meat prices were approximately 27,8% higher than in February 1987. The price of lamb showed an increase of 21%. Mutton prices for February 1988 showed an increase of 18%. In February 1988 the price of pork increased by 12,3%. So I could continue.

The picture is very much the same for tobacco. Unfortunately the hon member for Parktown is not here at the moment. I think I have bad news for him. In spite of his arguments that people should smoke less, the consumption of tobacco has increased by more than 6%, whilst the production of tobacco will be more than 25% higher than in the previous year.

I therefore think that farming in South Africa is in a much better position at the moment, specifically as a result of the schemes and the assistance made available by the Government. It is true, of course—the hon member for Fauresmith concluded his speech with a reference to this—that we should guard against focusing all our attention on problems in agriculture. We should focus far more purposefully on agriculture. We should also guard against agriculture in South Africa merely revolving around subsidies and assistance schemes. While we are talking about nothing but subsidies and assistance schemes, there are many other wonderful things happening in agriculture for which the Government is responsible.

I myself am a farmer, and I think the time has now come for us to strengthen the image of the farmer in South Africa. The time has come for us to tell the world at large that South Africa has the best farmers in the world. What is more, we must tell the world at large that South Africa has the best organised and best planned marketing systems in the world. The 14 fresh-produce and national markets where we market our fresh fruit and vegetables are absolutely unique in the world. There has been considerable growth in the turnover in these markets over the past three years. I should like to furnish the figures. This does not only apply to the turnover, but also to the quantities sold. In 1985 the turnover was R602 million. In 1986 it was R711 million and in 1987 it was R822 million. The 22 agricultural boards have not only brought order and stability to agricultural marketing as far as the producers are concerned, but has also brought order and stability to marketing as far as the consumers in the country are concerned.

If someone were to tell me today that we have too many of these boards, I would have to agree about our having too many administrations for these boards. I want to refer to the amalgamation of the administrations of the Potato Board, the Dried Bean Board and the Grain Sorghum Board, a process which was very successfully implemented. I think we could very profitably examine a few other boards too.

Unfortunately my time has almost expired. I want to conclude with this one significant appeal. These agricultural boards are not merely engaged in marketing. Nor are they only engaged in control. They are also engaged in research. Let me refer to the Potato Board’s wonderfully successful scheme involving stock seed potatoes. I also want to refer to the small-grain centre at Bethlehem, where I know that the Wheat Board is making substantial financial contributions. All I want to ask today is that when the economy permits him to do so, the hon the Minister must please implement the announcement he made on occasion, through the previous Director-General, Dr Aggenbagh, so that that small-grain centre, which does some of the best work in the world, can be upgraded to the status of a full-fledged institute. I hope the hon the Minister will give attention to this.

Mr Chairman, I thought for a while that peace had broken out in this debate between the CP and the NP, but it surely did not last very long. Listening to the hon member for Bethlehem, who said the farmers were so well off at the moment, I can only say that he merely has to look at the level of agricultural debt in South Africa for it to make nonsense of his statement. [Interjections.] There are farmers who are reasonably prosperous … [Interjections.] Farmers in South Africa are for the most part having a struggle. There are many farmers who are reasonably well off at the moment—wool farmers, for example—but even they are going to have to face up to an increased competition …

What about the pineapple farmers?

What about the pineapple farmers? I do not know anything about the pineapple farmers. That hon member obviously does. [Interjections.] It is, however, not at the level of agricultural debt … [Interjections.]

Order!

That hon Minister knows, and those hon members opposite know, that the farmers of South Africa are not well off at the moment. [Interjections.] However much they shout and heckle, it makes no difference at all. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, when I spoke earlier during this debate I criticised the situation which allows us to import inferior grades of frozen chickens thus using much needed foreign currency when we export the main component of chicken feed at a loss. I am referring to maize. If the Government is going to subsidise—and it is subsidising in respect of many aspects of the industry—surely it should be possible to subsidise the costs of feed to chicken producers rather than see ourselves being forced into exporting that feed. I do not actually believe that to be necessary because I believe this industry can stand on its own two feet and compete with anyone provided that one compares like quality with like quality.

When it comes to the question of red meat which was also discussed by the hon member for Vryheid, I am equally distressed that we are forced into importing to keep prices down. I realise that farmers are building up their herds after the prolonged drought and that this is part of the problem. On the other hand, I believe that production costs in terms of feed could be cut by making use of South African produced maize to feed less South African cattle, sheep and pigs. Less maize would then have to be exported and South African consumers and farmers would benefit. Perhaps I should embroider on that statement because the hon the Minister is looking somewhat confused.

It seems ridiculous that foreign farmers can produce more cheaply because if, for example, they use maize imported from South Africa, that maize will cost them less than it costs South African farmers. Undoubtedly, therefore, they can produce red meat more cheaply as far as that component of feed is concerned because they are paying less for their maize. Again I feel that the answer to this lies perhaps in subsidising maize feed to South African producers of red meat. [Interjections.]

Have you heard about dumping?

Yes, I have heard about it and I am going to talk about it. I actually believe as does the hon member for Vryheid that there is a danger that red meat is going to price itself out of the market. White meat is benefiting and, unless something is done about bringing down the cost of red meat to the consumer to more reasonable levels, red meat will become more and more of a luxury to the average consumer. I say that part of the production costs of red meat is in respect of maize, much of which is being exported at a tremendous loss.

I may say at this juncture that I have been quite impressed with the whole approach of the Maize Board to their problems. I believe that they are imaginative in seeking solutions, and I can only wish them well in what appears to be an impossible situation. However, I still feel strongly that the present levy system encourages white and red meat producers to grow their own maize rather than to leave production to the traditional maize producers. By growing their own maize, chicken farmers, for example, can produce their own feed without having to pay the export levy, and therefore it is much cheaper for them to operate in this way. This then leaves the traditional maize producer with a smaller market and there is more maize to export.

It is not all that many years ago that the South African Government regarded our ability to produce agricultural surpluses as a major economic and political weapon with regard to our international situation. Only yesterday during the appropriation committee debate on Environment and Water Affairs the hon member for Wellington still seemed to hold that opinion. In fact, in some areas our overproduction has become a crushing economic burden and a drain on the country’s resources. When one steps back and looks at the situation, one realises how ridiculous it is that adjoining countries such as Mozambique which are desperately in need of commodities such as maize are not being aided by South Africa to meet their shortfall. Because of a chain of circumstances millions of people are starving in those neighbour countries, and the political situation is such that we cannot use our surplus foods to help resolve our differences. I can only suggest that if we are going to negotiate a new Mozambique accord we should attempt to help our neighbours when it comes to feeding their starving populations. It is a tragedy that circumstances are such that we are unable to be a part of the answer for that unhappy country. Millions of dollars in foreign aid from the Western world are being poured into Mozambique, and I would be very interested to know whether any of that foreign aid is buying South African products for Mozambique.

We are building up to problems of oversupply in the wheat industry in that local production is likely to exceed local demand by about half a million tons this year. The prices that can be realised on the export market are lower than the present consumer price on the South African market, and the South African producer price is inevitably going to have to drop. The Wheat Board does not have the funds to handle huge surpluses in future and so, without subsidies from Government, prices to the producers will have to drop drastically. This means that major problems lie ahead for wheat producers, who have already been warned not to overplant. What a tragedy it is that while most of Africa is starving, we have to tell our farmers not to produce!

Of course, many farmers who have grown grain in the past are being encouraged to grow other suitable crops, and this has already been referred to during this debate. In the course of time it is quite inevitable that we will reach saturation point with regard to sunflower seed production. We are going to work ourselves into a situation in which we will be overproducing in respect of all alternative crops. If we cannot market our surpluses at an economic level, what is going to happen to our farmers in future? In a sense, they are being punished for being efficient producers.

The hon the Minister and this Government are left with an overriding problem. How can we compete on international markets when inflation has pushed the producer price up to uneconomic levels? As the hon the Deputy Minister has pointed out, many countries subsidise farmers on a much larger scale than we do to enable them to dump their produce onto the market at sub-economic levels, but we simply cannot afford to do this. Our Treasury must have other priorities and it has severely limited funds; it is taxed to the limit right now. In these circumstances, what are we to do?

It is obviously imperative that we do everything possible to cut both production and marketing costs to enable our produce to become more competitive. The first major step in this direction is to control inflation. I believe the Government is making a genuine effort in this field, although it will have to cut back State spending to a much greater extent if it is to be successful. The second step—this is a subject to which other hon members and I have already referred—is not to allow interest rates to escalate any further. Any increase will destroy yet another section of the farming community.

As far as marketing costs are concerned, I believe that something has to be done to rationalise the activities of the various commodity marketing boards. As the hon the Minister knows, I am not one of those who shout that we must get rid of controls in agriculture; I do not believe that. We must have controls, but I believe that some of the activities of the marketing boards can be rationalised. For example, the hon the Minister should look into the possibility of merging the Maize, Wheat and Grain Sorghum Boards into a single cheaper and more efficient unit. This is but one example of a rationalisation process which I believe could be applied to other boards.

The next step in bringing down costs is, of course, to get rid of the costly and cumbersome duplication of effort and services in respect of the own-affairs concept in agriculture. Naturally we will get nowhere on this subject during this debate, but South Africa simply cannot afford such nonsense. Even as a political answer it makes no sense, and the costs involved are damaging the interests of all South African farmers and prejudicing their ability to compete on world markets.

The final step is one the hon the Minister cannot take on his own because it does not involve him alone. We have to reform politically. We must get rid of apartheid and create a situation in which South Africa is no longer the pariah of the world and is welcome and able to compete on international markets on an equal footing.

Mr Chairman, it was interesting that the hon member for Bryanston concluded his speech by bringing agriculture into the political arena. I must say that when the hon member set out to expose the problems in agriculture, I was listening with quite some excitement to hear what kind of solution he would propose. I would also like to refer to the wheat and bread prices.

I would just like to tell the hon member for Bryanston that when one looks at the marketing cost in the wheat industry, one sees that it is the lowest in the Western World. It costs the South African consumer less than half a cent per loaf to administer and do the marketing through the Wheat Board. I think our secondary wheat industry is the most cost-efficient in the Western World. There is no question about it and they should be commended for being so effective.

Mr Chairman, I would like to elaborate on the subject the hon member referred to.

*Self-sufficiency in basic food production has always been the good policy of this Government in the Department of Agriculture. In its policy approach for many years the department adopted a stimulating price policy as regards the basic foods in South Africa, until the largest agricultural industry in South Africa, the maize industry, started producing a surplus a number of years ago. The wheat industry developed far more slowly, but last year because of a record crop it found itself in the same position.

Obviously it is a completely new experience for the Wheat Board to handle this surplus position. It is apparent—and this is what is interesting about this—from the Wheat Board’s figures that this surplus of approximately half a million tons was not produced in areas which were not traditional wheat-producing areas. It was produced in the ordinary wheat-producing areas. This can be explained by the fact that last year there were peak yields in all the wheat-producing areas, with the exception of two. This is where the surplus came from. According to the predictions for the new crop it would seem as if we are going to have another surplus.

The entire situation has a great influence on the primary producer’s net farming income position. It influences the margins of the millers and the bakers and obviously it has an effect on the consumer. As a result of the State’s involvement in the consumer subsidies the hon the Minister is unfortunately involved in dealing with this entire problem, and this is an uncomfortable, difficult situation which I am not happy about. As a matter of fact, when a structural change takes place in the largest agricultural industry in South Africa, there is virtually no agricultural industry which is not affected by this. No matter how unpopular this may be, during such a structural change in agriculture, particularly when it affects the consumer, and when the agricultural industry is exposed to the trends on the world market, the State cannot and certainly will not remain totally uninvolved.

Self-sufficiency and even a small surplus of basic foods is in the interests of the country in the long term. Under the present circumstances a contribution by the State to the wheat industry in the form of a subsidy is justified because the production of food inside the industry cannot be developed on the basis of the dumping prices on the world market. The hon member for Cradock referred to subsidies. He pointed out that it was not feasible to accede to the call for the phasing out of subsidies in agriculture. I agree whole-heartedly with the hon member.

The wheat producers of the USA and the EEC are subsidised at the current rate of exchange by R180 per ton of wheat in the case of the EEC and R90 per ton in the case of the USA. In contrast the South African producer—actually the consumer—is subsidised by only R77 per ton if the subsidy is R100 million and we take …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May I draw your attention to the absence of a quorum in the Committee?

Order! I request the Secretary to ascertain whether there is a quorum.

Quorum

The attention of the presiding officer having been called to the absence of a quorum, the division bells were rung.

A quorum being present, debate resumed.

Mr Chairman, the point I want to make, is that the South African consumer is only being subsidised by R77 per ton of wheat, if we take into account the actual crop needed for the making of bread. If we take the entire crop of say 3 million tons into consideration, the South African consumer is only being subsidised by one third of the amount by which the USA’s consumers are subsidised.

In Cape Town 50% of the total standard bread consumed is brown bread, which is the subsidised bread. Blacks consume 72% of the total subsidised bread. As urbanisation takes place bread consumption will move away from the subsidised bread to the consumption of white bread.

The point is that the State subsidy on brown bread brings relief in the right place, namely that part of the population with the lower income. As is the case with the farmer, the milling and the baking industries are also trapped between, on the one hand, the understandable wish of the Government for the bread price not to rise too much, and on the other the State’s limited ability to keep on subsidising a basic food. It will probably be possible for the milling and the baking industries to absorb most of the cost increases in the industry for one year, but when other costs rise, such as interest rates to which reference has been made in the debate, and when the consumer subsidy is phased out, things become increasingly difficult.

The primary producer is in the same difficult position that to a very great extent his input costs are rising, owing to the rate of exchange and the protection of local industries, to a level where he is no longer able to bear the burden of protection alone.

I maintain that when local industries under Government protection allow the cost of inputs to rise to virtually untenable levels for agriculture, one is justified in saying that the development of basic food production in this country cannot be based on the heavily subsidised dumping prices in the world market. Unfortunately the bread price will have to help to carry the costs of local wheat production. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I take great pleasure in following my colleague, the hon member for Caledon. What he said made a great of sense, like all the facts being discussed by the agriculture group in the NP.

It is a great honour to serve in that group, and it is a pity that the opposition parties cannot listen in to discussions from time to time.

†The farmers of Natal are very thankful for the flood relief measures that have been announced to date. I think the Orange River and Free State farmers are also very happy with the hon the Minister’s announcement last night. However, I would like to ask the hon the Deputy Minister whether the measure applying to the purchase of livestock—where all the livestock was lost—and also the measure pertaining to the re-establishment of cash crops will also apply to Natal. I look forward to his reply.

*I should like to devote my speech to the importance of communication in agriculture, the necessity for good organisation in the dissemination of the information needed for decision-making and for the promotion of confidence in and around agriculture. It is all too easy to ask at the farmers’ association level what one gets in return for one’s financial contribution to the associations. It is not only new farmers who regularly ask for this. Actually this amounts to an accusation. Is such an accusation justified? Is it simple short-sightedness as a result of ignorance, or is it a safety valve where the farmer gets the opportunity to review his position critically in the company of his fellow farmers?

If we answer the second question we have accepted that this is probably the most important point of contact linking the farmer to organised agriculture.

The man who goes farming, occupies not only his farm and the environment, but through the commodity he produces, he actually ventures out into the world. At local level organised agriculture and the farmer’s co-operative are the two aspects which together make his undertaking possible, but only if through his own exertions and sufficient education, training and managerial expertise he becomes part of these two.

An example of what can happen if the farmer does not become involved are the grievances which led to the Tractor Rally in Natal. Frustrations which contributed to the rally were, inter alia, excessive regulations which prohibited the distribution of fresh milk in bulk as well as the sale of red meat in cafés and shops; the prohibition on farm-processed meat products, the closure of local abattoirs, the control of farmstalls, the transport permit system, consumer prices and production inputs which were not controlled whereas producer prices were, and the fact that marketing boards were being accused of controlling and not marketing.

To summarise, these are all grievances which have since received serious attention from cooperatives, the SA Agricultural Union and its provincial unions, but more important than that was the message of the hon the State President who after years of intervention was able at the opening of Parliament to announce steps regarding deregulation, privatisation and measures to combat inflation. This is practical proof that line function in agriculture and a government which understands agriculture, lay the foundation for a good future. If these principles are pursued in that everyone puts their shoulders to the wheel, matters can only improve in future.

The farmers involved in the Rally discovered one important truth, namely that they should become involved in their own organisations. In the interim the marketing boards have also come to realise that the various commodities cannot be marketed in isolation; the decisions of one will always affect the others. On the farm itself there is a new acceptance that one cannot simply be a maize farmer under all circumstances but that one must adapt.

Agricultural trends abroad are being studied in order to bring local production into line with them, and a new market-orientated approach is the order of the day among our agricultural leaders.

Politics in the determining of prices of commodities is a thing of the past. The writing-off of agricultural debts, which is what the CP wants, is a gimmick. Regarding this point those of us in these benches will attack the Official Opposition, because what they are expecting cannot be supported by any level-headed White leader. This statement by the CP Opposition can only do incalculable harm to the financial bona fides of agriculture.

What is going to happen in future? I should like to mention what the chairman of the State President’s special committee of inquiry into the reconstruction of agriculture, Mr Kerneels Human, said about this. He said the role of agriculture was and remained important in the general economy. It supplied 7% of the growth domestic product and influenced 15% of the economy. It provided more than 5 million people with a livelihood. Marketing boards and co-operatives were strong, research was good and leadership in the industry was good. There was confidence based on good infrastructure.

Farmers will have to become involved in the total economy, particularly food processing, the business sector, the industrial sector and mining. The big companies must be seen as partners.

Better public relations are essential. The city dweller does not understand agriculture, and that is why agriculture must be brought into the cities. The producer and the consumer must get to know one another. Organised agriculture will have to support the small farmer, or “peasant farmer”. The goal of making money and the profit motive must always be borne in mind. Self-sufficiency must be the watchword and where justified, subsidies must only be used to encourage exports. The string can also be taken out of trade-unions if we look after the conditions of service and remuneration of the workers. Farm workers must not be isolated from city dwellers either.

In conclusion I want to attest to the fact that the South African farmer, with help from Above, will not only remain the leader of the whole of Africa, but will also have to play a leading educational role in Africa. We would very much like to help our neighbours out of their misery through good neighbourliness and our technical and professional expertise. We do not begrudge our neighbours the self-sufficiency we demand for ourselves.

Mr Chairman, I would like to commend the hon member Mr Redinger on his speech. The content was, I thought, very positive and I shall be dealing with certain aspects of his speech in the course of my own.

I also want to extend a warm welcome Mr Harry Hattingh and to wish him well in his new position. I look forward to working with him in that capacity.

I listened intently to the speeches of previous speakers, and I must say that I was somewhat confused to hear so much emphasis placed on the question of surpluses. I want to warn that the solution to the problem of surpluses does not, in the long term, lie in tampering with the mechanisms of production. Such actions are a sure recipe for future shortages. South Africa, being a country of unreliable weather conditions, will always be subjected to surpluses and shortages. There are also natural production patterns with which the country will always have to contend.

I want to associate myself with certain views that have already been expressed by previous speakers. I too want to warn that any substantial increase in interest rates will have a devastating effect on the agricultural sector. [Interjections.] I gave those hon members a fair hearing and I ask them to do the same.

I support the sentiment so often expressed that the increase in interest rates in 1985 was one of the major contributory causes for the present economic plight in which many farmers now find themselves. I wish also to remind this Committee that it was estimated in 1986 that only 20% of the agricultural debt could be attributed to drought. Therefore I want to urge the monetary authorities and the Government to bear this factor in mind when decisions are taken later this week to cool down the economy.

I wish to say a few words about the flood relief measures. I agree with the hon member Mr Redinger that it is essential that basic norms be established regarding these measures which must be consistent and should be adapted only to meet changing economic circumstances or specific categories which may not already be accommodated. I would request the hon the Minister or the hon the Deputy Minister to clarify the policy in regard to these measures relative to Natal and the Orange Free State.

I wish to turn my attention to certain aspects of the Marketing Act about which I hope to extract comment from the hon the Minister in the light of statements he has made over recent months and also as a result of the increasing criticism that has been levelled at the marketing board system. I feel the time has come when discussion should take place in regard to the future of the Marketing Act. In doing so one must take note not only of the areas where the Marketing Act has failed but also of the successes that it has achieved in the past.

I would remind this Committee that the main pillars of the Act are the following: To create stability within the industry; to ensure consistent availability of products by eliminating, as far as possible, fluctuations in supply and demand; to ensure that the producer receives a reasonable price for his product and that the consumer is not exploited—in other words that the relationship between the price paid by the consumer and that received by the producer is retained at a fair level; to ensure that the orderly marketing of agricultural products takes place; and to regulate the import and export of products.

If justified criticism is to be levelled at the Marketing Act, it is in respect of the inability on the part of certain boards to market effectively the products which they handle. In this respect, the distribution of products on the local market in many instances has left, and still leaves, much to be desired.

I want to appeal to the hon the Minister not to allow himself to be pressured into taking decisions which may undermine the corner-stones of the Marketing Act. This Act is as relevant today as it was when it became law in 1937. One of the prime needs now, because of the problems being experienced on the export market, is the need for a more imaginative approach to local marketing strategies in order to make products available over a wider range to the consumers of this country through improved distribution methods. For this reason I welcome the appointment of the Simon Brand Committee to investigate aspects of the maize industry. With respect, I would question the advisability of including so many representatives of the maize industry in this investigating committee. However, the appointment of Dr Simon Brand as chairman is a refreshing departure from precedents set in the past in relation to the appointment of the chairmen of committees of investigation.

In the light of the fact that the maize industry is an important component of the agricultural sector, I trust that the findings of this committee will be made available before the planting season commences in September.

I want to take this opportunity to emphasise once again to the hon the Minister that the present single-channel marketing system is strangling the local consumption of maize, and I appeal to him not to agree to the extension of control countrywide. Such a move would result in an immediate increase in the hectarage planted to maize in areas which have hitherto not been under control, as was referred to by the hon member for Bryanston. This would mean that the problems experienced on the export market would be further exacerbated.

Markets which are not being provided with maize products exist in this country. I want to point out that certain national states would gladly absorb more maize products, but levy and transport costs are forcing consumers to turn to other products, and this factor has an adverse impact on the export of surplus maize.

Finally, in the short time available to me, I would like to comment on the question of the relationship that exists between the farmer and his employees, a relationship which is unique in that it does not apply to the same extent in other industries, and about which there is so much speculation and discussion at the present time.

Let the critics of the farming community take note of the strong bonds that exist between the large majority of farmers and their employees, and which are built up and held together, in many instances, by a lifelong association and commitment on the part of the employer and the employee. It is the harnessing of goodwill at this level that has been responsible for the comparative peace that exists in the platteland today, where farmers have reacted positively to the social and family needs of their workers and the workers, in turn, have responded equally willingly to the cause of the farming enterprise itself.

It is this spirit that led to the creation of the historic Ngotshe accord some three years ago, when a group of farmers in the Louwsburg area got together to create a forum where problems between farmers and their employees could be addressed. I say this to the farming community: Create more of these accords in the interests of capitalising the goodwill that exists at the present time, because such initiatives would invalidate any calls that there may be to unionise the agricultural sector.

Mr Chairman, it is an honour to follow the hon member for Mooi River, who again displayed his very responsible approach to agriculture. I would like to agree with the sentiments he expressed here today, especially regarding the last matter he brought to our attention, namely the relationship between the farmer and his labourers. This will become more important in the future, and I am glad that he stressed the point that the solution to this problem and all other problems lies more in man’s attitude than in the rules and regulations he makes to achieve that goal. If we pursue that matter in that way, we will eventually succeed in keeping the peace in agriculture.

He also asked that some aspects regarding the flood relief aid measures be clarified, and the hon member Mr Redinger also mentioned this in his speech. He referred to the discrepancy which exists between the measures applying to the Northern Cape and the Free State on one hand and those applicable in Natal on the other. It is a fact that with time and experience some measures are adjusted. There is a difference between the two areas, and we have decided to apply the same measures in Natal as well. All farmers in flood-stricken areas will therefore enjoy the same benefits. This will be put forward at the next meeting of the Ministerial Committee on Flood Relief, and as soon as it has been approved by the Cabinet, it will take effect.

*These differences in the implementation of aid measures are therefore being eliminated now, and the measures are being applied more uniformly. To a large extent this is not going to result in additional costs. Where the difference lies is that the reestablishment of cash crops, for which no assistance was previously granted, also comes into consideration now. In Natal, for example, we compensated the reestablishment costs of sugar cane and orchards, but not of cash crops. The reestablishment of the cash crops in the Free State and Northern Cape aid areas now forms part of the aid measures. Consequently these also become applicable in Natal. The same applies to the question of livestock losses. If the aid measures are applied uniformly, that would eliminate these differences between the various areas. I think it is a meaningful adjustment.

I should also like to say a few words about the hon member for Lichtenburg. I am grateful for the responsible speech he made today. While he was speaking I cast my mind back to the time when I sat on the opposite side as a backbencher and he, through his actions at the time, compelled respect from me every time for his mode of conduct and for his understanding. That is the hon member I came to know then. I am grateful to have been able to witness such conduct from him again here today. I still have respect for that ability that hon member has.

Hear, hear!

Mr Chairman, it is true that problems exist, but when we act in a responsible way we can debate them meaningfully; otherwise we are merely harming agriculture without making any progress. Nor can we find any solutions in this way. The hon member also said that when we render assistance it must make economic sense. The assistance rendered must be market-related. I think these are aspects which we are bringing together in order to find solutions with which in the long run we have the good of agricultural in mind, and are not necessarily trying to derive political advantage. I think that in this way we will make progress.

The hon member for Soutpansberg made a few observations about aid schemes that were inadequate. He spoke about R600, which was not enough with which to purchase an animal.

I mentioned the wrong price. I understand it is as much as R1 500!

Even the higher price the hon member is now mentioning causes me problems. What happens? The moment the State renders assistance, for example with the purchase of livestock when there is a shortage of livestock, this aid measure is accordingly discounted at once into a higher price, and this financial assistance does not end up in the pocket of the person who needs it, but goes to the seller—the one who does not need it. Consequently this is a problem which is difficult to solve.

The man who sold it was having a hard time the previous year as well!

Yes, that is true.

†The hon member for Bryanston mentioned some aspects in relation to cruel experiments carried out on animals. I believe all responsible people are concerned about this. I am also deeply perturbed about the maltreatment of animals.

*I do not think any person likes to see an animal being mishandled and hurt—not even in experiments which are to the benefit of man. I think everyone would disapprove of this. When this does happen we will, on our part, introduce every possible measure to prevent it. Experimentation with animals is of course a fact one cannot simply argue away. When we look into the matter we shall find that the solution in this case as well lies in the human approach rather than in the rule. If one were therefore to lay down rigid rules one would of course have to apply them, and one would need more people to act as policemen to ensure that the rules are enforced. The whole approach we apply is therefore geared to ensuring that people have the correct attitude so that they will act accordingly.

Now I find it interesting that I am receiving telegrams from people who object to our wording—“as to the humane treatment of animals”. This creates a problem for me. I should like to treat animals humanely, because if I treat animals in an animal-like way, surely I am achieving the opposite effect.

Animals are frequently more humane than people!

Very true! That is frequently the case.

†The hon member quite correctly stated that we were on the right track in relation to finding a solution to this vexing problem. If necessary we will introduce stricter legislation in order to emphasise our intentions in this regard.

*The hon member for Bryanston once again raised the question of the distinction between general and own affairs. This is a subject which always comes up for discussion. Today we are holding a general debate. If one considers the matter critically, however, a large part of the debate we are conducting is actually concerned with aspects of own affairs. This creates a problem. The whole basis for this is that agriculture in South Africa is not a simple matter. A historical course of events took place in agriculture in South Africa with the result that between 90% and 95% of all agricultural activities are in fact in the hands of Whites. It is therefore a First World agriculture, mechanised and efficient and producing on a high level, and also comparable with the best in the world.

Within the same borders of this country we also have other forms of agriculture. We have subsistence agriculture. We have communal agriculture. We have agriculture which belongs to both the First World and the Second World. Consequently if we had a single agricultural department here, accommodating all these forms of agriculture, and one did not make provision for the specific needs of these other forms of agriculture, and there had to be competition with the agriculture of the First World, these other forms of agriculture would be wiped out; they would never make any headway.

If one wants to deal with agriculture meaningfully under a single department one would therefore have to have divisions to make provision for each one of these facets of communal agriculture, of subsistence agriculture, as one finds it among the Indian farmers or rather the market gardeners, and the development of the Black areas in which we have communal agriculture.

For example we would be able to say to one of those communal farmers that we were giving him one sprinkler head for irrigation, and then we take the 6 ha to which he can lay claim and use it for communal grazing. He irrigates that half or one tenth of a hectare for which he has water and from it obtains a larger yield and a larger benefit than the remainder of the 6 ha to which he lays claim. This kind of activity is in the process of being applied, and there are major schemes in this regard.

It is on this basis that we are dealing purposefully with agriculture under own affairs, which is aimed at that specific form of agriculture. It does not isolate knowledge, nor does it keep knowledge away from the other forms of agriculture. We co-operate in respect of the knowledge we have.

Although research in agriculture is classified as an own affair of the Whites, it is not there with a view to the continued existence of the Whites and to serve the Whites only. We also utilise it to the advantage of the other forms of agriculture. We are also ascertaining how we can restructure research so that it may serve the whole of agriculture without unnecessarily influencing the constitutional aspect.

This constitutional issue is not a simple one, but we must not try to reform the constitution via agriculture because agriculture is subordinate to those guidelines we have laid down. It is a futile debate if one tries to approach it the other way round.

The important point, if we want to co-operate in agriculture in future—this is in fact what makes White agriculture strong—is the degree to which agriculture is organised from the bottom upwards. The White farmers are organised and are able to compete. When there is a need they approach the central Government and negotiate certain schemes and funds, as in the case of the R400 million scheme.

There is often a misconception on the part of the other agricultural departments here that that R400 million scheme falls under the general Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing. The problem is that these departments must also act in an organised way and create structures for themselves, such as the SA Agricultural Union, that can do their negotiating for them and by means of which funds can be allocated to them for their own unique problems, as is fitting in a proper appropriation and allocation of funds.

We have already made a great deal of progress with this, because if I compare what I have seen here in the Republic with what I have seen in the rest of Africa, as far as agriculture is concerned, I find that we are outstripping agriculture in the rest of Africa merely because we are structured and make provision to enable us to accommodate differences. That is why I am astonished when people sometimes criticise our own affairs agriculture, which is so strong, because that is where our own affairs are controlled. One must not do it only in a selfish way, and we do not do it in a selfish way. In our own agriculture we have the largest say and the largest benefit in the interests of agriculture as a whole.

Mr Chairman, in this debate I should like to say a few words about the two important fibre industries in the country, namely the wool and the mohair industries.

I am no prophet, but last year in this debate I argued on the basis of certain available facts, that the wool industry was going to experience an extremely prosperous season. I went on to say that the woolled sheep could become the ideal means of production in the reconstruction of agriculture.

What happened to the wool industry during the present season? At the present price levels and with the market indicator at 2 250—i.e. an average fat wool price of R13,50 per kilogram for wool with a clean yield of 60%—the industry is probably going to realise more than R700 million this season compared with R417 million last season.

The record prices being paid, are being ascribed mainly to the excellent international demand for wool. Finer wool is still enjoying a considerable price advantage. If the South African wool-farmer could succeed in reducing the average fibre thickness of the shearings by one micron, this would be financially very advantageous for the farmer and South Africa. The excellent demand for wool is also the dividend which South African wool-farmers are getting on their enormous investment over many years in the International Wool Secretariat.

Because of the excellent wool prices and good agricultural conditions, as well as the use of woolled sheep in the land conversion scheme, we can expect wool production to rise. However, South Africa only produces 3,3% of world production and even if we were to double wool production in South Africa, this should not have any significant effect on the world market.

The wool industry’s contribution to the International Wool Secretariat will total approximately R30 million this year. It is well-known that the industry suffered an exchange rate loss of R235 million on a foreign loan. The industry hopes to have a provision of approximately R140 million available for this on 30 June of this year, and will therefore be on schedule as regards its six-year plan to redeem the loan.

For the 1987-88 financial year the industry received R15,5 million from the State to help to defray its local and overseas expenses. Owing to greater pressure on the Treasury the State could only contribute R1 million this year. Thanks to the high wool prices this shortfall can be defrayed from additional revenue derived from levies. This is indeed a responsible and a proud industry, which I take pleasure in being associated with! On the other hand the Government has, through its allocation of R1 million, at least proved that its door is still open to this responsible industry.

The wool industry also receives an export incentive contribution of R3,5 million. In the past this amount was determined at 25% of the Wool Board’s overseas expenditure. Owing to changes in rates of exchange at present this represents only 10% of this expenditure.

In the interim the wool industry has succeeded in increasing the local processing of wool—ie the washing and combing—to 60% of the production. Apart from added value and a consequent larger earning in foreign exchange, this local processing is labour intensive and it makes a big contribution towards the provision of employment.

I now come to the mohair industry, which was started in South Africa in 1838, when 12 rams and an ewe were imported from Turkey to South Africa. However, the Turks had castrated the rams. On the ship the ewe lambed, and it was a ram. This ram and its descendants started the industry in South Africa. Later—up to and including 1880—further imports followed.

By 1912 we already had 4,4 million Angora goats in South Africa. As a result of depressions, droughts and low prices the number declined to 600 000 in 1950. Only a few farmers who retained their confidence in the industry, persevered with Angora goat farming. These farmers, of whom the Hobsons, the FritzHenrys, the Cawoods, the Nashes, the Rathbones, the Outrams and the Hendersons are examples, deserve not only all the present prosperity, but a monument to their perseverance too.

In 1971 prices reached a low of 70c per kilogram. At that stage the Mohair Board took the initiative for the marketing of animal fibres. This was the first organisation with a single-channel pool system for animal fibres.

As a result of this marketing system, the stabilisation levy fund, promotion and perseverance prices rose to a high of R20,45 per kilogram in 1985. In addition production increased to 11,5 million kilograms in 1987, while the number of Angora goats totalled 2,7 million. South Africa at present produces 48% of the world production.

It is also significant that the turnover of less than R3 million in 1971 increased to R185 million in 1985. Since then the industry has experienced a recession and the turnover has dropped to R136 million. The present average price level is in the vicinity of R14 per kilogram.

What is important is that the South African mohair shearing is considered to be among the best in the world. It is the best prepared, best classed and best marketed shearing in the world.

For these reasons South Africa is accepted throughout the world as a leader in respect of price determination and market stabilisation. South African Angoras are also the highest producing goats in the world and the goats with the lowest kemp content in the world.

South Africa has also taken the lead as regards international co-operation in the industry. In this way, the IMA, the International Mohair Association, was established in 1974 on the initiative of our Mohair Board. At present South Africa also supplies more than 70% of the IMA’s funds. Although the industry received State assistance in 1970 totalling approximately 12c per kilogram, since then it has not received any assistance from the State, for exports either.

The recession which the industry has experienced since 1985 is not only linked to a change in fashion, but is also the result of inadequate funds for the promotion of the product, particularly abroad. If the mohair industry were to approach the Government with a request for the promotion of exports, I request the hon the Minister to give serious and sympathetic consideration to this. If the industry can do more product promotions abroad, this could lead to greater price stability. We can compare this with the success of the wool industry through the IWS. The mohair industry is also well organised at producer level.

†During 1941 the South African Mohair Growers’ Association was constituted in its present form. The Angora Goat Stud Breeders’ Society of South Africa was already established in 1892. During 1965 a mohair board with statutory powers was constituted.

*The Angora goat has a definite and important place in the agricultural industry. Certain types of grazing, mainly shrubs and trees, are very well utilised by the Angora goat. The Angora goat can be kept for the effective utilisation of trees and shrubs virtually anywhere in South Africa. As a matter of fact, it would be a good thing if more farmers realised that Angora goats can be very successfully kept on more farms in order to make optimum utilisation of grazing possible. After all, one does not reap lucerne with a maize harvester. A combination of sheep, goats and cattle can only increase the effectiveness of the utilisation of grazing and the conservation of the veld.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Graaff-Reinet made an interesting speech on the wool industry and the Angora goat industry. I should like to associate myself with what he said. I was the son of a wool-farmer and have spent my whole life farming with Merino sheep. I merely want to say that this is an industry one can be proud of, an industry which has to a large extent looked after itself in the past and still does so today. Without wanting to draw comparisons with other sectors of the agricultural industry, I think that the wool industry and the Angora goat industry have a proud record as far as this is concerned. We are therefore glad—I should like to associate myself with what the hon member said—that even during a period of prosperity, the State has at least retained the contribution of R1 million for the wool industry this year.

I want to come back to the debate. This afternoon hon members heard a few strange speeches, but one strange speech in particular. I am referring to the hon member for Bethlehem’s speech. I have a vague premonition—we caught a glimpse of this from several speeches on the NP side—that they expected the CP to launch a tremendous political onslaught in the agricultural debate. [Interjections.] And they were caught on the wrong foot!

I want to suggest to the hon member for Bethlehem that he should go and tell the farmers in this country how well-off they are. He really must go and tell the farmers queueing up at the Land Bank and at Agricultural Credit that things are going well for them. He must tell that to the hon member for Cradock who said that it was pointless to think that in South Africa one could get away from agricultural subsidies in the future. I want to congratulate the hon member for Cradock on his speech. I agree with him, but the hon member for Bethlehem apparently thinks that is a mistake. [Interjections.]

How can the South African farmer, in the particular climatic conditions prevailing in South Africa, be expected to compete on the international market with the sophisticated agricultural industries of Europe and North America when in their cases massive subsidies are being granted to those agricultural industries by the authorities? Surely one is under a misapprehension if one thinks that it would in any way be possible for South African farmers to compete with them.

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

No, please sit down.

I should also like to link up with what the hon member for Wellington said when he referred to the effect of a surcharge on the import of agricultural implements. For a long time now we have advocated that that aspect be examined. I want to go further, in fact, and point out that in the past I have repeatedly advocated that we examine the effect of GST on agricultural inputs. I specifically want to mention the example of the effect of GST on tractors, lorries, etc. This applies, in fact, to all agricultural implements. The hon the Minister of Finance has repeatedly told me in the past—he still says so today—that he cannot make any exceptions in this regard. It was interesting for me to read the Margo Report, however, particularly Mr Justice Margo and his commission’s recommendation that we do away with GST and their suggestion that an alternative form be introduced, that of value-added tax, the so-called VAT. It was also the Margo Commission’s recommendation that capital goods be exempted from that tax.

It is becoming increasingly clear to me—I inferred as much, but I hope I am wrong—that in regard to the new tax, which is probably going to come into operation on 1 March, the hon the Minister does not intend to grant any concessions or make any exceptions other than, it seems to me, on export products.

We must have a look at what has been done about this in Western Europe where a value-added tax is in operation. There they make use of the so-called zero-rate in the case of agriculture. If I may briefly explain, the effect is such that the agriculturist does pay tax on his purchases, but that he can ultimately recover the total tax he pays to the State.

We are being told—that is the feeling we get—that as far as export products are concerned, the concession will be made. My question, however, is: How is this going to work for agriculture, in practical terms, if agriculture does get that concession? I am a wool farmer, but I am also a meat producer. The wool I produce is an export product, but my meat production is for the local market. If a concession is only going to be made for the export component, how on earth is this going to work in practice? The same applies to the deciduous fruit industry, which is geared to both the domestic and the export markets. The same goes for the citrus industry. Tick them off! Angora goat farming, which chiefly furnishes export products … I do not know whether one eats the goats too. I understand there are people who also eat the Angora goats. [Interjections.] I have never had that privilege. [Interjections.]

I want to issue a warning to those hon members. I hope I have heard incorrectly. I think I read somewhere that the hon the Deputy Minister of Agriculture had said, on some or other occasion, that agriculture would be able to live with value-added tax. Before next year we as agriculturists must take a very serious look at the effect this tax is going to have on agricultural input costs.

If the effect is going to be that agriculturists will have to pay that tax on the inputs and that they will not ultimately be in a position to recover the money, this would inevitably mean an increase in agricultural production costs at a critical period in which agriculturists cannot afford this. We should like to know from the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing whether it is furnishing information about this to the Department of Finance. What are their contributions and what are the relevant views of the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing? We would not like to have the chaos that we had recently with the diesel fuel levies. At the time we warned the hon the Minister of Finance that that would not work in practice. I therefore merely want to state briefly that this could create the most serious of problems for agriculture, perhaps far worse problems than we realise today. We as agriculturists must be very sure indeed that we do not hurt our industry even further in the process, because even in the present situation, with GST which is a relatively simple tax in practical terms, there are the most amazing inanities. If I purchase ploughshares, they are exempt from GST, but on the small bolts with which I fix the ploughshares to the plough, I have to pay GST. In this regard there are irrational decisions which one simply does not understand.

I want to repeat—as I have been advocating for a long time now—that the GST alone is more than the price one used to pay for the tractor a decade ago. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to be speaking after the hon member for Barberton. I think we all consider him to be a great expert in this field. I am convinced that the hon the Minister of Agriculture will also want to make use of his expertise in evaluating the VAT in future. I thank the hon member for his positive contribution in this debate.

In the Second Reading debate on the Appropriation Bill I expressed my thanks for the agricultural aid measures. I also added that I was convinced that that was not the ultimate way to bring about the reconstruction of agriculture. If we take a look at the South African economy, we say the economy must be productive so that we can solve the problems. In talking about foreign debt, we say we must export so that we can pay off foreign debt. However, this is in contrast to agriculture, because precisely the opposite message is conveyed when it comes to agriculture. I find proof of that in the department’s latest issue of Landbounuus. On one page there are three statements concerning the reasonably important grain industries in South Africa. I shall read only the headlines “Moenie optimisties wees oor die mielieprys nie”, “Koringprys drasties verlaag” and “Pas op vir te veel graansorghum.” On the opposite page it says “’n Rekordoes vir sonneblomsaad”, which could also experience a problem. The point I am trying to make is that I am convinced that we shall only be able to solve these problems in respect of debt and agriculture if, in future, we are able to make optimal use of this agricultural resource. Once again I say that we have all the resources available to us to make a success of it. As far as I am concerned, we can achieve a lot if, in future, we rearrange our priorities in respect of agriculture.

I want to turn to agricultural exports. As a result of a lack of time, I do not want to quote a string of figures in this regard. However, I want to say that we export approximately 25% of our agricultural production. That comprises between 10% and 20% of our total exports; gold excluded. In 1986 that came to approximately R2,6 billion.

The present export incentive scheme consists of three categories—A, B and C. Agriculture received only 37 million from those three categories in the 1987-88 financial year in respect of export promotion while agriculture and mining—according to the South African Agricultural Union—were the two net earners of foreign exchange. Therefore agricultural exports are to my mind a very important component which we shall have to consider.

The Board of the Trade and Industry launched an investigation and are at present working on a confidential report on new forms of export assistance and on a structural adaptation scheme. As yet we do not know what the contents of the report are, but one wants to accept that it might perhaps be very industrially orientated. In the light of this, I should like to quote from a study which was made in 1980 by Mullins and Scheepers, of the Economic Planning Branch in the Office of the Prime Minister, arising out of analyses based on the input-output tables for the RSA. I quote briefly from this study:

I should not like to play the secondary industries off against primary industries, especially in agriculture; on the contrary, what I should very much like is that we harness both. Today I ask our policy-makers to keep a watchful eye on what emerges from this new report by the Board of Trade and Industry. If we want to take both of these aspects and exploit them in future, and we consider this industrial aspect, then as far as I am concerned, we are dealing with the development of our industrial sector and an appeal to them to make a contribution to the economic processing of our agricultural inputs. I consider that to be an absolute theme which the Department of Agriculture could use in future in discussions with the industrial sector of this country to encourage them in respect of the further processing of our products in South Africa. That is the part of the problem in which the greatest possibility for a future solution lies. I feel that we must even make money for research available to nutritionists and food processing companies to investigate this matter and come up with definite proposals. That is the long-term aspect which we shall have to consider in order to provide a possible solution. That is the industrial aspect.

As far as the promotion of the export of our surplus grain products are concerned, I merely want to refer hon members to the White Paper on the Agricultural Policy of the Republic of South Africa. I quote briefly what is said on page 9 under the heading “Optimum participation in international trade and agricultural products.”

We published this in the White Paper, and we now take a look at the annual report of the Department of Agricultural Economy and Marketing, on page 34 under the heading “Agricultural Economic Trends” and the subheading “Market research”, it is spelt out what is at present being done in respect of staffing offices abroad to gather more information about what is happening in those countries. Those are countries with which we have to compete and to which we are exporting. All that is in fact being done, according to what is stated here, I find in the paragraph at the bottom of the page, where it is stated:

With all due respect, I feel that that goal which we set ourselves in the White Paper, has not been fully realised in South Africa. A great deal of future potential still exists.

As I have said, one part of the solution is in my opinion to pay more attention to the industrial sector. Today I should like to make two suggestions concerning these primary industries and surplus products.

Firstly, I appeal for the establishment of a Directorate: Agricultural Exports and Processing within the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing. We should consider establishing such a directorate, manned by experts, who can focus on the aspects I mentioned.

Furthermore, I also want to ask whether it might not be possible to establish an advisory committee or a committee of experts. It could consist of control boards, the private sector, the co-operatives and the Department of Trade and Industry, and serve as an advisory body. It does not have to be a permanent body, but it must be an advisory body to keep the department and the hon the Minister constantly informed in respect of the problems which I mentioned, namely the processing as well as the export of our surplus products.

These two bodies could have a supplementary function. The advisory committee can provide the expertise, while the directorate will perform the operational function and do incognito research in our adjoining areas in respect of a development of markets in our immediate vicinity, which in my opinion have not been fully exploited. Red China is doing that today in the Middle East. They have taken over our markets by means of expert infiltration of those markets.

I ask the hon the Minister to consider this very seriously as a possible solution for the reconstruction of South African agriculture.

Mr Chairman, I gladly endorse what the hon member for Winburg said, but I should like to speak about sanctions and perceptions that influence the export possibilities of agriculture.

I want to put the following cardinal question to the Official Opposition tonight. What effect does right-wing politics have on the export possibilities of agriculture? I am referring specifically to two vital export industries, namely the South African fruit industry and the wool industry.

I do not have enough time to tell hon members how formidable the fruit industry is. I just want to say that 2 million people are dependent on this industry today. It is important to know that in 1986 South Africa had a 44% share in the total fruit imports of the EEC. Chile was in second place with a 19% share. The fact that 67% of all fruit that is imported by the United Kingdom comes from South Africa, indicates that it is a formidable industry. However, it also shows how vulnerable this industry is to sanctions. Sanctions have already taken their toll in this industry, because last year the gross income of this industry was 15% less. Twenty per cent less seasonal labour was used. This means that 12 000 job opportunities suffered because of sanctions.

The 25 000 or 26 000 producers in the wool industry earned almost R0,75 billion in foreign currency for South Africa, which also makes this an industry to be reckoned with.

As early as 1986, leaders in agriculture warned in newspaper articles that sanctions would be the Achilles heel of agricultural export possibilities in South Africa. I do not have the time to quote what Kobus Jooste says about this, but hon members are familiar with it. I shall merely quote the last sentence:

It is stale news that this country and its Government will not give in to pressure from radical leftist groups overseas, but it is not necessary for agriculture to be plagued by sanctions that are being precipitated by followers of the CP. The cry from these people is usually that we should improve our products and market them internally.

We know that it is simply impossible to support agriculture to the same extent as it is being supported by our sales overseas. Agriculture will have to take increasing account of the onslaught on it that is being precipitated by these people.

Who are they?

I am referring to the AWB. [Interjections.] The allegation that the National Party Government is the sole cause of the sanctions campaign, is simply not true. The AWB has become a strong contender. The agriculturists in South Africa who form a part of that Afrikaner community find it difficult to come to terms with this. The irresponsible actions, especially of Eugene Terre’Blanche, are becoming one of the largest obstacles in the way of agricultural exports. Mr Jan Moolman, Director: Market Development of the Wool Board, said the following:

Those are now our friends overseas who buy our wool—

The premium of quality wool is simply no longer sufficient to ensure trade. The vulnerability of the Afrikaner-orientated industry is now being exposed by fellow Afrikaners. What does the general manager of Unifructo, Mr Louis Kriel say? He says:

He goes on:

*Including even the noble acts of the Official Opposition, if there are any—

[Interjections.] I do not have time to quote the world headlines that Eugene Terre’Blanche has made in the foreign Press over the past month. There are many examples, but time does not permit me to quote them.

Surely this country’s enemies are focussing on the Afrikaner. They want to encourage the perception that the Afrikaner is an oppressor, and for that reason Eugene Terre’Blanche’s actions suit their purpose. The publicity that he enjoys promotes this image. The actions of the friends and followers of the CP border on a betrayal of the agricultural sector, which relies on exports. I am asking in all fairness that this should stop, and furthermore I want to ask the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke—he is a good friend of mine and a master of the art of communication; someone who knows what it is to create perceptions—whether the perception that Eugéne Terre’ Blanche is creating of the Afrikaner is not detrimental to South Africa and specifically to agriculture. Why does the CP not tell us that for the sake of agriculture they condemn the AWB’s betrayal? If one wants to triumph over sanctions, one needs to be level-headed. The same levelheadedness is now being expected of the CP.

Hear, hear!

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No 19.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr Speaker, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I agree with the statement made by the hon the State President in another House the other day that people are changing and that actions are eliciting reactions. In South Africa this is definitely the case. The question is only whether this has a good or bad effect on our politics. On the one hand we have those who believe in democracy, and on the other there are those who believe in alternative structures or dictatorships. As a result of the situation prevailing in South Africa, different meanings are inevitably attached to those terms. To the Government democracy means separate representation in separate institutions with the protection of minority rights. As far as this is concerned, the NP has a dominant role in Parliament at present, and I do not feel this should be the case.

When the Government talks of alternative structures, it means structures created on an ethnic basis. Extra-parliamentary groups understand this term to mean structures outside the accepted political institutions. Both these suppositions have a negative effect on politics. The former point of view makes people apathetic about politics and the latter view makes the youth, in particular, draw away from traditional governmental institutions. Precisely for this reason there will have to be a more serious approach to politics. This is why it is essential for serious people to make it their job to find solutions.

I am in agreement with the hon the State President that formal forums for discussion should be created. However, I doubt whether the envisaged National Council is the correct way of going about it. Obviously the National Council was first formulated by the NP and then announced. It is my belief that negotiations should first take place with all interested parties about the structures that should be created. Only then should an announcement be made so that it has the support of all interested parties and is not criticised, as is the case now.

Nor does it help very much if the Government speaks of the broadening of the democratic base if that means the creation of further ethnic institutions, as seems to be the case from the hon the State President’s newly announced regional institutions. Permit me to refer to the KwaZulu-Natal initiative in this connection. At first the Government rejected it totally. My question is whether the Government has initiated or will initiate in-depth discussions with KwaZulu-Natal to reach an acceptable regional solution. Initiatives of this nature should not simply be wiped off the table. Nor should the impression be created that it is only the Government that can come forward with solutions. If these KwaZulu-Natal proposals as a whole were to land up in the wastepaper basket, it would be a bad day indeed for those who were trying peacefully to find solutions in the country.

We must also guard against politics being based only on the following variables. Firstly there is manipulation, and by this I mean the actual participation in decision-making processes. If we did not actually participate, but only participated on the basis of manipulation, our participation in the tricameral Parliament would always remain controversial. Secondly there is consultation or deliberation, with the possibility of contributions from our side and from other organisations not being heeded to. I think there should be negotiation in the true sense of the word so that the final product will satisfy all participants as far as possible.

The other possibility is that of co-optation, and by this I mean that participants are part of the decision-making processes whereby policies can be influenced, but the structuring is of such a nature that influences are limited to the minimum. This is what we have in the tricameral Parliament. In the final analysis it is still the NP which dominates in policy-making. The question is when we will be able to abandon this state of affairs. I should like the hon the State President to inform us about this.

Amongst other things the hon State President said that without them—meaning the Afrikaners—the question of relations could not be sorted out. I am in complete agreement with him. By the same token the problem cannot be solved without us and without the other population groups. The next question that involuntarily crops up is whether the Government will hold discussions or has already held discussions with prominent leaders who do not operate within existing governmental structures. I believe it should be done just as it was by the hon State President in the case of the businessmen.

It would go a long way towards dealing a death-blow to the terminology of system used by those in favour of the system and those opposed to the system or those who are pro-Govemment or anti-Govemment. Just look, Sir, how people of the same community are at each other’s throats. On the one hand we have Dr Mangosuthu Buthelezi and on the other we have Archbishop Tutu. These two gentlemen express opposing views about the solutions to the problems in the country, simply because one operates within Government structures and the other does not. One can see the same phenomenon in the people of Sacos—the Van der Horsts—and Dr Boesak and company, who attack us for our participation in this system which conflicts with their view of the matter.

If such discussions were successful, it would be possible for internal Black leaders to call on the ANC to renounce violence. At this stage they are too scared to express such a view publicly, because the internal situation has not reached the stage at which people can openly hold discussions with one another, even though they may differ from one another.

More importantly, if the problems surrounding Black people could be resolved, it would go a long way towards obliterating the ANC from the scene. If those things did not happen, the Government would have to hold discussions with the ANC amongst others, as we now see in the case of Angola and the Cubans.

We share the Government’s view on communism. It must be relentlessly opposed and totally eradicated from this southern tip of Africa. It is for this reason that I congratulate the Government on the initiatives aimed at direct discussions with Angola, Cuba, Britain and America about the matters relating to Angola and the withdrawal of the Cubans. We are holding thumbs that this will bear fruit. I also call upon the Government to initiate discussions with Botswana, Zambia and Zimbabwe. We have read that the possibility exists that the hon State President himself will negotiate with President Chissano about the Nkomati Accord and other matters. We look forward to that and hope that it will be a giant step towards achieving peace in this region.

At one stage the hon the State President gave an indication that he would be prepared to consider the removal of the Union Jack from the national flag. Would he not also consider redesigning the national flag so that everyone’s contribution could be symbolised—at this stage it only symbolises the contributions of the Republics and British rule in this southern tip of Africa—and so that everyone could be proud of the national flag?

The hon the State President says that his policy is based on consensus. Will this ever be fully realised in our circumstances if we are so divided into different ethnically-based political parties? I think it would happen more quickly if, amongst other things, the NP also extended membership to everyone so that discussions could be held from the outset on what affects the country. People with the same ideological convictions could then be grouped together in the same party, according to the specific party’s way of looking at things. The hon the State President says that we live in a country of diversities. I do not have any problem with this. I do, however, have a problem if the Whites are grouped together in one economic, social and political bloc and then jealously guard the rights which they enjoy within that bloc. On the other hand we must simply be satisfied with being divided into ethnic entities.

If we consider the local situation, there are a few aspects which bother us. We should like these aspects to be replaced by something more acceptable to our people. One of the aspects which bothers our people is the Group Areas Act. We have repeatedly addressed the Government about this matter in the past. Our areas do not come into existence around economic, cultural or educational activities. The areas are proclaimed, and as things stand at present, they are definitely not viable. The situation is worsened by the fact that industries and central business areas have been opened up, thus drawing business undertakings and other business activities away from our areas.

The manner in which the Government intends dealing with the envisaged amendments to group areas, according to certain Press reports, is cause for great concern. If, for example, this House did not approve the proposed amendments, the hon the State President could simply refer them to the President’s Council. If there is any truth in these reports, it would indeed be a sad day for this country. This House would then be reduced to what the then Coloured Persons Representative Council was, and we would not be able to make a contribution to any real change. The call from our community is that the Group Areas Act should be abolished. We have often been asked whether we want to open up our areas, and we have always replied that we have no problem with that.

Before drastic changes are effected to the structures in this country, the Government must go to the citizens of the country, by way of a referendum on the matter, so that all those involved can express what they feel should happen to the Group Areas Act. Amendments to the Act should only be made after such a referendum has been held.

Another Act about which we feel unhappy is the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act. A year or two ago the hon the Deputy Minister of Development Planning said, from those benches on the opposite side of the House, that he accepted that this Act should be abolished, but to date we have not seen one draft Bill in this connection. We should like to see that Deputy Minister’s promise fulfilled.

We have already spoken to the Government about the Population Registration Act, in particular about section 5 which is based on race classification. This is not an Act which is widely supported amongst our people either, because there are certain problems in connection with this particular Act which could be called discrimination.

There are many calls from our community for the creation of one education system with one curriculum under one Ministry. We are constantly being told that we are moving in that direction. The hon the Minister of National Education recently said in this House that there was one education department. I cannot agree with him, however, as there are so many Ministers of Education who control education on a political basis.

There is also an important obstacle as far as local authorities are concerned. These days we are operating on the basis of management committees which are largely advisory committees. As in the case of the positive step we took in the creation of regional services councils where we can jointly consider matters of common concern, I think the time has come for us to consider the system of local government too. I do not believe that we shall solve our problems if we advise one other on a separate basis as is the case at present.

I think it would be better, for the towns in which such structures exist, for only one structure to be established, namely one municipality for all the residents of a particular town.

We are going to have another election in October, and I do not know how easy it will be for those who will be taking part in the election to convince the voters to vote for members of management committees who are really only represented on an advisory basis to a large extent.

In conclusion I should like to suggest to the Government that we again give impartial consideration to the possibility of a unitary state with universal suffrage. This has worked since the advent of Union. Sir, let us investigate the factors which give the impression that it cannot work now. Alternatively, we must have an in-depth investigation of a federal system of government. Let us model it on the eight development or economic areas, as the Government has set things out in its planning campaign and about which it has been advised from time to time by the regional development advisory committees, as this would form a unit with its own kind of economic development problems and so on.

In conclusion I should like to congratulate the Government on the steps it has taken to deal with the inflationary gremlin. When such positive steps are taken, I feel myself at liberty to support them.

Mr Chairman, I am indeed privileged to participate in this debate on the State President’s Vote.

Hopefully the hon the State President is in a more understanding mood this time than he was on his last visit to this House. [Interjections.] I ask the hon the State President to realise that our love for South Africa is as fervent as his and that together, we, as equals, will have to negotiate to find the solutions which are so desperately needed for all South Africans to achieve their aspirations.

Sir, the hon the State President must be commended for having initiated the reform process. He did that against tremendous odds—a split was even caused in the Afrikaner nation—but he had the courage to start the reform process, thereby giving all South Africans hope for the future. Why then did he stop? Did the hon the State President realise that ethnic confederalism was not going to succeed and, in view of the fact that the Government did not have an alternative plan, that it was better to stop and to take stock?

It is a great pity that the Government refuses really to study the LP’s constitutional proposals of a non-racial geographic federation, for I believe therein is contained the basis for South Africa’s constitutional future.

It is generally assumed that a leader who has not planned for the future is ruling over the demise of his people. It is topical in most circles today that the Government’s policies are vague, that the Government has no clear vision and that it has no definite constitutional plan for the future. Sir, I want to say to the hon the State President that as much as we in this House abhor the policies of the CP, we believe they are attracting voters because of their clear-cut policies. The same can also be said of the LP, which is strongly being led by the Rev Allan Hendrickse, and has clearly defined policies and a set goal. The Ceres by-election result clearly proved this. A total of 7 080 people voted. The LP got 5 730 votes.

On 4 January 1983 the Labour Party Congress took the decision to participate in the tricameral system, fully aware of all the flaws contained in the new dispensation. At the time we believed it to be the vehicle to use in the transformation of the constitutional history of South Africa, committing the Government to a process of political and social reform and reasoning that, for the first time in the history of our country, people of colour would be able to take part in both the legislative and executive authority.

Although we did not consider the proposals of the Government to be the answer to the constitutional demands of our time, because of, among other reasons, the exclusion of the largest section of our population, congress decided that we would use the tricameral Parliament as a point of departure and that after five years we would return to our people and request their mandate on whether we should return or not. This we intend doing in 1989, if not before, for we participated knowing we would have to share joint responsibility with Government, especially under sections 99(3) and 99(4) of the Constitution. However, we find it ironic that the hon the State President, who on numerous occasions says that he agrees with our democratic rights to disagree with him when we use our democratic constitutional right, then accuses the LP of confrontation.

In Hansard: House of Representatives of 19 August 1987, cols 2284 and 2286, the hon the State President said, and I quote:

La Rochefoucauld says: “A true friend is the greatest of all blessings.”

May I respectfully ask the hon the State President if in his opinion it is a blessing when a true friend maintains the Population Registration Act, and can the hon the State President associate this Act with human dignity? Is it a blessing when a true friend can defend so many different education departments and say sport is totally integrated when there is very little contact at primary and secondary public school levels as regards education and sport between Black and White children?

Is it a blessing when a true friend is intent on defending the Group Areas Act after all the harm it has created? I am a victim of that Act, Sir. Is it a blessing when a true friend allows his Deputy Minister of Development Planning, Mr Piet Badenhorst, to tell an NP meeting that the Government intended giving the Group Areas Act more teeth and to urge his Maitland audience to report “illegal” residents to the police as he, a man of the cloth, has done? Is it a blessing when a true friend gives a promise to the nation on 6 May 1986 “that forced resettlements have been stopped” and the Supreme Court finds that in the case of the Noordhoek squatters the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning had not told Parliament the truth on 6 February when he said that the Noordhoek squatters had loaded their belongings and demolished their structures voluntarily?

Is it a blessing when a true friend is going to allow another forced removal from Lawaaikamp near George, a constituency once held by that true friend?

Is it a blessing when a true friend has requests from 17 White public schools in Cape Town and also from the Cape Town school board to open their schools and turns down this request?

Is it a blessing when a true friend, who is also a senior citizen, allows White senior citizens to live in peace and tranquility in underoccupied homes, whereas there are only 37 of these homes in the Coloured community to house 2 827 of his Coloured friends in environments which leave occupants vulnerable to antisocial elements? Is it a blessing when a true friend refuses to increase the pension of his friends in order to close the gap between them and Whites?

If newspaper reports are true, is it a blessing when a true friend would bulldoze through Parliament, via the President’s Council, the Group Areas Act Amendment Bill and the Free Settlement Areas Bill if consensus is not reached in the standing committees with the Houses of Representatives and Delegates?

I would sincerely ask the hon the State President to reconsider his statement in Hansard: House of Representatives of 19 August 1987, col 2291:

I assume that is from 1949 onwards. May I then respectfully again ask the hon the State President to comment on the following: The Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act of 1949, the Immorality Amendment Act of 1950, the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act of 1953—which enforced segregation in lifts, toilets, parks, beaches, hotels, restaurants, etc—the Population Registration Act—which classified Whites, Coloureds and Blacks—and the Group Areas Act?

This latter Act was also supplemented by the Natives Resettlement Act, the Natives (Urban Areas) Act, aimed at moving Blacks out of servants’ quarters in apartment blocks. The Bantu Education Act of 1953 and the Extension of University Education Act both allowed for segregated education. Then there was also the Native Labour Act of 1953 and the Industrial Conciliation Act of 1956. The Development Trust and Land Act was supplemented by various proclamations and amendments which enabled the Government to control every aspect of the Black economy. It even stipulated how many times a year buildings should be whitewashed. The Physical Planning Act forced industries to decentralise to growth points, border industries and homelands. Then there were the Asiatic Laws Act 47 of 1948, the Separate Representation of Voters Act—which removed Coloureds from the common voters’ roll—the Bantu Authorities Act, and the Promotion of Bantu Self-Governing Act, which abolished Black representation in the House of Assembly and laid down guidelines for government systems in the homelands.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the State President if, in his opinion, those Acts I have just mentioned were apartheid Acts?

In November 1984 the hon the State President described the direction reform policies would take. His words were: “In future no minority group should find itself in the position to oppress or patronize any other minority population group in South Africa.” In January 1986 the hon the State President said:

He stressed that—

These words were welcomed by all here and overseas. May I ask the hon the State President if this promise still stands. If so, when does he intend translating it into reality?

Mr Chairman, in conclusion I wish to quote George Washington who said: “Action, not words, is the true criterion of friends.” May God preserve the health of the hon the State President and favour him with strength to lead, for he will need it to fulfil the promises he has made. I still believe that in his position he is the one person around who can really get reform going again.

Mr Chairman, allow me to compliment the hon member for Retreat on an excellent speech. He definitely delivered it with conviction.

Mr Chairman, as I said last year, it is once again a privilege to take part in this annual occasion when the hon the State President visits this House. I would like to point out something which we in this House find terribly frustrating. It is this whole question of semantics which the NP has perfected to an art. When we go back to the word “apartheid” we see that in his speech in the House of Assembly the hon the State President said:

Apartheid is not only a term of abuse; to us it is abuse, and therefore it has rightly been declared a heresy by our churches. Every person of colour in this country has been abused by apartheid. The hon the State President talks of revolting perceptions having been created. Mr Chairman, to us they are not perceptions, they are reality. This word “apartheid”, and what it means and stands for, is the problem, but then we find the Government indulging in its semantics game. Rather than addressing the problem, they change the name. Therefore, we have had separate development and we have had parallel development. Then they decided to move away from the “outmoded concept of apartheid”, and now we have arrived at the new mode of apartheid, that is own affairs.

We find that the same thing applies to what used to be called Bantu education, or Bantu administration which became Plural Relations. It then became Co-operation and Development and is now Education and Development Aid. Once again, Sir, it is not the root causes that have been addressed, it is merely the changing of names. Let us look at the National Council which I believe started out as the National Forum, then became the National Council and then the National Statutory Council, and the State President, in a moment of magnanimity, has offered to call it the “Great Indaba”. Once again it is running away from the realities and not dealing with the root causes.

Group areas is a particularly sensitive matter to those of us in this House because of what it means to us, what it has cost us in human suffering, in human life, in pain, in blood, in sweat and tears. About something as sensitive as that, the hon the State President can glibly declare that it is not a sacred cow, but that it can be amended. However, Sir, he says the principle of separate residential areas will remain. Now, to us group areas equals residential areas. Once again we have this playing with words.

We now find that in order to allay White right-wing fears, the hon the President does not want to touch the Group Areas Act any more. No, on the contrary, he wants to tighten it and make it more foolproof. He now wants to introduce a Free Settlement Bill which will exempt certain areas from the Group Areas Act. Once again, Sir, he is not dealing with the underlying fundamental problems.

The hon the State President has been quoted as saying on occasion that he believes in universal suffrage, a common word, with a certain connotation and meaning here and outside of this House. However, when the hon the State President speaks of universal suffrage he seems to feel that that means a vote for the House of Assembly or a vote for the House of Delegates, or a vote for the KwaZulu legislature, or the KaNgwane legislature or the Transkei Government or the Ciskei Government or for the Soweto Black local authority or the KwaNobuhle Black local authority. Mr Chairman, this is not what we mean and he knows it. If we are honest with each other and straightforward, then we would realise that we need to talk about the same thing. Sir, the Government speaks of consensus. We know how much worth to attach to that word. After all, we have experienced this time and again in this House where we have had security legislation and other legislation referred to the President’s Council and now we have been given prior notice that it is the Government’s intention—despite our objections—to “ram through” the President’s Council the Group Areas Amendment Bill and the Free Settlement Bill.

*Unfortunately, I may not use the Afrikaans word.

Why not?

It is unparliamentary.

†Sir, is it consensus when they make provisions in the new Standing Rules that we need not even be present on a standing committee and that decisions can be taken as if we were not there in the first place.

The NP seems to have extended the principle of own affairs to include that of an own dictionary. They have certainly attached their own connotations to common everyday words.

Let us take the term democracy or domination. They say “no group shall dominate another”. Mr Chairman, this is a fallacy. Every plan that this Government has come up with or attempts has built-in NP domination. We have it here in the tricameral Parliament, we have it in the President’s Council and we have it in the electoral college. Now the hon the State President says that Blacks could be accommodated in that electoral college. However, what would be the point of doing so unless that electoral college can be structured in such a way that it could be possible for a non-Nationalist to be elected president? Anything short of that would be meaningless.

We have heard so much about paper guarantees that are not acceptable to the Government, that a bill of rights is not worth the paper that it is written on. However, we must ask why, when the majority of us are prepared to accept these guarantees, the Government cannot see their way clear to accept them. Is it because of their own history or of their total disregard for such entrenched clauses and paper guarantees? After all, we all know the story of the immoral enlargement of the Senate in this very Chamber in which we are sitting which enabled the NP to remove us from the common voters’ roll. Is that why they are so sensitive about paper guarantees? We see, now that the Supreme Court has ruled that Moutse cannot be incorporated into KwaNdebele, that the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning has given notice that he will introduce legislation to make this possible.

And, Sir, may I make use of this opportunity to assure the hon the State President that in doing so he will once again be placing us on a collision course, because we are not prepared to support the incorporation of Moutse into KwaNdebele. I wish to mention the forthcoming Group Areas Amendment Act which is going to close loop-holes of an Act which hurts us. In this regard I wish to refer in particular to the Govender case where the Government was compelled to provide alternative accommodation before they evicted people. We see that legislation is now in the pipeline to circumvent this.

We find more and more legislation coming through Parliament which is aimed at circumventing the courts’ jurisdiction. Look at the powers that are being granted to the Minister in terms of the Promotion of Orderly Internal Politics Bill. Look at the powers vested in the Minister in regard to the media. A court can certainly not test whether it was or was not the Minister’s opinion.

However, I want to come back to the question of semantics. What are the results of these word games? They definitely serve to fool no one except perhaps the NP and its propaganda organs. However, they certainly do not fool us and neither do they fool the people out there. The mere results of these games are frustration—increasingly so day by day—and an unwillingness to accept the bona fides of the Government. And then the hon the State President and his Government want to claim injury or foul play when we are not prepared to accept their word. After all, as I have said, we have experience of the word of the Government.

Mr Chairman, the question must be asked: What does the hon the State President and the NP have against us? Is their reaction not just a racist one? They seem to be prepared to have anybody living next to them as long as they have a White skin. Whether people are English, Afrikaans, Portuguese, Greek, Italian or Israeli and whether they are Catholic, Protestant or Jewish, they all seem to be acceptable to the NP if they are White. Even a drunk can live next to an NP member; as long as he has a White skin. The question must be asked: What do they have against us if it is not the colour of our skin? After all, we are supposed to share the same language, the same church and most of the same customs. What do they have against us if it is not the colour of our skin?

I have mentioned to the Government and, in particular to the hon the State President, that they have to try to understand our reluctance to accept the bona fides of this Government when they come with their wonderful terms of outmoded apartheid. That which is immoral must be condemned for being immoral; we should not rationalise about it. When we got rid of influx control, it was too expensive to apply.

In the final analysis I wish to agree with one particular sentiment expressed by the hon the State President in his speech in the House of Assembly. Unfortunately we have to rely on the Press to find out what the hon the State President has said. I believe on page 39 of his speech, the … [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, in the short time which has been allocated to me—it is more like a telephone call—I want to address a very important aspect, viz the significant direction taken by the hon the State President when he spoke in the House of Assembly last week about an evaluation system. I find that extremely interesting because I think it has the makings of something which could develop into something that we as South Africans could possibly use in future.

By rising in the House—whether it is this House or the House of Delegates or the House of Assembly—only in order to criticise, we are becoming useful idiots. We have to start using the via media of politics, because whether we belong on the far left or on the far right, there is a via media on which we can lead our people as South Africans.

We can do that by getting ourselves an evaluation system. We should address the dialectics of South African politics for a change.

†For those hon members who are English-speaking, I am talking about the dialectics of power now. [Interjections.] What we are doing here, Mr Chairman, is addressing the negation which is based on the third law of dialectics.

*We should stop moaning and groaning. I am talking to hon members in both languages so that the hon the Minister of Population Development can also understand. We have to choose the via media, whether hon members like it or not. We have nothing but the reality that we in this country are being confronted by a pre-revolutionary climate. Let us spell it out today: It will not be possible for us, within the next 10 years—I am basing my assertions on scientific studies that have been done—… [Interjections.]

†I am talking about what Elizabeth Dostyle says when she speaks about the driving forces of political change in South Africa. [Interjections.]

What do you say?

What does the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council say? Let us stop writing speeches for one another. Let us stand up and be counted. Let us tell one another where we stand.

We know where we stand.

You know where you stand, but you are not coming back; so you will never stand here again. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Macassar cannot just refer to “you”.

The “hon he” then, Mr Chairman. [Interjections.]

I should like to ask the hon the State President to elucidate, because when we want to start a process of genuine negotiation, we are accused of having tea parties at Tuynhuys. [Interjections.] Well, if tea parties are what it takes to put South Africa to rights, we should have one big tea party. Let us talk about the reality. What do the people at large want? Let us go back to the people and ask them what they want for South Africa. [Interjections.] That is the truth that hurts so much, Sir. Let us expand this evaluation system, because it is important. It does not matter what system we introduce here. We should decide whether we want an Ireland or a Lebanon, and we should decide once and for all.

You are digressing now.

No, the hon the Minister should not digress. It is a good thing that the hon the Minister of National Health and Population Development is here, because on 14 February he said it was safer to kiss somebody than to shake his hand, and the way in which that hon Minister greets people is beginning to assume epidemic proportions. [Interjections.] That hon Minister should be honest. He says I am digressing, but he has digressed to such an extent that he no longer wants to look at reports he agreed to when he was in the President’s Council. Let me just ask this question, Sir.

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon the Minister must please contain himself.

That from a Minister, Sir! We shall have to ask the hon the State President to make other nominations in future. [Interjections.]

The key question in South Africa today concerns dialectics, because if we are going to go on denying the facts, if the NP is going to deny that there are people of colour, and if the rest of the world is going to deny that we are around as well, it is time that we should address this problem ourselves. [Interjections.]

†I am talking about the dialectics of power. I am not surprised that those hon members do not understand these issues. [Interjections.]

*Sir, we should very much like the hon the State President to explain this via media to us, this evaluation system to which he referred.

That hon member cannot even drive his car properly.

Chris Cat, Chris cross, be quiet. [Interjections.]

It is true, Sir, that we are being confronted by the active presence of an enduring revolutionary onslaught inside and outside South Africa.

We have to beware, however, that the Government does not become too reactionary, because it would appear that whenever there is an onslaught the Government overreacts. That kind of reactionary behaviour causes us to be divided into two factions. On the one hand there are those who are prepared to strive for what is best for the country. I want to come back to the question of “useful idiots”, because when one does not address the poverty, the misery and the injustice in this country strongly enough, one is condemned. On the other hand, when one is not prepared to attack the status quo one is condemned for that as well. That is why, at this late hour, it is important for South Africa that we follow the via media. We can no longer tolerate an onslaught from the far right or from the far left. If it is essential and in the interests of South Africa that we talk to the ANC, we should talk to them. If it is important to talk to the UDF, we should talk to them as well. We cannot wish away any grouping in this country. Our presence in this House is the ultimate proof that we can achieve nothing in this country through wishful thinking. My time has just about expired, but I should like to ask the hon the State President to tell us clearly how he views the evaluation system and to tell us what we are going to achieve with it in the future.

Order! The hon member for Retreat said in his speech earlier this afternoon, and I quote:

*My attention has been drawn to the fact that a court application with regard to the Noordhoek squatters is pending. Accordingly, I have to ask the hon member for Retreat to withdraw those words in terms of Standing Order 130 of the Standing Rules and Orders. [Interjections.] I shall deal with the matter as soon as the hon member is in the House again.

Mr Chairman, in the first place I should like to make a correction and it is that we won the Bokkeveld constituency precisely as a result of shaking hands.

†Sir, I was requested, and I have a duty to do so, to set the record straight and to clarify certain matters. The memory of the last Budget debate of the hon the State President is still vivid in my mind. I remember so well what I had to say. As a member of the LP I believed then, as I believe now, that sanctions, disinvestment and the general boycott of South Africa had been wrought by the policy of apartheid and that those people classified as Whites have it in their power to bring about genuine and lasting changes by ensuring that all the peoples of South Africa have a fair share and an equal say in this beautiful country of ours.

On the day in question I gave fair warning about the disastrous consequences that we would all have to face if reform in South Africa was not carried out with purpose and greater speed.

After the debate in question I felt bitterly disappointed by the hon the State President’s reaction, when he said that I was visiting America too often and that he would put a stop to it. Sir, I went to the United States with one purpose in mind, namely to convey my genuine belief that only South Africans, without outside interferences, could resolve their internal problems and that genuine reform was taking place. At that time genuine reform was taking place, Sir. I begged the Americans to give us the necessary time.

In July 1986 and February 1987 I related this to literally millions of Americans by means of radio, television and other interviews. I addressed, amongst others, over 30 journalists at the United Nations in New York and over 5 000 delegates at the National Religious Broadcasters’ Convention. These views of mine were also televised on the popular Cable News Network immediately after President Reagan’s positive speech on South Africa. The State Department, the White House and the “irrelevant” Minister from South Africa, as the leader of the opposition called me, were all given an opportunity to reply to the President of America’s speech on South Africa.

Afterwards I had meetings with Vice-President Bush, Republican candidates Pat Robertson and Jack Kemp, as well as other senators, congressmen and staff members of the White House and the State Department.

In Washington, New York, Los Angeles, Virginia Beach and Baton Rouge I met with leading evangelical Christians. In fact, during my 1986 visit I had 68 appointments in 14 days in the aforementioned cities. Sir, I worked from 8.00 am until past midnight. I had to travel by night to reach my various destinations. [Interjections.]

At all times I defended and exalted the hon the State President, regardless of the Americans’ negative views of him.

*Sir, I did this for South Africa. I did it for my Head of State. Here is proof of that, Sir.

†I have a whole set of video casettes which are in the possession of the Department of Foreign Affairs.

*Sir, I now want to ask like Balaam’s ass: Why are you beating me? Why do I have to suffer this humiliation whereas I did everything in my power to put South Africa’s case? [Interjections.]

†Sir, because of his reaction I wrote a letter to the hon the State President on 21 August 1987, expressing my bitter disappointment at his reaction to something I have in a forum which was especially created for people to express genuine belief based on personal convictions.

Surely this House was not created merely to agree with everything that happens in this country. It was not created so that that constructive criticism of the Government policy could be avoided at all costs and so that warnings could not be given. [Interjections.] Sir, I am a member of the LP and the LP entered Parliament to dismantle apartheid. It entered Parliament to fight discriminatory laws and the abolition of discriminatory laws within the system. We want a true democratic society and not a partial one, as is the case at the moment. Everyone must have representation at all levels of Government. I am here to strive for these goals. [Interjections.]

*Let me speak Afrikaans for a change; I have been speaking English for long enough. [Interjections.] The House of Representatives did not come into being so that hon members were to agree with everything which was happening in the country and for them to refrain at all costs from constructive criticism toward Government policy and not direct warnings to the Government.

Sir, permit me to read my letter to the hon the State President, to which I have just referred, to hon members:

The hon the State President has those reports. I shall quote further:

[Interjections.] The hon member would do better to keep quiet. I shall continue:

The hon the State President reacted to this:

So much for the two letters. I want to repeat that I am not engaged in a witch-hunt against the Afrikaner. In the first place I am an Afrikaner myself.

What does history say? During the 17th century the words “Africaan”, “Africaander” and “Africaaner” were found in official documents about the Cape but then exclusively as a name for non-White indigenous peoples. At the beginning of the 18th century they were used for Whites too and specifically for those who were born in South Africa. All of us who were born in South Africa are therefore Afrikaners—we are of Africa. In his book Ideaal and Werklikheid Dr Gerrit Viljoen refutes this, however, and says I am merely a Coloured Afrikaans-speaking person. According to him, Afrikaners are racially pure people. Then what about the thousands who were classified Coloured and are now classified White? [Interjections.]

I want to present a few of the Afrikaner’s cultural characteristics to the House. One of the most important cohesive forces is his language, Afrikaans. Secondly, there is his history and his view of it. Then there is his traditional opinion as regards government and his Christian religion in the form of Protestantism. As far as territory is concerned, he regards South Africa as his only home. Lastly, there are his institutions and organisations like the church, the DR Church. These characteristics are also inherent in us who sit in this Chamber.

One of the greatest problems today is the deterioration in the mutual relations and attitudes in our country. This is aggravated by the action of Government leaders and members of the House of Assembly in Parliament and in public. I want to assure the hon the State President that as a result of this, suspicion, mistrust, frustration, scepticism, bitterness and even hatred are increasing again. With regard to the Whites, selfishness, ignorance, fear, prejudice, insensitivity and a lack of acceptance of their fellow men are on the increase again. We of the LP look forward to the day when mutual relations will be such that we will know one another, accept and trust one another and work together to create a new South Africa.

This large-scale change in attitude is of the utmost importance for our continued existence in South Africa and could lead to some of the most splendid moments in our history.

The Whites will have to realise that we are also citizens of South Africa. The Black people will have to be included in the decision-making process as soon as possible too. If a Black man were to become the State President, we would have to have prepared ourselves to accept him as a fellow South African. [Interjections.]

As a result of all the discriminatory laws which still exist, we feel that we are not part of South Africa. The LP is striving for a South Africa without apartheid in which we shall not be seen as Whites, Blacks and Coloureds but as South Africans. I want to conclude with these words: “Man’s desire to be free is greater than his desire to survive. Man’s desire to survive knows no bounds.”

Order! While the hon member for Retreat was outside the House a matter which is sub judice was brought to my attention. It needs to be rectified.

Mr Chairman, I have been informed of the point of order concerning a statement in my speech earlier today in respect of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and the Noordhoek squatters. My source is a leader article in the Cape Times dated 19 April 1988. I accept your ruling that the matter is sub judice and I wish to withdraw that statement in my speech.

Mr Chairman, permit me to say that it is once again an honour and a pleasure for me to welcome our hon State President to this House today.

It is impossible to make a political speech in the few minutes at my disposal and I therefore only hope that I shall have the opportunity of being able to make a few statements here today.

I should like to remind the House of and thank the hon the State President for his contribution and sacrifices in the early eighties in paving the way so that we are gathered in this House today, that we could come out of the political wilderness and strive with him as members of Parliament for a political solution for our country. I also want to take this opportunity to praise the hon the State President for his contribution and his support which led to our being able to make one of the most important breakthroughs in the political history of Parliament, namely that joint sittings and debating can take place today.

I want to say in the House that the hon the State President deserves all credit for the fact that joint sittings are taking place in his lifetime and under his leadership. I want to say in the House today that there are thousands of people who support the hon the State President in his effort to create a situation in the country in which there can be a place for each of us. There are also thousands of people, however, who do not have the courage to stand up today, as I am standing in the House, and to say that they support him. I am convinced that the hon the State President is one of the most important political leaders in South Africa, on the continent of Africa and in the world.

†I firmly believe that the hon the State President holds the key to that vital political solution that will ensure a peaceful South Africa for all South Africans. I am saying this in this Chamber today because I believe that no political plan or resolution or policy will succeed in South Africa without the support of the hon the State President and his party.

In closing I wish to assure the hon the State President of my fullest and most loyal support in his future political endeavours as the political head of our country.

Mr Chairman, I was rather shocked today—I can almost say my faith was shaken—by the attitude which hon members adopted in the House. I was shocked at the radicalism which is starting to get the upper hand here and which cannot lead us anywhere.

I want to turn to the hon the State President in the first place and read section 20 of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, Act 110 of 1983, to him.

†It reads:

1. (a) the State President, who shall preside at its meetings;
2. (b) the Ministers appointed to administer departments of State for general affairs;

I want to concentrate on subsection (c) which reads:

1. (c) any Minister appointed to perform functions other than the administration of a department of State and designated by the State President as a member of the Cabinet; …

The fact that the leader of the majority party in this House was a member of the Cabinet did not meet with my approval and I said so openly. I believed that the leader of a political party of the oppressed could not serve on the Cabinet and I still hold that view. However, we also have a constitution to uphold. In terms of the Constitution a member of this House must serve on the Cabinet. The relevant section reads “shall” and not “may”. Section 21(1)(d) reads:

1. (1) A Ministers’ Council shall consist of—
   1. (d) any Minister of the Cabinet who is a member of the population group in question and who has been co-opted by the Ministers’ Council as a member thereof, whether for a definite or for an indefinite period or for a particular purpose.

During the Second Reading debate on the general affairs Budget it was made clear in this House that we were shortchanged because of the absence from the Cabinet of a member of this component. We only became aware earlier this year that this budget was worked out five years ago; now it would appear that this House has lost R720 million as a result of the now infamous swim. [Interjections.]

*Hon members may say that this cannot be true. I had the documents with me when I convinced them of it and told them what we should have received and what we did receive. They must stop complaining now.

†The hon the State President has certain powers in terms of section 24(1). The section reads:

The law does make provision, therefore, for an hon member from this House to be appointed to the Cabinet. Moreover, the law states that he “shall be appointed”. I should like the hon the State President to honour and uphold the Constitution. After all, it is our Constitution too, even though we do not agree with everything it contains.

Now make a recommendation.

The hon member wants me to make a recommendation.

*The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council who can serve on it is sitting here. There are other hon Ministers in the Ministers’ Council who can also serve on it. Perhaps the hon member can serve on it himself. If he wishes, I can beg for him to be appointed. [Interjections.] It seems to me that we are still caught up in plaintive cries because all that emanated from this Committee today was complaints and whining, and there was no positive contribution to the future of this country except in the speeches of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and my fellow party member, the hon member for Macassar. They tried to contribute to the solutions and not to add to the laments raised here.

Do you want to say there is nothing wrong?

There is a great deal wrong in the country but we shall try to put it right. We have not come here merely to complain about it. That is the difference.

We are entering the future. The 21st century is just round the corner.

†Tremendous population growth is taking place. It has been estimated that in 25 years’ time the Black population of this country will be 49,5 million. Moreover, we will have a massive urbanisation problem as a result of the influx of people from the rural areas to the towns. We will need more homes, we will need infrastructures, and we will need job opportunities for those people. Those are the problems which I thought would be addressed here today. We will also have group expectations. Owing to increasing urbanisation people will aspire to a higher level. People have been receiving education over the past few years which has led to their raising their sights to a better life.

What do we find in this country today, however? We are being denied …

Peter Mopp standing. [Interjections.]

I can tell the hon member I shall not take a seat and still less will I be crouching in a corner. The hon member knows what I am talking about. [Interjections.]

†People in this country have aspirations. The vast majority of the Black people are totally excluded from the present system. What we need, therefore, is not input at second-tier or third-tier level; what we need is input at central level. We have to address the natural political aspirations of the Blacks. [Interjections.]

* As one hon member said, Sir, we cannot afford to see a new Beirut in this country. Still less can we afford to see an Ireland in this country. Even less than that can we afford to permit the lion’s share of our money to go to the Defence Force to maintain law and order in this country.

Give us your solution.

The solution is easy. Firstly, the hon member must go; then we can proceed. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Klipspruit West must control himself and must do so immediately! [Interjections.] The hon member for Border may proceed.

The choice does not He between the AWB and the ANC. The choice for us—after all, we also have a share in this country; this is also our fatherland—is the choice of peace. All who are sitting in this Chamber now believe in that peace. How are we going to bring it about, however, if the hon the State President does not want to talk to the ANC? They are even planting bombs in the vicinity of Parliament now. We are prepared to talk to people from Angola. Why are we not prepared to talk to the ANC? Surely they are not enemies as they have frequently been described. They are citizens of this country. We talk to enemies who come from Cuba and from Russia; why can we not talk to citizens of our country? Efforts must be made to talk to them so that they may also see that there is another life in this country—a life of peace. As long as we refuse to talk to them, however, that is as long as we shall have trouble in this country and that is as long as the NP will be a reactionary party.

†The NP is reacting to things that are happening. That is why I welcome the move by the hon the State President to appoint a Prime Minister, and I do so for the simple reason that the hon the State President can then fulfil the role of bringing the people of this country together.

At present, as leader of the NP and as State President, he cannot fulfil that role because the NP is being seen—and rightly so—as the oppressor by the vast majority of people in this country. Any opposition, whether legitimate or otherwise, is purposely oppressed so that the NP can maintain the power which they have in this country. Only once the hon the State President has shed the image of being head of the NP and has assumed the mantle he deserves, namely as leader of this country, will he be able to fulfil that role. As leader of a country the hon the State President has to look after the interests of each and every person in the country and not only the interests of the NP. The sooner we have a division between the role of State President on the one hand, and the role of administrative head of the NP or Prime Minister on the other, the better. We will certainly welcome that.

We have to re-examine the present attitudes of the present political parties within the tricameral system. In this regard I want to address the NP because they will have to re-examine their role in the future of this country. One cannot maintain power through the barrel of a gun, because one will lose it ultimately. We do not want the NP to maintain power in this country, we want them to share that power. The type of sharing that takes place in this tricameral system could hardly be called sharing. It is a mere delegation of administrative duties.

*The hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare is shaking his head now, but earlier he was whining and complaining here about how hard and well he worked. He merely carries out administrative duties, however. The hon the Minister is indicating that I should go, but he cannot even negotiate a better pension for our people.

You are His Master’s Voice.

The hon member would say that because whenever we visit the hon the State President we have to hear about a tea party. We do not have tea, however—the hon the State President can confirm this—because there is no time for tea. Nevertheless when hon members on that side of the House visited the hon the State President, what happened? Do other hon members agree with what the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare said here this afternoon? The vast majority does not say this.

†Sir, we have to address the issues that confront South Africa; and these issues cannot be addressed by means of the present policy of consensus, because consensus means giving concessions. The future can only be addressed when true negotiations take place and once instruments have been set up in this country to get those people who have to sit around the table to realise that they will have to come to the table. It is essential to do that, because the present policy of consensus means nothing but concessions.

"That is why we continually request that more concessions be made, which the Government is apparently not prepared to do. This is not powersharing. Round that table we shall … [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, there are three matters that I should like to rectify at the start of my speech. In the first place, it is a privilege to be able to take part in this debate. I hope I have shaken off last year’s baptism of fire. The second point I want to make is that I have no more problems now that Western Province is on a winning streak again. In the third place I want to add that I have made sure this time that Oom Paul’s monkey’s tail has been securely tied. [Interjections.]

We all go through a baptism of fire at some or other stage, and in our search for peaceful solutions such a baptism of fire is an everyday occurrence. He who does not dare, does not make mistakes; but then neither does he win. That does not mean, however, that we should gamble with the future or the security of our country. In all my years of involvement in the South African community I have always endeavoured to bring about the development of better relations and a healthier atmosphere between fellow South Africans.

I was subjected to a baptism of fire on many occasions. However, we always put South Africa’s interests first. South Africa is our country; it is our only home. For that reason we are prepared to defend our country. Other hon members in this House have done so with pride and with dignity on many occasions. Accusations are hurled at us and we are often referred to as sell-outs or puppets or Uncle Toms, but neither the threats nor the intimidation will cause us to deviate from our course.

I know from my experience of foreign countries that we still have allies who will take up our cause. Our friends overseas are waiting for signs of positive reform. We should not write them off or let them down. We shall have to be very selective, however, when it comes to accepting advice or help. That is why it would be a good thing if there were no legislation which stood in the way of our receiving assistance that is rendered with good intentions. It has been said that sanctions have a negative influence on development. If that is the case we should welcome aid, but we should do so selectively. This aid, which is given with good intentions and which is concerned with the improvement of people’s quality of life, can only benefit us.

As far as the political sphere is concerned, we have to take into account the reality of the problems and challenges of our time. There is a general fear of destruction, so if we are to carry out the task successfully we shall have to display courage, confidence and an entrepreneurial spirit. No one can dispute the fact that I expressed confidence in the hon the State President a long time ago. I believe that he can take the lead in the political sphere when it comes to the reform process in South Africa. I am still prepared to express confidence in him.

We should not gamble with our future, however. We have to be courageous and continue the process of reform. We should not be intimidated by left-wing or right-wing groups. We have to do what is right and we have to put South Africa’s interests first. In that way we can promote security and stability with a view to the future. The hon the State President must surely be aware of his responsibility to solve this intricate problem.

Time is running out for us, Sir. We need only look at the renewed onslaught on our country, at the arms build-up on our borders, at the adoption of legislation against South Africa, and at sports boycotts. We need only look at the despicable campaign against Zola Budd. Our enemies did not hesitate to tackle this innocent girl.

It is a shame!

The hon the State President will have to solve this intricate problem, because the task is becoming increasingly difficult. It is in South Africa’s interests that we go on supporting a peaceful process of negotiation, despite threats and intimidation. We cannot expect foreign countries to put South Africa’s interests first. They will not accept responsibility for what is happening here. On the other hand, we have to support those who take up our cause. We should not let the prophets of doom win. The search for peaceful solutions should act as a bridge between our communities. It is only in this way—in the right spirit—that we can build a new South Africa.

Security is another factor which binds our people together. It is a lot easier to discover common ground when there is peace, harmony and stability than when there is violence, enmity and disorder. New symbols of unity and renewal should help us to create a new vision.

That is why we welcome the economic initiatives of privatisation and deregulation. We realise that economic reform will be the driving force behind successful political and social reform. We have to beware, however, that State-controlled monopolies are not replaced by monsters from the private sector. Our goal should be to ensure that the entire community benefits from these moves.

I am afraid that the broader fishing community on the West Coast is not benefiting from these processes. As someone who grew up on the West Coast I am appealing on behalf of my people. They were left out in the cold for too long in the past. Let us act in the spirit of the Diemont Report. I am convinced that, if we can succeed in laying the foundation of our new South Africa in the spirit of harmony, we shall be able to withstand the onslaughts. The task of structuring the new South Africa is the task of our generation; and the building materials which we shall have to use are materials like the spirit of unity, the desire to serve our country, the improvement of our people’s quality of life, and security. That demands a new spirit from each one of us.

I should like to conclude by referring to a letter my little daughter gave me on the way to Parliament this morning. It reads:

The letter also contains a personal prayer:

Mr Chairman, I want to repeat an old story of an experience of a young man, Johnny, who was participating in a massive parade down Adderley Street while he was in the army. His mother was on the sidewalk, very proud of her only son who was willing to lay down his life for his country. As the band went marching past, with everybody marching left, right, left, right, Johnny was marching right, left. She turned to her neighbour, standing next to her, and said, “Kyk nou daar, my seun is die enigste een wat reg is.” The impression one gains when one meets people from outside South Africa and when one goes into the outside world is that South Africa is out of step with the rest of the world, yet our Government and our leaders see South Africa as being the only one in step. I believe people are correct when they find South Africa a “strange land”.

John Donne said, “No man is an island”. I want to underscore and expand that by saying no country is an island. We cannot afford to say to the rest of the world “Do your damnedest.” I believe this is a display of arrogance which does not recognise the reality of international dependence and interdependence. The world has become so small that if one were to leave Tokyo today and fly across to San Francisco and people were to ask one when one had left, one would have to say, “I left tomorrow.” South Africa is a beautiful land and I believe we have a beautiful potential in terms of human relationships. South Africa has beautiful people and with all this beauty around us in terms of country and people one must ask oneself why South Africa has become the polecat of the international community.

It is so, as hon members have already mentioned, that we can and do excel in our own country in all areas, for example, in sports.

However, one has no standard of comparison unless one can participate in international competition. What a price our young sportsmen and women, athletes and others, must pay. This all because at one time or stage in the history of the country the then Prime Minister would not allow Basil D’Oliviera to come here as a cricketer representing England.

As we find ourselves in this House and in the South African situation we all need to be emancipated. We all have to be liberated—liberated from ourselves and our human weaknesses with regard to the dominance of personalities. I believe we have to be liberated from the circumstances in which we find ourselves. Not only those who have been denied opportunities over so many years, but also the privileged section of the community, those classified as White, must be liberated from their fears. I believe that we must be liberated from our human limitations which place a limit on the visions that we have and ought to have for the future of our country. However, that vision is dimmed by the atmosphere and experience of apartheid.

I believe—and I say it with conviction—that this party is dedicated to the liberation of all South Africans, both White and Black. As I said during the Second Reading debate, the whole issue concerns victims. I believe that every weak nation—hon members mentioned examples from overseas, Lebanon and the Irish situation—exploited by a strong nation is a victim. Every man and woman denied a chance to read and write is a victim. Every man and woman deprived of a chance to acquire skills in our technical age is a victim. I also believe that every family that is undernourished is a victim. Not only the unemployed but every man and woman who is underpaid is a victim and any child bom of the union of such a man and woman is doubly victimised, for not only does he have to suffer malnutrition, disease, overcrowded housing conditions or actual homelessness, desertion by parents or parental ignorance and talents stunted by starvation, but also the crippling effects of insecurity and deprivation of love.

I believe that every man who has spent a lifetime at work without once being asked to help with production planning, is a victim. However, I am pleased to note that industry at this stage is moving towards the recognition of the workers’ need for participation. Every person who has been denied equality and every person who has been maimed or killed in whatever situation is a victim. I said it the other day and I must repeat it once more—if young men die in defence of a country, a situation and a system, they are victims of the situation.

As long as there is one victim in this beautiful land of ours, South Africa, the process of liberation, of freeing people, Black and White, must continue. The fact that some of us present here and participating in this debate were at one time made to suffer the indignity of being put in jail without the right to appear before a court shows that we were also victims of the racist system of apartheid.

I believe we must approach the whole situation in which we find ourselves today by seeking a truly democratic process if we are to fulfil our requirements and objectives. We in the LP have stated our objective as being the full participation of all South Africans in the law-making institutions and, as a priority, participation in Parliament. Parliamentary democracy provides a fine means for legitimising the passing of natural laws, but we must remember that parliamentary democracy is only the beginning of true democracy.

In South Africa—in our experience—parliamentary democracy is, in fact, nothing more than a means of legitimising rule by and the power of the minority. The South African parliamentary democracy tends to disguise and entrench what is in reality a system of bureaucratic control. When one looks at our present structure one sees clearly that we are in a situation of White domination. The final decision-making does not lie with us in this House, but in the President’s Council which by its very structure ensures White-dominated decision-making.

I believe liberation can only be secured, in political terms, when all people have access to decision-making at the community as well as at national level. We want to state clearly that nothing but the full participation of all people of South Africa—we said this at Eshowe—in all the law-making processes and decision-making processes will ever satisfy the demands of the oppressed people.

We all, Black and White, must be liberated; and this must begin within the mind. I say this because an essential demand of our time is that we perceive the reality of the present situation very clearly and not through dark glasses. We must get rid of our false interpretations and one-sided, biased perceptions before we can conceive of a future which is not a variation of the past.

What we need is a revolution. By that I do not mean a revolution of a violent overthrow of the existing power—let me say again that the LP is dedicated to non-violent change—but a revolution in the minds and hearts of people who have power so that there can be new perspectives.

*The two pillars on which apartheid rests, the race classification legislation and the Group Areas Act, must be addressed. The future of South Africa will remain a nightmare for us and for our children until the NP Government begins to dismantle and reform these pillars of apartheid—if they can be reformed.

I am not going to take up any time by quoting from a document now, but I have before me a report on a tragic appeal from a person who is sitting without land or inheritance today because his father was classified White. Perhaps I could say more about this later. I want to remind all hon members in this House of what Victor Hugo said, and I believe this: “If a man sins because of darkness, the guilty one is not he who sins but he who causes the darkness.”

The LP admits that today South Africa is showing evidence of important reforms away from apartheid. We have no argument with that. In the short time since we began to participate we have certainly had evidence of that. But as long as the Group Areas Act, the denial of the right to continued existence of every individual within South Africa and the discrimination in the sphere of education continues, can South Africa ever really tell the outside world that we are engaged in reform?

The well-known Greek philosopher, Aristotle, said there were three basic principles on which equal rights in a community could be based.

†They are “I am a free man”—in a democracy one ought to be able to say “I am a free man”—“I am a man of property” and “I have character and ability”.

I want to remind this House of the words uttered by the hon the Minister of Education and Culture in the House of Assembly when he made an admission of the expensiveness of apartheid. He said inter alia:

*What more can I say than what has already been said by this hon Minister?

In the 1986-87 financial year the Government spent an amount of R6,6 billion on education, and that excluded the four national states. Of this amount no less than R3,7 billion was spent on White education. In the same way not less than 12c out of every rand is being spent by the Government on maintaining and implementing apartheid. It is said that more than 15% of the country’s budget is spent on maintaining apartheid. Then it is said that apartheid is undergoing a metamorphosis. I want to state categorically that apartheid is alive, whether this is admitted or denied.

I referred to the changes that have already taken place. Yesterday we heard about an improvement in the sphere of education in that we now have a joint matriculation board.

There are joint meetings of the Ministers of Education, and in Coloured education we feel that during the past few years our teachers have really felt the change in this sphere. But that is not enough. We insist, as has already been said here—inter alia by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition—on equal education and on one education system for everyone in this country.

It is a fact—I must say this, in spite of the improvements that have been effected—that we are tired of merely being grateful, like Lazarus, for the crumbs which the NP Government gives us from their table in the sphere of education.

The evil of apartheid and everything it symbolises is embodied in the Group Areas Act. What can I as leader of the LP still say about this Act, which is seen as an ungodly and unchristian law, that has not already been said. Today I want to ask the NP Government in all honesty what they want me to say to make them realise that this law, like a cancerous growth, is threatening not only our survival, but also the survival of this country.

The recommendations of the President’s Council in this connection are unacceptable. Surely one cannot give a child who has a sore throat a headache tablet and expect him to recover. Dr Erika Theron, for whom the LP has the greatest respect, recently referred to the report of the President’s Council and wrote as follows:

†Let me quote one or two instances which depict the immorality of this Act. The first relates to the situation in Algoa Park in Port Elizabeth. That situation was consciously created after 1948, when the NP came into power and there was a flow of Afrikaners from the platteland to the urban areas. This particular area became an area to which these people were brought in order to offset the English vote in the North End constituency, as it was then known. However, in terms of the Government’s perception of what the Group Areas Act ought to do and to be, it was situated in an area in which it was bordered by the Coloured area of Gelvandale on the one side, by the industrial area on the other side, and by the Black areas of New Brighton and KwaZakhele next to the industrial area. Mr Chairman, the logical interpretation of that kind of action and the logical consequences of that kind of thinking must surely be that Algoa Park is part of Gelvandale. Yet it is separated from Windvogel Village by a 2-metre fence with barbed wire on the top of it. What do we find there? Despite our housing shortage there are 400 flats standing empty there.

I remember, when the board sat in Port Elizabeth at one time, that the people of Dowerville were faced with the challenge or choice to move, and they said that if the board wanted to take Dowerville away from them, they wanted Algoa Park in return. The Ministers and leaders in Algoa Park, however, used the very same arguments that our leaders used to retain Dowerville, to retain Algoa Park. In this regard I want to quote from the Eastern Province Herald of 30 April 1988:

It is nevertheless interesting to note that the headline of this specific article reads, and I quote:

This is the same message I tried to put across last year. In this regard I want to quote from an editorial, not one from an English newspaper, but from Beeld of 15 February 1988. I quote:

*Sir, it was not I who said this. It was the White editor of a newspaper read primarily by Whites. However, the truth will always prevail. That is why people write about these things. I want to quote further:

Sir, once again it is not I who said this. I quote further:

Day after day, on our way to Parliament, we drive past District Six. The hon member on the opposite side of the House accused us of constantly lamenting, but I want to quote from the Lamentations of Jeremiah, chapter 1, verses 1 and 12, as follows:

†We do not need the Free Settlement Areas Bill, for it certainly does not allow free movement. The final say will be that of the single person at the head of the Government, the State President. It has allegedly been said—and that is immoral—that the amendment to the Group Areas Act will be forced through the President’s Council.

Sir, I want to end. There is so much to say, and so little time. In his address at the presentation of Colours on the Grand Parade on Thursday, 28 April 1988, the hon the State President stated very firmly that—

He refers to the banner, the colour—

I quote further:

In the light thereof, Sir, I want to endorse a remark made by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition earlier in the debate today, and ask the hon the State President, while this country is celebrating the sixtieth anniversary of the national flag, to immediately appoint a commission to investigate and report upon the possibility and need of an alternative symbol—a symbol of unity. In Part II, section 4, of our Constitution one reads about—

1. (a) … the centre of the white stripe, the flag of the Republic “De Oranjevrijstaat” …
2. (b) on opposite sides and adjoining the flag referred to in paragraph (a)—
   1. (i) the Union Jack …

It is a symbol of dispossession—

Sir, I believe this is a reminder of conquest rather than a symbol of unity. I also believe that in our search for a new approach to the problems of our country, a symbol of unity and of loyalty is absolutely essential. When we travel overseas—be it in the United States, Taiwan or some other country—our national flag should be a symbol of loyalty; and it should be that to all South Africans. However, Sir, let us look at the approach of our younger generation.

Why is it that the younger people prefer singing ’Nkosi Sikelel’ iAfrika—God bless Africa—to singing the National Anthem? Thomas Jefferson once said, “What is morally wrong can never be politically right.” [Interjections.] We have seen 40 years of so much legislation that has deprived us as human beings of our humanity, that has deprived us of our manhood—laws we can only classify as immoral. I even want to go so far as to suggest that perhaps we should, as an interim measure, move towards a new system of government. Hon members of this House today again reminded us of the immoral removal from the common voters’ roll of the so-called Coloured community. It is very evident that there is fear in terms of growing conservatism. Now is perhaps the time to stand together to fight that which can be the cause of our country going under.

*I want to tell this House, and in particular the hon the State President, that we must never stop dreaming of what must be. I should like to conclude with the following translated version of a poem by Helen Steiner Rice, and it is applicable to everyone in this House this afternoon:

†Yesterday is gone and today cannot last. Let us live for tomorrow, and I pray that each tomorrow finds us further than today.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council concluded his speech by quoting a poem by Helen Steiner Rice. I thank him for that. It encourages me in my pursuit of the course I have adopted. It describes what I sometimes feel when nothing but obstacles are placed in my path, as some hon members have again done here this afternoon.

I want to begin by replying to a few of the matters raised by hon members of the Official Opposition. The hon member for Border referred to members of the Cabinet in relation to the Constitution. My information—on the best legal advice I have—is that it is incorrect to say that the Chairman of each Ministers’ Council must serve in the Cabinet. Paragraphs (c) and (d) of section 20 expressly provide that the incumbents mentioned in those paragraphs shall only serve in the Cabinet if the State President appoints them to the Cabinet. Consequently this is left to the express discretion of the State President.

I think it is vital to have someone from this House in the Cabinet. A Cabinet is like any other disciplined body, however, a body which has to be administered according to rules, because otherwise there would be chaos. If there is anyone from this House who is prepared to meet the obligations involved in a Cabinet position in accordance with the rules which I lay down as head of Government, I would gladly appoint someone from this House to the Cabinet. I hope that if I were to do so, this House would not regard that person with suspicion. [Interjections.] There are quite a few competent people in this House from whom I could choose. I think that the discretion involved in constituting the Cabinet—as the Constitution correctly provides—should be left to the head of State.

In my view it is a very good thing for the Coloured community, as represented in this House, to make their daily contributions in the Cabinet. As it is they do so in Cabinet Committees, because they still serve on Cabinet Committees, even if they are no longer represented in the Cabinet as such. I would very much like to make such an appointment. I shall now leave the matter at that. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Mamre and I have been very good friends for many years now. [Interjections.] I hope I am not giving him the kiss of death now, but he has often had tea with me. What is more, we have drunk something stronger together. I must say that the hon member is in a better position today after Western Province’s victory. If they had lost, he would have been in a bad way. I am glad, however, that the hon member has now placed Oom Paul’s monkey in the proper perspective, because it was never my intention to make a monkey out of him. I specifically warned him not to do that, and today he has not done so. Today he acted differently. He spoke about security. He made a positive speech, also referring to how frequently people in South Africa played into the hands of our enemies.

I do not know whether he and I interpret matters in the same way and whether we are on the same wavelength, but I just want to say that most of the invective used against us by our enemies abroad originates in South Africa. People have stood up here and accused the NP Government of Nazism, when the NP is the one party which, when the war was at its fiercest, fought and broke a Nazi organisation in this country, the National Socialist Organisation.

We have been accused of jackbooting, of the most dastardly action that Afrikaners have ever been accused of. That invective has travelled across to countries abroad and is still being used against us today. When the hon member refers to that, he and I are on the same wavelength.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition raised a whole series of matters which I cannot reply to in full today, because then I would be speaking until after seven o’clock. It is very easy to raise one matter after another and then to want someone else to reply to them. Nevertheless I am going to deal with a few of them.

The hon member raised the question of the national flag. I hope we are not going to start another commotion in this country about the national flag. In the past there have been bitter struggles about the flag. I have never declared myself to be in favour of the removal of the Union Jack from the national flag. The flag, however, has a very definite significance. The Free State and Transvaal flags represent certain historical aspects, the past. That was clearly stated when a compromise was reached about the national flag. The flag is dominated, however, by the three strips, the orange, the white and the blue which, I am sure, must surely satisfy all population groups in this country. The Union Jack and the two Republican flags are merely a token of past history. It is an historical reminder which is entrenched in the flag. The dominant colours, however, are the orange, white and blue. I really do hope that we are not going to have a commotion about the flag all over again. The country cannot change its flag every other day.

Secondly I said that I would only refer the matter to Parliament if there were an outcry in Britain about this aspect. It was said that people there wanted us to remove the Union Jack from our flag. I then said that if the British Government were to give in to that agitation, I would submit the matter to the South African Parliament. After all, some of my opponents do not regard me as a democrat. My personal view, however, is that we should be satisfied with our national flag and that we should teach our children to accept it.

The hon member also spoke about the discussions with Mozambique. I think it is in South Africa’s interests for us to maintain the Nkomati Accord. It is in South Africa’s interests, because the people in the Northern Transvaal in particular benefit from it. It is also in South Africa’s interests to have a harbour like Maputo available near Johannesburg. It is also in South Africa’s interests to maintain the railway line, and when I held discussions with President Machel, I informed him that in my view he should make it possible for the private sector in South Africa to do business in Mozambique. I told him to get rid of his socialist antics, because nowhere in Africa had socialism improved anyone’s lot. I told him that if he wanted to develop Mozambique, he should make it possible for the private sector in South Africa to help his country develop, to create job opportunities and to help ensure that people had a higher standard of living. I also advised him to return the properties that South Africans owned north of Maputo, so that a tourist industry could again be started up in Mozambique. I also told him, however, that he would have to guarantee the security of those people so that they could go there without any qualms.

I am quite prepared to conduct discussions with the President of Mozambique. It is in South Africa’s interests to do so. And if such discussions can take place on the basis of the Nkomati Accord, and with the maintenance of the mechanisms thus created to ensure security, I can see no reason why those discussions should not take place.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition referred to South Africa’s standpoint on Angola.

†We have no claims against Angola at all. As a regional power of importance in Africa, and of even greater importance in Southern Africa, we have an interest in a stable Angola.

*An unstable Angola, in which a civil war is raging and which harbours people who pose a threat to South West Africa, is a threat to South African interests. That is why we are interested in what it taking place in Angola. Dr Savimbi told me personally that he wanted to go to the conference table. He has also repeatedly said that he does not want to go on waging war if it is possible to join his fellow Angolans in restoring order at the conference table. I support him in that. The presence of the Cubans in Angola, however, interferes with peace in Southern Africa. The Cubans have no place in Southern Africa. We are participating in the discussions because we very clearly want to state our views, ie that we agree with President Reagan that the Cubans should not be in Angola. If the Cubans were not in Angola, a new situation would develop.

The hon member also referred to alternative structures. Hon members in this House and in the other Houses, and the people of South Africa, should obtain clarity about how we should co-operate. Do we want to work together on a basis presented to us by the ANC, one which would result in only one thing, and that is a socialist dictatorship? Socialist dictatorships, however, have brought nothing but misery to our neighbouring states. Earlier on we spoke about Mozambique. Why do hundreds of thousands of members of communities in Mozambique flee across the border if this is—as has been stated this afternoon—a wretched country in which people are oppressed, undermined and victimised? Why do people flee to this country? Dr Franz Jozef Strauss recently visited South Africa and travelled from here to Mozambique. He told the Mozambique government that they were prepared to grant certain assistance to the country.

†Dr Chissano then asked him please to take a message to the President of South Africa requesting him to allow more Mozambicans to come to South Africa for work. Dr Franz Jozef Strauss then asked him how he could explain the fact that he wanted his Mozambicans who are living in a socialist heaven to go to the hell of apartheid in South Africa.

*That is another question I am asking this afternoon. Why are people fleeing to this country for our health services, for jobs, for food and for the security of their families? Why are they fleeing from the heavenly condition all around us to this hell under the NP Government? That is why we have to obtain clarity about those aspects on which we should stand together. Alternative structures, as proposed by revolutionary elements, cannot work in South Africa; they would only create greater chaos. They would only create greater strife. They would deprive the people of the opportunities they have today to build on what we have already achieved. We should therefore be careful when talking about alternative structures and writing about grievances in South Africa, because what the revolutionary elements have to offer us, in the form of alternative structures, are not tried and tested structures. They are not alternative structures that can keep any system intact. They are alternative structures which have brought misery wherever they have been in operation. I agree with the hon member that we should adopt a standpoint about a greater willingness to find one another, to respect one another’s opinions and to find common ground.

The hon member for Macassar made a very interesting speech here. He spoke about value-systems about which we should obtain clarity. I should also like to obtain clarity about that. No matter what we do, this country is a country of diversity. The fact that it is a country of diversity is not a punishment—if only we do not see it as that. For me there is no shame in having anyone as a neighbour within the context of this diversity of ours.

Then away with the Group Areas Act!

Would the hon member please keep his dubious pettiness to himself for a moment so that I can continue with my argument. I am dealing with adults now who are listening to what I am saying. [Interjections.] The hon member for Macassar would agree with me that if we called all three of these Houses together tomorrow and let them decide to adopt an Act which stated that South Africa was now a raceless country, the country would be precisely what it is now the day after. [Interjections.] Surely that is true. History has made us what we are. History has made this a country of diversity, and I do not know why people think that is wrong. Then surely Switzerland, in its diversity, with its highly developed population, is also wrong to maintain that diversity, that good neighbourliness in all spheres. I am not saying that South Africa has reached the end of its development, but I am saying that if we were to start making our demands in such a way that there was a sharp reaction from other people in this country, we would always be fighting and we would never reach the winning post and come to understand one another.

I want to say something here this afternoon which should not be misinterpreted. If this House, since its inception, had projected a different style of leadership, the Whites, the Afrikaners and the Coloureds would have been much closer to one another.

No.

I am saying that this should not be misinterpreted, but I want to get it off my chest, because I myself have felt the reactions that have come about here because of standpoints which I could not sanction. I am saying this with all due respect. If the lead taken here had been different, if there had been more of a balanced attitude, and the people had availed themselves of the opportunities that existed, things would have gone differently. [Interjections.]

Mention is made of attitudes that have to be created. When we had to decide where this House would sit—and I want to say this today—two people took the lead in making this a reality, ie my hon colleague here, the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, and I. This Chamber is of considerable significance to Afrikaners. Some of its greatest leaders have sat here. Hon members speak about sentiment, but this Chamber has sentimental value for the Afrikaner. At the time we decided—and all my colleagues accepted the fact—to give the Senate Chamber to the Coloured population’s representatives as a gesture of our goodwill towards them. Men like F W Reitz sat here, Chris van Niekerk and Langenhoven—some of our greatest cultural and political leaders. That was a gesture on our part for which we do not want a “thank you, Sir”, but for which we just want a little acknowledgement.

I want to speak very frankly to the hon member this afternoon, because I know that in his heart of hearts he is also seeking better relations. I know that. This afternoon scornful remarks were made because the hon member had drunk tea with me, but it is his right to drink tea with me. If I can create an opportunity for the hon member to drink tea with me in an effort to improve relationships, the hon member is welcome to come again tomorrow. He has every right to do so, and no one has the right to refer scornfully to that. Since when is the hon member—or since when am I—a leper because he drinks tea with me? That is absolute nonsense.

I want to add, however, that the hon member should think carefully about the fact that in a country like South Africa one cannot bring about order without the devolution of authority, in other words without the division of power. To think that one could create a unitary state with centralised power is looking for trouble, because this would not work in a country of diversity. There should also be decentralisation of power, however, and that is why we have broadened the base of democracy in South Africa. Over the years we have made great progress in the sphere of regional government. When the NP, which was so grossly vilified here this afternoon, came to power—this year it is celebrating its 40th year in power and it has made many mistakes; every one of us makes mistakes, and I have made mistakes too, but there is no one here who has not made mistakes—the Black people in this country, who had been under the yoke of British rule for centuries, did not have any political rights whatsoever. Let us be honest with one another about that. That is true, is it not? In 1948 not a single Black man in South Africa had any political rights worth mentioning. British imperialism kept those rights away from them. After 40 years of NP government there are four independent states which negotiate with us on a basis of equality in a confederal set-up and whose ministers serve on a Board of Governors of an international bank for Southern Africa on which hon Ministers of this Government also serve. That is but one example. Ministers and heads of state meet annually to discuss matters of common concern and to take decisions in regard to such matters.

We have moved away from the policy of independent states. We established self-governing regional areas which are now asking for more autonomy and more powers, which are being granted to them. No one, however, is being forced to take independence. In the most recent instance of a community asking to become independent, I warned them to be careful and to make sure that before they accepted independence they had the sense of responsibility and the ability to be independent.

There are Black communities outside those states. We are now working on that. Surely we have to have regional governments in order to obtain leaders. Otherwise this Government would have to appoint those leaders. We want to establish the structures, do we not, so that negotiation can take place and so that discussions can be held. That is necessary in order to implement our policy of decentralisation and the devolution of power. Those are positive steps that have to be taken.

Everything is represented as being apartheid, however. Apartheid has become a term of abuse, and people in South Africa are helping to perpetuate it. I am not saying that the hon member is doing so; I am pointing out to him that there is also another side to the picture. The National Council is not an end in itself. It is a mechanism for discussion, formulation and consultation. Surely that is a positive step.

These things cannot all happen overnight. I dealt with this Vote in the House of Delegates yesterday, and there the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said something that is very true indeed. He said that it was not possible to have a situation in South Africa in which a new dispensation could be created overnight with which everyone would be satisfied. We must move towards that; we must govern the country so as to make that possible. That is why we have to consult with one another. That is the attitude with which this Government, and I personally, have always been imbued.

The hon member referred to group areas. I do not want to talk about group areas today. Legislation is on the way—during this very session—and that will give hon members enough of an opportunity to debate that aspect. I am not going to pre-empt those legislative steps here today. There is one thing I want to tell the Coloured population, however. I think they are making a mistake not to expand their management committees into independent management bodies. There are many White authorities which also started out as nothing more than subservient little bodies, but which grew. They benefited from pursuing a course of local government and taking those evolutionary steps one by one. I think the Coloured population is making a mistake in not granting more status and responsibility to its management committees. Now that we are having regional services councils established in particular, this is a wonderful opportunity to have communities consult with one another about matters of common concern and to facilitate development. Why must we adopt a course of conflict if we can have one of co-operation?

I do not want to elaborate any further on what the hon member said; after all, we cannot devote our whole discussion to him alone.

†The hon member for Retreat referred to reform and asked why the State President stopped the process of reform. That is a lot of nonsense. Where did the hon member get that idea? It is an absolute lot of nonsense.

*If the hon member had met Father Christmas somewhere and he had said that to the hon member, he would also be talking nonsense. No one has stopped implementing reform, but there is a difference between reform and irresponsibility, and the course I am adopting is a responsible one. The hon member had to withdraw something, and I hope he will not have to withdraw all the things he said here this afternoon too.

He referred to Lawaaikamp. Among all George’s fine residential areas, Lawaaikamp is the one place we are ashamed of, because it is a dilapidated slum. Just across the road, however, a new development has been initiated in conjunction with the town council of George, an area where people can live in proper houses and own them. Now there are a bunch of liberalists, however, who want to dump the people in Lawaaikamp. Lawaaikamp lives up to its name. The hon member does not know what he is talking about. I was there again the other day. People travel from Cape Town, however, to make trouble about Lawaaikamp, thereby preventing the poor people of Lawaaikamp from being placed on the road to development. The hon member must not talk about things he knows nothing about.

I have already referred to the hon member for Macassar. He referred to the revolutionary onslaught, and I agree with him. Firstly one can oppose the revolutionary onslaught by physical means, and that is what we are doing. South Africa has made great strides in that regard. In spite of international terrorism, South Africa has managed to keep international terrorist organisations outside our borders for more or less 20 years since their inception, and that is a tremendous achievement. Secondly one has to combat terrorism with positive social and economic measures, and no government in the history of South Africa has ever had a greater and more positive social and economic programme, within the system of private initiative, than this Government. Thirdly one can combat terrorism by broadening the base of democracy, but this does not necessarily mean a system of one man, one vote, with one man ultimately getting the vote. One should therefore adopt a positive policy, and I am prepared to do that in South Africa.

†The hon member for Ottery expressed his support for me with great eloquence and I thank him for that. However, we will eventually succeed if we agree to co-operate in a spirit of positive service to the country, not a spirit of negativism. I think we can make South Africa a stronghold and a tower of light in Southern Africa—which it already is to a certain extent—but I will come to that at a later stage.

The hon member for Border also referred to the programmes we should have. I agree with him, but if one takes the quality of life of all of South Africa’s population groups one will find that we compare very well with the rest of Africa. One can test our medical services and various other things and one will find that we compare very favourably with the rest of Africa. As a matter of fact, in that respect we are better off than most African countries.

*We have a population planning policy which is being conducted amongst all population groups.

We also have a job creation policy, and it is a pity that the private sector does not do more to create jobs. I am not getting involved in an argument with the private sector now. I am saying they can do more. They should erect fewer large buildings in the city centres and tackle more development projects through which new jobs can be created.

South Africa is a country that does not have to be ashamed of its housing policy. I think that in the social and economic spheres we are engaged in programmes which could make this a much better country if we all worked together to have them implemented.

I have completed my reply to the hon member for Mamre. He will ensure that Western Province keeps on winning.

†Then the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council delivered a long and very eloquent speech. He said that some people say South Africa is a strange land. He also said the outside world says that South African leaders believe that South Africa is the only land in step.

*That is not true, however. It is a very far-fetched view to adopt here. In recent weeks I have received high-ranking delegations from several African states on behalf of the relevant heads of states. They came to have tea with me in Tuynhuys and spoke to me for hours about how South Africa could co-operate in creating better conditions in Southern Africa. If they thought that we thought we were the only country which was in step, they certainly would not have travelled thousands of kilometers to see me. Of course, we in the Cabinet know about these things. We inform one another.

Where many things are concerned, we are not such a strange country. This is a country of diversity. Let us carry out a few tests. Where in Africa is there a country with more religious freedom than South Africa? Where is there a country offering people more opportunities in a system of private initiative than South Africa? Where is there a country where, for the past 40 years, people have more consistently been engaged in broadening the base of democracy than in South Africa? No, in the rest of Africa one dictatorship after another has been established in conflict with democracy. Where in Africa is there a country with higher living standards among all sectors of the population than South Africa?

†It is a strange country, yes. A country full of diversity, but also a country full of development and hope for thousands of people living here as well as for thousands of people living outside who want to come in.

*I could wax lyrical about human rights, but there is a difference between idealistic theories and harsh daily practicalities in this country in which we have to keep people together. Someone said here this afternoon that the State President had broken his party. That is not true. I did not break my party. I would like to have as many Whites working together in my party as possible, because I am also proud of my people. I also love my people. In a poem Van Wyk Louw said that one should also love one’s people for their afflictions. I also love my people for their afflictions. Hon members may not believe this, but I also love them for some of their afflictions. In this country, however, we should adopt slightly different attitudes towards one another.

The Whites also have a place in this country. The Afrikaners are not foreigners in this country. Let me tell hon members today that without the Afrikaner this country really would be lost, because it is the Afrikaner who lit the torch of freedom in this country. It is the Afrikaner who cast off the yoke of imperialism in this country. It is the Afrikaner who died to keep that flame burning. I could also speak with great feeling if I wanted to deify my people, but I have told the Afrikaners that we have to live with other people in this country and that we should not begrudge any of them a place in this country. I have also told the Afrikaners that as long as I live I will ensure that that place is not taken away from them.

Mention was made of “full participation”. No one is opposed to that. Mention was also made of the “revolution of the mind”. Who was a greater advocate of that than I was when I said that we should inculcate other attitudes in this country. I was in the forefront when that was advocated, but some of the speeches made here this afternoon convinced me that we must start changing attitudes here. I want to thank those hon members who adopted a positive attitude here, even though they were critical. I am the last person who does not want criticism, but criticism must be constructive. It must not be derogatory and unworthy of civilised people. I therefore thank those hon members who conducted themselves in a spirit of the utmost responsibility.

Vote agreed to.

Chairman directed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.

Mr Chairman, South Africa’s political stability rests primarily in the hands of equal education for all. An educated mass is a liberated mass and to deny any segment of the population this equal opportunity is tantamount to treason in a democratic world. We, the Indian community, did not survive on the hand-outs of the SA Government, if there was one. We educated ourselves by sheer dint of perseverance.

Indians settled in South Africa from 1860 and their first insurance was to educate their families. It paid dividends, for today we can boast of having some of the most illustrious and eminent academics and professionals in our midst.

Education must be free and equal, especially for South Africa’s political survival. More money must be injected into Black education in order to develop especially the understanding as to how they are governed. The slogan “Liberation before education” has been cast aside by the extra-parliamentary forces and they have come to realise that this has been an exercise in futility. It is only an educated mass that could free itself from the shackles that bound it.

On the question of Black education, one gains the impression that not much money is being ploughed into it. It is not that this Government is not making the sacrifices, but the pace should be accelerated.

In this very House it was announced some time last year that we would have cut-backs, but when the cut-backs came, hon members of this very august Chamber retaliated against those cutbacks, eg the hon PFP members in this Chamber. This does not help people who are sincerely trying to do something for the people that they represent. They do not represent Blacks, but they represent all people of colour in South Africa.

The hon the Minister of National Education feels that the period of 10 years for equalisation is too short but I do not share that view. If sincerity is the key word, this could be achieved within five years. The conflagration of this country could be averted only if we address ourselves timeously to the root cause, namely equal education opportunities.

Parochially, on the outskirts of Pietermaritzburg, the communities are teeming with violence and it is only by educating these people that we will be able to stem this. The dissatisfaction of Black people and the humiliation that they have experienced for centuries are due to the inferior education that they were subjected to. It is a cause of the ominous opposition that has built up over the years and which culminates in the inevitable violence. This Government must address itself to this matter and I hope it will be done sooner rather than later.

Mr Chairman, the problems in South African education are not educational problems. I think we must get this straight. We know full well that White education has reached a high standard of achievement on the subcontinent and, I might say, it compares very favourably with the best countries in Europe and the United Kingdom or the United States of America. However, when it comes to the education of the non-White people, the problems that have really held back their advancement have been political problems.

In this country the political problems are such that they have to be removed, and I feel I must give credit to the fact that they are being removed at this point in time.

Particularly in Black education we note a conspicuous degree of progress, but that even so the Black people themselves—I am referring to those people who are realistic to acknowledge the changes that have come about—still feel that the political strangulation of the past has not been completely removed. As long as these differences exist, it must be admitted that the Black community will hold against the Government the fact that they have a separate system of education.

I certainly do not believe that a separate system can be an equal system. However, there are some people in South Africa who, enlightened as they are, claim that separate education can be equal education. I think this is the challenge. If it can be proved that unlike the standpoint in other parts of the world, those who are separated can be equal, then South Africa will have made a significant point to be accepted by the majority of people in this country.

I want to touch on certain pragmatic issues this afternoon without delving too deeply into the philosophy of education. Firstly, I want to refer to the universities. Universities in any country make a significant and a worthwhile contribution and our universities in this country, although we are a young and growing country, are no different. However, I was pained and I sympathised with all the administrators at all the various universities when drastic reductions in the funding of universities took place. I am one who believes that investment in education is of tremendous long-term value to our country. [Interjections.] I therefore do not think this is an area in which we should make reductions.

I do not think for one moment that the hon the Minister of National Education had anything to hide. I do not think he had any sinister motives. I do not think he felt that if he gave the universities a lot of money they would not bring in money from overseas. I do not think he felt that if he gave the universities a lot of money they would utilise it in certain fringe avenues and take liberties to such an extent that they would indulge in extra-scholastic activities at the universities with the result that these centres could become a problem to the country as a whole.

However, on that issue I do think that the universities are making a very positive contribution. As much as the Government and we here in Parliament want to remove apartheid, it will not be removed overnight. Everyone will agree with me on that. However, the younger people, the youth of our country, are really reaching out to one another. After all, they have to live in this country even if they live in separate compartments, which is the situation in which they find themselves at the present time.

I think it is an aspect which should be encouraged. As long as they do not exceed the limits of dignity or righteousness and they remain within the bounds of right and good thinking, preparing themselves for a good life in the future, it should be encouraged.

The same goes for the technikons. Considering the vast Black population in this country and the setbacks they have suffered over, not centuries, but several decades in this country, one has to conclude that they have not been given encouragement or training to the extent that is desirable to enable South Africa to take its rightful place among the scientifically and technologically progressive countries. I think this is an area which must be given all possible encouragement and all the money this country can afford in order to train Black artisans in every field of activity, to see to it that this country not only utilises its manpower to the fullest, but is able to man its factories and workshops, not only to manufacture for our own needs and local consumption, but with a view to exporting. I think when it comes to the Government’s consideration of the balance of income and expenditure, this is a very important field. The training of artisans, especially Black artisans, should receive important consideration in the future.

The other reason why I say that the universities and the technikons must not be disadvantaged in any way by a reduction in funding, is the following fact which sometimes horrifies me. I probably love South Africa a little too much. I am too much of a South African, but I am happy in that regard. I am talking of the drain of manpower from South Africa to other countries. When one hears that some of our best artisans, doctors, lecturers and philosophers are leaving this country, it is certainly a matter of concern. I think we, as a developing nation, should rather attract the best from the other countries, the best from Taiwan, Japan, the UK, the United States …

From India.

Yes, India, and these countries. It will do this country good. We must therefore not stigmatise our universities by making them too Government-controlled. I think the hon the Minister in his reply will indicate to us to what extent the Government intends to control the universities. I know they are funding the universities, but on this basis they should not clamp down to such an extent that these universities are no longer universities but become puppet institutions in South Africa.

The question of paying teachers in this country well brings me to the question of the ordinary teachers in primary and high schools. After all, they have to live as respectable people in the community. These people have to be paid reasonably well. After all, according to sociological studies, the greater percentage of our teachers come from the middle class. If one compares their wages with the wages of people in the private sector they have been left, if I may say, if not miles behind, then many many metres behind. They cannot really claim to play the important role that they are playing until they are placed in a situation where they are content and happy. I think this is an important issue. I hope that the salaries of educators of all race groups in this country will be adjusted soon, so that they do not have to suffer any socio-economic setbacks.

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

Mr Chairman, I rise merely to afford the hon member an opportunity to complete his speech.

Sir, I am indebted to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council.

There is another aspect I wish to refer to, and that is the training of teachers. I say this deliberately, because the main setback in Black education is the shortage of teachers. The department is aware of this problem, and they are pumping a lot of money into Black education. They are providing both specially organised training courses for the newly admitted teacher trainees and in-service training courses on a large scale. I might point out that there is a need on the basis of 30 pupils per teacher. This means that in Black education there should be about 12 000 additional teachers according to last year’s figures. There is a surplus of teachers in the White and Indian sector. They are not being used to their best advantage.

One cannot train 12 000 teachers overnight. It will take quite a few years. I also wish to refer to training colleges in White and Indian communities which are underutilised. These institutions can be used to the advantage of Black education. The Springfield College of Education is not taking students to its fullest capacity. There are rumours that the Transvaal College of Education is going to be closed. I feel this college should not be closed, even if the intake has decreased. That institution can certainly be used for the training of Black teachers.

Surely the hon the Minister of National Education can give his blessings on this. I am not concerned who trains the Black teachers. They can bring Black teachers into the classrooms to train them, to follow the syllabuses and to meet the needs of their class requirements. This can be done.

Before I complete my speech, I wish to make some passing reference to the question of the Nelspruit Tamil relics. I do not want to turn this into a controversial issue. I mention this merely because there have been claims and counter-claims that there are these relics in the Transvaal. Representations in this regard have been made to the hon the Minister of National Education. I need not really ask the hon the Minister to have an open mind on this issue. I know him to be an open-minded person. I know the Afrikaner community is a profoundly religious community, and as such, they will afford the same importance and respect to the religions of other people. I am certain that they will give this matter a second thought.

I am making a plea on behalf of the country as a whole, not necessarily only the Indian or Tamil community. It can be proven that these relics belonged to some community that had inhabited this part of Africa centuries ago. It is a matter of worldwide importance. It has shattered the notion that Africa has been a dark continent. In fact, here is a theme for a master’s or doctoral thesis that Africa has never been a dark continent. When David Livingstone, Stanley and others had been exploring the continent, they must have met people who had different social habits when compared to Western standards.

Different communities from different parts of the world had been living here. On the other hand I cannot imagine Africa as having been left completely untouched by human beings when there were settlements in other parts of the world like Iraq, Mesopotamia and all the other places. Dr G U Pope, who did research work in Dravidian philosophy, accords them a civilisation 5 000 years ago, and regards the Dravidian people as being one of the most literate and highly civilised people in the world. If that is so we should keep an open mind and yet there are in this country some scholars, for instance from Sri Lanka, who have come to promote the religious aspects of the community. I believe we may get some of these people to look at this. If need be we may get experts in archeology to give us a second opinion.

Without saying any more on this issue I am sure the hon the Minister will keep an open mind before one disproves the existence of these relics.

Mr Chairman, this afternoon the hon member for Allandale made mention of the fact that Indian education in particular in this country has developed and progressed because of the hard work and the self-help that the Indian community put into it in those very early stages of Indian education. That is true and nobody can deny it. However, at the same time I think that to be fair to this Government one must also record that the impetus to Indian education was really given in 1961, when the Government at long last recognised that the Indian community was a permanent part of this country’s population and therefore created the Indian Council which worked very hard and very diligently in regard to the advancement of Indian education. We must record this. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Cavendish, who is now leaving us, also indicated that there was nothing wrong with education in this country per se. If I heard him correctly he said that there was too much political interference. As all hon members of this House will agree that may perhaps be true of the education that is administered by this House. However, it is also true to say that this Government also has a long record of political interference in education in this country. One merely has to look at the history of Bantu education and of Christian national education as well as the separation of universities on the part of this Government.

Nobody can deny that in every society there should be certain inalienable rights and one of these is the right of the child to receive an education that will give him at least the basics to fulfil his potential in society.

Regrettably, in this country the amount of money allocated for the satisfaction of this obligation and this requirement on the part of the Government has been on a discriminatory and unequal basis between the various groups in general and between White and Black in particular. Therefore on this side of the House we were particularly pleased that the hon the Minister committed his Government to achieving parity in spending on Black education within a decade when he previously spoke in this House.

Although we object to the fact that very little is known outside of Governmental structures about the details of this ten-year plan, we are concerned at the hon the Minister’s latest announcement that the economic situation of the country has forced the Government and the hon the Minister to a possible rethink in this regard. I want to tell the hon the Minister that, in view of the co-operation of Black educationists and opinion leaders in restoring the valued position of education in their communities over the last couple of years and more particularly after the hon the Minister’s announcements, I believe any cutback on this scheme will be done at peril of disrupting the present status quo. This is something that I believe this country can ill afford at this time.

Therefore I would plead with the hon the Minister that if scarcity of funds is the reason, he should then maximise the resources—all of them—that are available to him, to this country and to all of us. A start in this direction can be made by the proper utilization of our teacher training colleges. The hon member for Cavendish also has our support with regard to what he had to say about the Indian Education Training Centre.

Thus, for example, it has been found by the SAIRR in research carried out by it that more than R40 million could be saved in capital expenditure if Black teacher-trainees who are desperately short of facilities were allowed to fill the vacancies at White and other teacher training colleges all over the country.

If we consider that in 1986, 20% of these places were vacant—and I am told that since then the figures have increased and not decreased—and that universities, technikons and private schools already have large Black attendances without any fall in standards, what obstacles other than prejudice and a preoccupation with maintaining apartheid could there be? If we were to open training colleges it would reduce the shortfall in the number of Black teachers being trained each year from 375 to 75. I believe it would dramatically improve the quality of Black teachers at present who are graduating from poorly equipped training facilities and, most important, I believe it would convince Blacks that their education is not inferior to that of other groups in this country and this in itself would be far more positive than anything that this Government, or this Minister, has said or done in a long time apart from the 10-year education programme that has been initiated by him.

I now want to turn to university education and what I call the varsity blues. The hon the Minister is aware that the report of the SA Committee of University Principals has estimated that by the turn of the century there will be a potential 1,3 million university students and it has also indicated that of this figure, more than one million will be Black. The contrast would be apparent if we consider that in 1985 the total university population was 215 000.

This report predicts anything but a bright future for tertiary education in this country. Indeed, it says that if universities are to cope with the student population explosion, sweeping changes in structure, patterns of study and selection will have to be made.

The report also makes the point that rising costs and cutbacks in subsidies make long-term planning almost impossible and this is something that we cannot afford. The report also indicates that research is restricted, buildings are deteriorating and that university study is beyond the reach of an increasing number of gifted and potentially gifted students.

All hon members of this House will agree—and so too will the hon the Minister—that this is indeed a gloomy picture that has been painted by the Committee of University Principals. However, it is also encouraging that the universities themselves, with the assistance of commerce and industry, plan to do all they can to sort out this problem of the universities.

I therefore want to ask the hon the Minister whether he, or his Government for its part, has any plans to deal with the situation, apart from its threat to hack university subsidies to curb campus unrest?

Whilst on the subject of cuts to the subsidies to universities, may I remind the hon the Minister that one of the major problems facing this country is the lack of educated and skilled people, who are desperately needed to help fire the engine room of the economy whilst political solutions are worked out by politicians. I would say to the hon the Minister that rather than cutting subsidies, the hon the Minister should be pouring money—as the hon member for Cavendish indicated—into the upgrading programmes initiated at several universities which are merely trying to repair the damage done by decades of so-called Bantu education inflicted upon a voteless community in this country. I would say that if it is the intention of the hon the Minister to destroy such programmes to upgrade the results of its own poor Black education system, such a scheme on his part is painfully shortsighted and grossly immoral.

Finally, regarding the hon the Minister’s recent threats to further cut the subsidies payable to universities unless the institutions fell into line with his own disciplinary conditions, I want to say to the hon the Minister that I trust the decision of our judiciary in this connection would be respected by him.

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

Mr Chairman, I merely rise to afford the hon member for Springfield the opportunity to complete his speech.

Mr Chairman, I am always indebted to the hon member Mr Seedat for his courtesy.

I was making the point that I believe that now that our judiciary has in fact decided on the issue of the threat issued by the hon the Minister to cut back on the subsidies unless universities enforce discipline on the campuses, I expect that the hon the Minister will in fact respect those decisions. I trust that he would accept that campus discipline should be the responsibility of university councils themselves. If we consider that universities are indeed at the present time devising ways and means of imposing self-discipline on campus by the creation of codes of conduct, the Minister would do well not to interfere any further in this regard.

I wish to conclude by saying to the hon the Minister that academic freedom is indivisible, and has always been indivisible. Academic freedom means the right not only to dissect, not only to debate, but also to protest. I also believe that every university student has the right to legitimate protest. Quite obviously, that does not give him the right to infringe on the rights of others. However, as I have indicated, academic freedom is indivisible and we should respect that.

Mr Chairman, the fact that we have the hon the Minister of National Education here emphasises the need for education to come under one national ambit.

I also gain the impression from the last two speakers that the position of the hon the Minister of Education and Culture in this House is quite safe, since I do not think anyone is after it; we are looking at education under a national umbrella.

However, the Department of National Education does not only cover education; it covers other aspects as well. Its aims are to develop the spiritual, intellectual and physical potential of all the peoples of South Africa. The National Policy for General Education Affairs Act, Act 76 of 1984, vests in the Minister of National Education the power to determine general policy regarding norms and standards for the financing of education and other resultant factors. Perhaps the most important of these was the policy that has a bearing on all levels of education and was exercised on 6 November 1987, when policies pertaining to universities and technikons were announced.

Earlier on the hon member for Cavendish compared White education in South Africa with that of the UK and America and asked the question: “What about Black education?”

In South Africa more than 25% of the total Black population attends school and this figure compares favourably with those of the other population groups. It is also the highest in Africa. Perhaps the hon member was unaware of these statistics.

When one talks about university education one needs to take a thorough look at what it is all about. We should analyse the different universities and how they were created. For example, the University of Natal kept its doors closed to non-White students although there was no legislation prohibiting the university from admitting them. It kept its doors closed until the eve of the Extension of University Education Act of 1959.

Who is disputing that? Nobody is doing that.

I did not say that anybody is disputing it. If the hon member would only realise that there is some substance between two ears. I did not say that anybody is disputing it—I am merely quoting some facts. I am merely pointing out a case.

Let us talk about the University of Durban-Westville. This university was established in 1961 as a university college for Indians. That was after the Salisbury Island days as the hon member for Springfield and the hon member for Reservoir Hills will recall. The University of Durban-Westville only received university status in 1970 but it remained dependent on the State until 1 April 1984 when it became autonomous. It could then decide on the admission of students subject to the State control of subsidies. Today there are 6 000 students at this university of whom about 1 100 are Black. The rector of that university recently said that while the university is non-racial it will continue to retain its Indian character.

How does one reconcile these two statements? How does one maintain the Indian culture at a university where students of colour are being admitted? I am not saying that one must have exclusive Black colleges or universities. Just as one cannot suppress their political aspirations, one cannot suppress their educational aspirations. However, we have to be realistic and take all the factors into consideration. We cannot say that we accept it only because it suits a certain population group. We cannot maintain the Indian culture and at the same time, because it does not satisfy the White community, say that we accept non-Whites.

I want to mention another example from the same university. When it finally became autonomous it realised that this was a double-edged sword. The fees rose and the university received a great deal of criticism. The university has recently said that it would not be able to accept all students seeking admittance because it wants to maintain its Indian character. One has to be realistic and one has to consider the factor of the diversity of the society in which we live.

The department of the hon the Minister also deals with sport and recreation. It is interesting to note that in the year 1987 a total of 1 044 sportsmen and coaches from 49 different countries, representing 60 different types of sport, visited South Africa, while 780 South African sportsmen from 33 different types of sports visited 30 different countries.

These figures, despite the sports boycotts against South Africa, are refreshing to the sporting fraternity. In fact, they are like a breath of fresh air.

Other notable events in the year 1987 were the Transvaal Games from 6 to 9 August 1987 and the two national physical recreation projects, namely Trim Week 87 and the Big Move 87, which were held in conjunction with the red meat industry and the SA Heart Foundation. These programmes were well patronised by all sections of the community and there is a need for us to create more such programmes for our sportsmen and women.

Also on the subject of sport, some time during August last year I had the honour of addressing the South African National Olympic Games Committee on behalf of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council of this House. Last year, 1987, was when they celebrated their 80th anniversary. I made it very clear at that function of theirs that as far as the people of colour in South Africa are concerned, we certainly believe that we have to look forward, that we must not look at all the injustices that have happened to us previously, and that we should try to look at representation in any international event. It is only when we can have a collective effort on the part of all communities to make representations to the International Olympic Committee, for instance, that we shall see the light at the end of the tunnel. With that, I support the hon the Minister’s Vote.

Mr Chairman, I appreciate the presence of the hon the Minister of National Education in this House during his Budget Vote. I regard the Ministry of National Education as an important component of the Government of the country which is responsible for the policies and programmes in education.

The hon the Minister is the head of that department and one of the pillars of the executive powers of government in this country. He could direct the destiny of this country. [Interjections.]

I see education as a base for the development of the responsible individual in a free society. Reforms in education would lead to greater things to come.

I should like to point out to the hon the Minister that one of the major defects in the system of education in South Africa is the concentration on the diversity of its peoples and the provision of education on ethnic grounds. There is no interaction on a national basis. What we need to do is to train children in healthy interaction at a multiracial level. This attitude is conspicuous by its total absence from the educational scene in South Africa.

The working committee of the De Lange Commission clearly indicated this, as certain hon members have already mentioned, and I wish to quote from paragraph 4.3 on page 6 of the White Paper on the Provision of Education in the Republic of South Africa, 1983, in regard to the recommendations by the educational working committee on the executive authority in respect of education, as follows:

1. (a) At the central Government level there should be a single authority responsible for determining macro-policy for the provision of education in the Republic of South Africa and for monitoring the implementation of this policy.
2. (b) In the opinion of the working party this principle will find its best practical expression in a single ministry …

There is already an authority of the kind you are suggesting.

To continue:

1. (c) Changes to the present situation should therefore be aimed at creating a single ministry.
2. (d) This Ministry should be responsible for the determination of macro-policy.

What has the Government done about the White Paper? It has blown it out completely. [Interjections.] However, it still stands as an ideal because the ideal dovetails with the concept of a multiracial and multi-national South Africa.

In recent months we have seen all schools open to multi-racial sport. Perhaps this is due to the new philosophy as espoused by the National Education Board. I wish to quote:

What an ideal! What better place can we find than the school to propagate this philosophy. We could bring up a new generation of children. A new generation of children could flourish on these ideas and contribute to shaping a new South Africa. One will see the freedom of the individual, free choice, a sense of belonging, love and understanding, a love of good neighbourliness and, finally, patriotism to the country, if it is left to the child. Therefore all schools should be open to all racial groups. If it is good enough to open all sport at school level to all racial groups, all schools should also be open to all racial groups.

However, I am not very optimistic that our present generation, seated here in this House, including the hon the Minister, will have the courage to bring about the desired changes, because we are too full of prejudices and preferences, because we were ingrained into the system of apartheid and separateness. It requires much courage to change. I firmly believe that the child is yet to be born who will shape the destiny of this country. The child will come, the messiah of tomorrow, as it were. We, as responsible people, must now make way and create the structures for the development of that child in a multiracial society. We have no choice in the matter.

What is wrong with our educational system? It is ethnically based, discriminatory, based on apartheid, call it what one likes. In the propagation of this policy, it is pathetic to see wholesale duplication of essential services. I am not going to quote many examples throughout the country, but I refer to the Natal Technikon in Durban and the M L Sultan Technikon, which institutions are within a stone’s throw of each other. These institutions are based on ethnicity. Although they are based on ethnicity, I will not say that they are ethnically biased. I think the M L Sultan Technikon has been very generous in accommodating all people, irrespective of their shortcomings or the limited funds they have. They are willing to share with others.

However, what I cannot understand is why there have to be two separate technikons. These institutions cost much money; they are very expensive to establish and equip. Why have separate technikons? It sounds ridiculous.

But both of them are full.

Right, they are, but at the moment we find that they are fighting over a small piece of ground for extension purposes. They are full, but the fact is that they are fighting. If they were united, I think we would have the funds, the ground and we will be able to accommodate everybody. However, the ideology of having two separate institutions, manned by two separate departments, called “own affairs—Indians” and “own affairs—Whites”, makes no sense.

Mr Chairman, could the hon member give us a description of the property which the two technicons are fighting over?

Mr Chairman, I have made my point. I think those who know about it, understand it. If the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council wishes to put it on record, he may do so.

That property does not exist.

I have made it clear that it is not ethnically biased, and yet we find the products from these institutions meeting at the same working place.

There is an urgent necessity for an evaluation of, and a planned approach to, the manpower needs of this country. I believe very sincerely in the assessment of commerce and industry. Employment agencies play a vital role in determining labour which could give the desired boosting to the economy of the country. This will afford an opportunity for employment and satisfy the economic and social aspirations of the people. Of course, the boost of the economy will depend on foreign trade and export markets.

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

Mr Chairman, I rise merely to afford the hon member an opportunity to complete his speech.

I am indebted to the hon member.

Mr Chairman, I mentioned that we need to boost the economy by means of exporting, but—and this is a big but—we face impediments in the form of sanctions, disinvestment and boycotts. We cannot be naive as to the reasons for the total onslaught on this country. Hon members know the reasons as well as I do. Reforms have to be speeded up to defuse the motivation for boycotts and sanctions.

The hon the Minister has the muscle and the power to take this bold step to further reform and set the stage for a new South Africa. Reformation and enlightenment in education will develop a new South African society that would assume responsibility and patriotism unheard of in the history of this country. This evolutionary process will bring about individual freedom and responsibility. I want to emphasise this point. I am being realistic in this respect.

However, I wish to compliment the Government on the programme of education for Blacks. They also want a desired standard of education, and this was denied them for over 300 years. This is a very excellent start, but that does not mean that the education of the advantaged and the advanced groups should be retarded or curtailed. We must probe this with time and experience.

I do not wish to overemphasise the per capita allocation. I do not want to make a big issue of that, but I will be satisfied if there is no discrimination. I hope the needs of those people who were unfortunate, underprivileged and disadvantaged will be met. I also believe in an evolutionary process of education. One must walk before one can run.

However, if a single Ministry has total control over the direction of education, funds will be allocated on a matter of priority for both the underprivileged and the aspiring groups. I have facts and figures and I have worked out ratios here, but I am not going to go into them, because my time is running out.

The hon the Minister of Education and Culture in the House of Delegates virtually pleaded yesterday for additional funds. ft is very sad indeed. He said he wished to improve the quality of education by reducing the class loads, and afford employment for the many hundreds of teachers who are unemployed. I pity him. He has my sympathy. He said that the lack of funds has a destabilising effect on Indian education.

I think the hon the Minister of National Education gets the message loud and clear. We may be pleading through you, but others are also pleading along the same lines. Why not give them more money so that they will be happy and educated, so that they can also reach their desired goals?

Even the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council appeared to be disillusioned. He has to send his children to White schools. [Interjections.]

Besides enjoying the privileges and status, these children are exposed to a different culture and environment. They will be imbued with a new culture that will develop an enhanced set of values and attitudes. I am very pleased with that, because the hon the Minister is setting the trend towards a multiracial goal. Perhaps he is looking at the 21st century.

The question arises why the exception should be accorded to a few. If non-White children could be admitted to White schools and if White and Black children could play together, then why could children not live together? Why not open all schools to all groups irrespective of colour, race, wealth or status? I am looking at the 21st century. We have projections and tendencies to show what South Africa is going to look like in the year 2000 and we will have to prepare for that. We cannot afford this country to be at loggerheads all the time. We cannot afford to divide the people on ethnic lines. We will have to build good neighbourliness and love for each other to defuse the tension, to work together and to enjoy life together.

The hon the Minister of National Education could play a vital role in the reform process of the Republic of South Africa. Perhaps I may sound ominous in saying that the future of this country rests in his hands. I wish he would take the bold step and I must say, with some optimism, that I look forward to the future with a glimmer of hope.

Mr Chairman, while we are committed to equal provision of education for all groups in South Africa within a specified period, backlogs which are not being seriously addressed will have drastic consequences. I speak now especially of backlogs in the Indian education. Yesterday I had occasion to say that this will give the radicals a chance to capitalise on these backlogs, driving our people into the wrong camps.

I will come back to this, but I am reminded of the fact that the hon member for Merebank mentioned, namely a certain piece of land for technikon purposes. I would like to inform him that that matter is more or less on the point of being solved and I hope that within a short while that problem will have been solved. As far as backlogs and funds are concerned, I, as Minister of Education and Culture in the House of Delegates, am concerned about the unemployment of teachers who are qualified yet cannot find suitable jobs. There was a time when I was optimistic that other groups such as the Coloured and the Black group would be able to accommodate those qualified teachers, but I did also mention that they have a problem. If one has to displace people who are already in a job situation, albeit they are underqualified, it is not an easy task to shift them out of an earning position and replace them with other qualified teachers.

The guideline amount allocated to the House of Delegates for education purposes and services in the year 1988-89 is an amount of R608 039 000. The calculated requirements of the Department of Education and Culture, in order to render what may be regarded in the present state of affairs as a reasonable standard of education provisioning, amounts to R85 million more. By a redetermination of priorities and a re-evaluation of all services a crucial attempt was made to redistribute this guideline amount and to provide only for urgent and essential services. However, the ultimate result will be that the Administration’s planning will be impeded and the education programme adversely affected.

We have looked at the whole situation very closely to see what the minimum amount would be to meet the absolute minimum requirements of my department. It is estimated that at the present tempo of development the official fund requirements of my department will be in the region of R12 million by January. In respect of personnel expenditure the amount of R10,5 million will be required. By curtailing much-needed services, freezing some posts and abolishing others the department has been able to reduce the amount to R5,7 million. The department will not be able to pay the salaries and wages of 365 educators in January 1989 if additional funds are not provided for this. The termination of the services of the educators will have disastrous effects for the continued maintenance of the standards attained by the department and catastrophic for the political dispensation which needs to be promoted in my community.

As I said earlier, we will be pushing our educated people into the hands of the radicals if job opportunities are not found for these people, and that would strengthen them. Additional amounts will be needed if these temporary educators have to be placed on a permanent establishment.

I have come under great criticism in this House for having people on a temporary basis, but I made it absolutely clear that the substantive posts were already filled. There were other posts in which we have people who are in a temporary position, albeit some of them are unqualified people, but they are out of necessity required in certain directions and therefore we keep them.

The establishment of several new Indian town-ships has resulted in an unprecedented demand for new schools in these areas. While there is mass movement of the population from one area to another, it is not possible to shift those schools from one area to another. Of necessity capital investment is required and one has to build new schools.

The department has been handicapped by the failure of the new system of financing the provision of education to generate sufficient funds to accommodate the massive building programme of the department. As I have said, this is necessary as a result of the Group Areas Act because people have to move from one area to another. At the same time I want to say that until the Group Areas Act is removed, one will not be able to find solutions with regard to empty institutions that are available. Institutions lying in various areas of other racial groups will not be utilised until the Group Areas Act is abolished.

Give us a chance and we will do so!

The disastrous consequences of the shortfall in education provision cannot be risked because it is too serious for the political dispensation and for the reform initiatives that the hon the State President has in mind.

Hon members will recall that yesterday I said that we are happy about the reform initiatives, but will have to find solutions to other little problems that we are faced with before these can be put into operation.

I know my hon colleague well and my appeal to him is to use his good offices to impress on the Treasury the need to resolve and address this serious drawback in Indian education to avoid the opposing forces capitalising on this, as I mentioned just now. The radicals will grasp this opportunity and whip up sensationalism to the detriment of our people.

We must, however, compliment the hon the Minister for supporting an increase of 40% for the present financial year in an attempt to bring about the process of equalisation of the provision of education in the Black community. We are a party to that and we appreciate it. At the same time, while that is being resolved, we must look at the problems of our own community.

Having said that, I should now like to go on to the issue of the Nelspruit Temple relics which was mentioned earlier. I also wish to say that in another debate on my own budget many hon members here highlighted this.

I am aware that my hon colleague is also very much conscious of this; I am also aware that these relics are in an area where he has to tread very carefully. However, we want to make an appeal to him, since these relics are of interest to the Indian community, if there is anything of that nature, and while the hon the Minister is directly in charge …

Mr Chairman, will the hon the Minister agree with what I suggested the other day, namely that one should not become emotional about this matter; one should not become gaga, but should apply one’s mind in an intelligent fashion and get experts and scholars to look at this and advise us, without getting all fired up and arousing the emotions of the people.

I want to tell the hon member for Reservoir Hills that I am not speaking emotionally. I am appealing to a colleague of mine; that is exactly what I am doing. He is quite aware of this, and I am merely highlighting the fact that very many hon members in this House were taking me to task as to what I had done about it.

Hear, hear!

With respect, I want to say that I had very briefly intimated to my hon colleague that I would like to speak to him on this issue, but he was—as he always is—busy at the time. He did say with regard to this, however, that he would make some time available to me, and I have not had the time to go back to him. I want to thank him for that.

It was a source of great satisfaction to me as Minister of Education and Culture to learn of the enthusiasm with which the town council of Nelspruit initially considered the need to preserve the reported discovery of the Dravidian Temple relics in the Eastern Transvaal. The available evidence no doubt assisted the council to assess the findings as worthy of preservation at that stage. However, it is a greater disappointment to me now, and indeed to all reasonable persons who are connected with this culture, to learn of the decision of the town council of Nelspruit to proceed with the developments which will result in the destruction and the elimination of these relics.

I am not in a position to pronounce that these relics are there, but from what literature I have had from knowledgable people, I believe that they are true and that they are there; that they exist. I have written to the council protesting the action to be taken and I am arranging to visit the site together with other persons, including the hon the Minister of Local Government and Agriculture and myself.

I would be very happy if my colleague the hon the Minister of National Education would be available to visit the place with us, as well as any other hon member from this House or elsewhere. I make an appeal to my hon colleague to assist me in preserving these relics, if it is at all possible. There is enough evidence to disprove the unfavourable report on which the town council based its decision to ignore the relics. Until such time that there is conclusive evidence to the contrary, every effort must be made in the interest of preserving the heritage of this country, no matter where it is situated and what culture it represents. These relics would be an asset to the country and would draw overseas tourists.

I now come to the matter of the Tolstoy farm situated near the present Indian township of Lenasia in the Transvaal. It is of great historical importance and I appeal to my hon colleague to look into this matter as well and to take it under his wing. It will be of importance because it can improve the present relations between India and South Africa and it can only mean better relationships in future. The National Monuments Council could be encouraged to look into this with the idea of preserving it.

At the same time I want to mention that there are some schools in our country that also deserve to be considered for preservation. These are both State-aided and State schools. An example is a school such as Depot Road School which was attended by the early indentured Indian children. This school is still in a good condition. I would also like my hon colleague to look at some of the mission schools which are still standing. They could very well be proclaimed as relics of historical importance. Another example is the Sastri Technical College. I have the highest regard for my hon colleague and I hope that he will have the time to look into some of these matters.

Mr Chairman, allow me first of all to support the hon member for Cavendish and the hon member for Allandale. I fully endorse all the arguments that they advanced in this Chamber today.

My concern is with the 687 qualified teachers not being employed for the simple reason of a lack of funds. It has been stated in the own affairs debate in this House that the average ratio of teachers to pupils in White schools stand at 1:18 whereas it is 1:23 in the Indian schools. The Government, through the hon the Minister of National Education, has done a great injustice to Indian education. It is on record that from 1860 to 1966 the Government of the country spent a negligible amount on Indian education.

Indian education, as the hon member for Allandale has told us, was advanced by the struggles and striving of the community itself. I know of a community settled in the Natal Midlands where that community’s total gross annual income in the days of pounds, shillings and pence was seven thousand pounds per annum. However, that community saved whatever it could and it took them seven years to build a school, which school is still in existence. Those are the sacrifices which the Indian community has made in order to uplift our own community. It is therefore patently wrong and ridiculous for any government departmental officer or the Government itself to evaluate that achievement of great sacrifice today and then to say: “Indian education is almost on a par with that of the Whites. Let us keep them down because we want to bring up the Blacks”.

The question that arises now is: Whose fault is it that Black education is lagging behind? Who denied the Blacks educational facilities?

The colonialists!

Who refused Blacks the provision of educational funds? Was it the responsibility of the Indians or of the Government of South Africa? I should like to call upon the hon the Minister of National Education to consider this.

I now want to come back to the norms or formulae that were established before we came to Parliament in 1984 on the assumption that Indian education had been fully provided for all along through State expenditure, which is wrong. They ought to consider that self-sacrifice on the part of the Indian community in arriving at that norm.

As the hon the Minister of Education and Culture in this House has pointed out, for two or three years in succession he has had to take flak from hon members on this side of the House, not knowing where the fault lay. I want to apologise to him openly today for being very harsh with him. [Interjections.] I want to apologise to him because I discovered only two weeks ago where the fault lay. [Interjections.] I want to apologise to him openly. I have deliberately kept back that apology in order to make an open statement for the purpose of the record. I apologise to the hon the Minister of Education and Culture in this House for having taken him to task through no fault of his own. [Interjections.]

However, the person who has to answer the question today is the hon the Minister of National Education. I want to ask him: Is it fair, is it just, is it right to train and to boost the hopes of 687 people by training them as teachers and then saying that one is sorry but there are no jobs for them because the central Government cannot provide the funds? As the hon the Minister of Education and Culture has rightly asked, what are we doing? We are throwing these 687 academics right into the laps of radicals, where they can do far more harm than the good they could be doing in the field of education.

I want to ask the hon the Minister to revise and review that formula in respect of the norms for the allocation of funds in collaboration and in conference with our hon Minister. We know exactly what we need. That brings me back to the argument put forward by the hon the State President when he established that the Indian knows the needs of his own people and that he should therefore be permitted to serve his people. However, if anyone places a stumbling block in our path, then he will have some serious questions to answer.

My appeal to the hon the Minister, then, is that he should revise his norms in respect of the formula for the allocation of funds for education. At the same time, I hasten to add that I do not for one moment recommend or wish that Black education should suffer. I think the hon member for Merebank said this. However, those who have attained a certain standard should not be pulled down a rung or two in order to bring up those on the lower rungs.

I now come to a second disappointing factor, namely the relics of a temple which the hon the Minister has just mentioned. During the debate on his Vote he had to take a thrashing from me. Well, I am not apologising.

I am sorry I had to do it, but I am not apologising. The Sunday Tribune Herald of 24 April 1988 gives one a full report. I quote from the report:

That is why he had to take the flak from me. However, now the hon the Minister of National Education categorically accepts Prof I N Huffman’s findings while the professor himself admitted that he had never undertaken an in-depth study. He only made a brief visit on the invitation of the SABC. He did not know what to look for. The hon member for Reservoir Hills disputed this, or rather, tried to ridicule the hon the Minister of Education and Culture about the existence of this relic.

This place is known as Duragova. It will impress the hon the Minister to know that that is a Dravidian or South-Indian Tamil word. “Gova” means a domeshaped hillock and “dura” means an opening. I am a staunch Sivaite, I am from the Dravidian religion and my grandfather and great-grandfather were Sivaites. Looking at a reproduction of a map of the area, all I see here proves that Dr Hromnik’s findings are genuine.

The hon the Minister, instead of consulting hon members of this House or the hon the Minister of Education and Culture in this House, seeking their advice to find out whether this claim by Dr Hromnik is genuine or not, instructed a Western professor to go and look for some evidence. If one talks to a White man about a langoth, he does not know what it means. However, an Indian knows what it means.

But a Western professor found the relics.

Yes, he found it, but he is an Indian scholar. The discoverer of this ancient temple is qualified. I think he must be one of the few or the only South African who knows Tamil, because on this map I see his handwriting in Tamil, “Duragova”. This doctor was studying and living in India. I do not think he is a South African-born scholar, because I know South African Whites do not care for Indian languages. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the National Education policy of 1987 constitutes a historical event and is most important in the history of South Africa. I think it is a positive policy, which permeates through all facets of education and it covers the various disciplines as far as possible to accommodate and to answer the problem of national education in all the different disciplines. For the first time an education policy is applied to everyone in South Africa, covering various fields. However, the differing norms in various disciplines and the various grants to educational departments on an ethnic basis tarnish that good policy. I do not want to read the actual norm denominators, but 42% of the education budget is expended on White education, a very small population group compared to the other race group. I wish to restate what the hon the Minister of Education and Culture in this House said on Friday.

He reiterated this strongly. I want to mention in passing the contribution and self-sacrifice made by the Indian community. I want the hon the Minister to know that when I was a young teacher, when there was a lack of school accommodation, I and many other teachers taxed ourselves. We took 10% of our salaries and paid it into the Indian School Building Fund. I want the hon the Minister to know this. We did this at considerable sacrifice. I think at that time I was earning approximately four pounds (sterling). I think the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council will also acknowledge the great sacrifices we have made to promote education in the community.

Today we see professionally qualified men with university degrees, plus a professional qualification, walking the streets and applying for work at various agencies. As the hon the Minister pointed out to the good hon Minister on the other side, funds cannot be made available for the employment of these professionally qualified men. I do not know what norms has guided the State so far and I do not know what yardstick or barometer was used to measure the allocation of funds for the various ethnic groups, but may I plead with the hon the Minister to readjust and review this, not only in the favour of Indian education, but in favour of all groups. We will be in a better position then to see that education progresses.

We are not selfish. I do not think the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council was selfish when he made the statement that sacrifices must be made on Indian and White education to uplift Black education. Such a solution is only one of expedience. This is only a short-term solution. However, a long-term solution, based on equality of funds and allocations, will improve the quality of education, not only in this House, but in all three Houses, and particularly that other non-existent House. [Interjections.]

For a long time we have been doing a lot of thinking. Our disciplines were directed towards learning. We have not been able to apply that learning in a practical manner. I am talking about subjects like history, geography and English and other academic subjects. Many of the teachers who are not employed, are those that were in academic disciplines. Our acceleration must be in the field of technology, because I learnt from a reliable authority that in the year 2000 we will need some 20 000 accountants in the accounting field alone. We have 9 000 accountants at the moment.

We talk about economic progress, but in order to have economic progress, we will have to find jobs and opportunities for training personnel in certain disciplines, like accounting and other technological activities.

There are people who are content with a roof over their head. There are those who, after saying their prayers, sleep peacefully at night. There are also those who desire to uplift the quality of their lives. There are those, even among the downtrodden, who have the ambition to rise above their circumstances.

Here I must acknowledge that the State, through the efforts of the good hon the Minister of National Education and the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, has taken a wonderful and progressive step towards Black rural education.

I must compliment the hon the Minister and all those that have been associated in trying to achieve a practical solution, because for years rural education was neglected by those connected with the State. Today we are proud that some semblance of formal education is being injected into the lives of those that live in the rural areas.

One race group alone cannot find the answer to the destiny of our country. We need everybody. The first time I came to be in the company of a White student was at university because, like many of us, I suffered from the apartheid syndrome. I was born in an apartheid society. For the first time for me to have befriended a student at the university was something great for me—and nothing happened. We were students who had objectives and we played and studied together and—nothing happened! Sooner or later there has to be contact between all race groups. Why not make a beginning at the elementary level, or at the secondary level or even at the tertiary level so that all of us can find an answer to our common problem and so that a united South Africa will permeate right through to all people? Patriotism may then become something which we can all cherish.

Mr Chairman, firstly I want to place on record our sincere appreciation for the excellent manner in which our colleague, the hon the Minister of National Education, has piloted education in this country and for the sympathy and understanding he has always shown whenever my colleague, the hon the Minister of Education and Culture, referred problems for his consideration. I also want to express our appreciation of the Director-general and all the officials of the Department of National Education. In referring to all the structures and all the national institutions in which leading educationists serve and which are representative of all the race groups in this country, I want to emphasise in particular representatives of the organised teaching profession. When an own affairs department implements a policy, then Tasa, for example, is indirectly responsible for the policy, because if one examines the excellent annual report of the Department of National Education, one will find that none other than the president of Tasa serves in many structures and statutory organisations. The Director-General of the Department of National Education is a very experienced person and I also want to take this opportunity of expressing our personal thanks to him for the wise counsel he offers to our officials and officials of other education departments when asked.

A few years ago, before the advent of the tricameral Parliament, the Government called together the Roelf Venter Committee which dealt with salary structures. I sincerely hope—this is my personal view—that the hon the Minister of National Education returns that report to the Roelf Venter Committee with the question whether it would not be wise to link the salary structures to the qualifications of teachers. I am not a professional and cannot therefore advance a professional argument, but ever since we have this important linkage with the qualifications of teachers we find teachers, especially in the Indian community, studying on a larger scale. Now we ask ourselves two questions; are they studying to earn more money, or they are taking courses to be of use to them in the classroom situation?

The one cannot go without the other.

Both.

The hon member for Phoenix says both and I do not doubt that. I think a professional should actually take the final decision on this matter. However, the ripple effect of that is that most of the teachers take advantage of the study leave and examination leave at a time when they are needed most in the classroom.

And election leave!

We had a great educationist who served on the Executive Committee of the SAIC who once gave us the good advice that a teacher should be advised to complete all his studies before he commences teaching.

I think that one should examine the number of days teachers take for study leave and for examination purposes. I just thought I should mention this because a lot of concern is being expressed as far as this factor is concerned.

In the year 1986 there was a lively debate in this House on the new formula system. We did not debate this in 1985 because we did not feel the effect of the implementation of the new formula. I am glad that the hon member for Camperdown realised that the wrong person was being hanged for the effect of the implementation of this new formula. I am glad that the hon member for Camperdown was honourable enough today to admit that publicly. I sincerely express the wish that other hon members will now realise that the fault does not lie with the Ministers’ Council nor with the hon the Minister of Education and Culture, nor does the fault lie with the hon the Minister of National Education, because he can only preside at a meeting of education Ministers to distribute what Parliament has decided we should receive. Therefore the Minister of National Education actually distributes what is allocated to education by Parliament.

When we were dealing with the budget in the past few years I never once saw anyone standing up to propose an amendment to say that more should be given for education. Of course, we dealt with arguments that we should cut the defence and police budgets etc. Other statistics were given in this regard. One cannot fault the formula system. The formula does not discriminate, nor does it give one group an advantage over another group. However, what one must examine is whether the formula takes into consideration the history of the inequality in this country.

Does it take that into consideration? I have not studied the formula, but if there are deficiencies in the formula we must address our problem in that direction. If there is a deficiency in the financing of education, we must address ourselves in that direction as well.

I wish to compliment the hon the Minister of National Education. I have said publicly on a previous occasion that when he became the Minister of Internal Affairs before the tricameral Parliament was established, I regarded my colleague as the best Minister of Indian Affairs we had had. There are reasons why I have said so.

Like father, like son!

However, I want to say about the hon the Minister of National Education that, bearing in mind the experiences we had with my colleague before 28 August 1984 and after that—my colleague the hon the Minister of Education and Culture will confirm this—he is one hon Minister who cannot be faulted as far as consensus politics is concerned. The National Policy for General Education Affairs Act, Act No 76 of 1984, assigns to the Minister of National Education the power to determine general policy regarding norms and standards for the financing of education; the salaries and conditions of employment of staff; the professional registration of teachers; the norms and standards for syllabuses and examinations, and certification of qualifications. I know that the hon the Minister of National Education himself does not decide this. He is guided by the structures he has set up and he decides jointly with his colleagues, the other hon Ministers of Education. In addition there is proper consultation with the Ministers of Education in the National States.

We are therefore not in an era when decisions are imposed on own affairs administrations and where we have to accept what is decided by others. However, I want to say that we are prepared to make the sacrifice for the advancement of Black education. Here I want to say that we always compliment those who are directly in charge of Black education. This is a team effort. One of the departments with its Minister that must take the credit is the Department of National Education and the hon the Minister of National Education, for having had the foresight to allocate funds on a formula basis in a way that ultimately will lead to equal education in South Africa.

I want to make an appeal. It is that we must address this problem boldly and find a solution to this problem. A few days ago I mentioned that it will take up to year 1990 for all teachers in the Black education department to have a minimum qualification of matriculation. This is at a time when there are human beings in South Africa who are graduates and who are walking the streets as teachers without a job.

Therefore there is no shortage of teachers in this country. It does not augur well for this country, nor does it augur well for the own affairs of which my hon colleague is the great champion, that the policy that was decided long before 1984 and the formula that was worked out long before 1984 has unfortunately had to fall in the lap of an own affairs Minister of Education. One could have put the best in the country there; even if the hon member for Cavendish were Minister of Education and Culture, that hon member would have been confronted with the same problem.

The problem is that we would have to implement a decision where there is a slight reduction in the allocation of funds and where one has been confronted by the same situation that one cannot employ 600 teachers. That was the scenario at the beginning of 1988 when no teachers were produced by our teacher training colleges because of the changes in the third-year and fourth-year courses. At the end of this year our problem will be greater.

We know the history of Indian education. This department also controls the archives of the country. I want to mention to the Director-General that one of the greatest assets that could be put into the archives is the foundation of Indian education before the State took over the responsibility of our education in 1966. It must be mentioned in the archives—posterity can then pass their own judgment—that the Indian community built up their own education.

We cannot allow a situation—even for political and constitutional purposes—where there may be 1 500 qualified Indian teachers who cannot find jobs while teachers without matric are employed in another education department. It is also not fair to qualified White teachers who have difficulty in finding employment. I think my colleague the hon the Minister of National Education must take the responsibility for the distribution of teachers. We are ultimately interested in the improvement of the quality of life of our people and we therefore want to improve the quality of our teaching. That is why we took the decision to employ teachers in our own affairs Administration even when we do not have the money. We will have to find R10 million from our own Budget by January 1989 or else we will be forced to terminate these services.

My colleague the hon the Minister of Education and Culture in this House indicated this afternoon that all the posts in our departments were filled and that is why we had to employ teachers on a temporary basis. What we must pledge this afternoon is to ensure that there is job security for our teachers. As long as they do not have job security, the teachers will not be able to give their best and our education will suffer to a certain extent.

My hon colleague must please comment briefly on the question of the organised teaching profession’s intention to form a trade union. A meeting was held with the hon the Minister of National Education and our own Teachers’ Association of South Africa made a statement arising from that meeting. Somebody misconstrued that and said that the Teachers’ Association was dissatisfied with the Indian education department and that that was the reason why they were forming a trade union.

We must make the correct comparison. I said in another debate that we must compare our situation to the total allocation for education in the House of Assembly. We must compare an apple to an apple. The expenditure of the University of Cape Town is contained in the Budget of the House of Assembly but it is not a totally White education expenditure. The expenditure of the University of Durban-Westville is contained in the Budget of the Administration: House of Delegates but it is not a totally Indian education expenditure.

My children do not go to a White school but to a boarding school. I say this for the benefit of the hon member for Merebank.

It is a multiracial school.

In order to avoid being criticised unfairly, the time is now ripe for us to take universities, technikons and private schools out of own affairs and make it fall under general affairs. They should be under the direct control of the Director-General of the Department of National Education and the Minister of National Education. There is definitely merit in that proposal because they are definitely not own affairs in real terms.

I want the whole country to realise that we should not compare Indians with Whites. My colleague the hon the Minister of Education and Culture mentioned the other day that if we wanted to achieve a programme of equalisation in our education in this country, then all the schools in the country—be they Black, White, Brown, or whatever—should have the same pupil:teacher ratio. Let us not try to achieve what the Whites have; let us try to achieve what the finances of the country will afford.

Yesterday we heard the hon the State President speak, and that is why a constitutional solution in this region is of paramount importance. That is why we must move away from apartheid as fast as we can and avoid the duplication of services and the under-utilisation of facilities. One cannot offer any logical argument if one has facilities that are under-utilised and one also has communities that are struggling to obtain the necessary capital to construct the same type of facilities for their own communities.

If there is a solution to the South West issue—and we hope that yesterday’s talks in London will lead to a solution—and if there are political solutions in this country, then we shall have the magic we require.

Yesterday the hon the State President mentioned that South West Africa was one of the most highly subsidised countries in the world with one million people being subsidised to the tune of R1 billion per annum. Why, then, if we want to employ 700 teachers, do we not put our heads together to find a political solution in that particular region?

However, there is a great deal of optimism and therefore internally we must engage in exercises to avoid the duplication of services.

I want to recommend very strongly that we take note of the comments made by the hon members for Camperdown and Reservoir Hills about the relics in Nelspruit. I want to say that the Indians were a seafaring people long before the Europeans took to the sea. However, the Indians were not colonialists. They chased after minerals, not to gain wealth, but because culturally and historically the Indians were attached to jewels.

Let us take Ghana on the West Coast, for example. That is the Gold Coast, and “Ghana” in the Hindi language means jewels.

There are similarities to Dravidian language on the West Coast of South America. There are also similarities between the language of the Eastern Transvaal region and the Tamil language. I think that if India genuinely accepts that Indians arrived on the eastern shores of Africa approximately 1800 or 1900 years ago—and there is no doubt about this; it is a historical fact, and it was only the power of the Arabs that prevented them from continuing—then South Africa should assist in establishing the truth beyond all reasonable doubt. Moreover, if India accepts that there are Indian temples of historical importance and significance in South Africa, then this will strengthen the cultural ties with this country.

I want to appeal to my colleague the hon the Minister of National Education to also promote Indian cultural artists who go overseas.

He is also the Minister responsible for national sports. We are worried about facilities. I am glad that Mr Sona was able to play in the Pele XI in spite of what Sacos and Sanroc, who do not represent South African sportsmen, think.

However, the Department of National Education also has the Human Sciences Research Council; let us not lose sight of that fact. The Department of National Education is very important, beyond controlling or determining general policy for education. Some of the research highlights of the Human Sciences Research Council are the general scholastic test, known as the GSAT, and the manpower aptitude test battery, referred to as the MATB. Of course the HSRC also carries out an annual attitude survey of the attitudes of people towards many things, including the tricameral Parliament, and we know what the findings of that survey are.

I finally want to recommend that the Department of National Education studies the very important recommendation of Satya Cy Baba in his programme of education and human values. It was recommended in Nigeria, and I notice that even the head of government in Nigeria implemented it in his country.

The Department of National Education deals with many things, but we are proud of the person who heads the Ministry of National Education. It is his decision, his broadshoulderedness and broadmindedness which has resulted in us showering many praises regarding the progress made in Black education. Internally, the solution to South Africa’s problems can begin with little children, especially in the classroom.

Mr Chairman, in order to reinforce the argument for sufficient funds for education in general, which, in broad terms, has already been debated sufficiently in this House, I want to say that the future stability of this country depends on sound education and understanding. It has already been stated in many debates that if one looks at Parliament before the tricameral system and at our new education plan which was introduced by our hon Minister of National Education, we must realise that we are 10 years too late for the equalisation of education. I think we are all unanimous in agreeing that the hon the Minister of National Education, together with his department, had the courage and the foresight to start a new plan for education. What we in this House are saying to him, however, is that the plan to secure future stability in this country through education should have taken into account the problems which this House already indicated to him. These concern the unemployment of teachers, the lack of facilities which existed prior to the formula being introduced and the manpower needs of this country.

I am not going to blame the hon the Minister. I said during the own affairs debate on the Vote: Education and Culture that they are not to blame. The Cabinet has to reapply its mind to this whole issue. The situation that exists now is not due to any fault on the part of the parents or the qualified teachers. There is no way one can defend the indefensible. One cannot say to the parents of the country: “Well, sorry, we cannot do anything regarding this matter.” We did not foresee this. I say with all due respect to our hon Minister of Education and Culture that he was not aware of what would happen so suddenly to the economy of the country. However, in the same breath it must be said that, when the children are educated and hold a professional status, one cannot all of a sudden disband them.

One is then tampering with a very serious situation in this country. If we had any foresight, those 500 or 600 children could have been diversified into other avenues of manpower needs in this country. Not only have we wasted money, but we have wasted their time. They now have to try and earn a living in a different field. I think the Government is to blame for this situation.

One cannot all of sudden bring out a formula for equal education, while at the same time depriving those who are already involved in studying in a specific field. We cannot allow this situation to continue. The hon the Minister and his department, through the Cabinet, will have to resolve this issue. The Ministers’ Council and the hon the Minister of Education and Culture will be criticised for this. Imagine if a member of one’s own family has qualified as a teacher, and now he is walking the streets, not prewarned that he will not be employed, let alone the children who will not be employed in future, because one can still take stock of that. Now all of a sudden a teacher has to hear that the budget does not allow us to employ him or her. We are experiencing a new political game in which many people despair of the future political stability of this country. One can never defend what is happening to the teaching profession today.

What about our facilities? We cannot overemphasise the contribution which the Indians have made—not that Whites have not made any contributions—but the Indian community has made a tremendous contribution. I have already said in the other debate that our facilities are too far below par to be able to improve the standard of sport personnel in this country. That is one’s training ground. When are we going to catch up with that kind of programme? The hon member for Camperdown is correct when he says that we should not lower the standards of the other communities in order to bring about equality. We should rather raise the standard.

Two hon Ministers in this House, namely the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare and the hon the Minister of Education and Culture, had the courage to state categorically that in terms of the current dispensation, they will not be able to provide the services that the Indian community requires. I applaud them for their courage for having said that. It is a sad state of affairs. If one cannot provide sufficient health services and a proper education system, one will not be able to solve the future political problems in this country. Better educated people will find better solutions to our problems.

It is my belief—and that of many hon members in this House—that the time has come for the education system to be open from a certain level upwards. I am not going to argue too much about that, because there are facilities that are open. However, for the sake of political goodwill and the stability of this country, if our children do not start together at certain levels, they will not be able to solve the future problems of South Africa. Through education we will be able to provide stability in this country. We will have to take a stand on this. We will have to make a decision to open schools from a certain level so that children will be able to find each other in this country. At the moment we are too divided. I predict that it will not be long before the demands and pressure overwhelm us. We will have to tackle this problem and open the schools for the sake of our children’s education. This is the only way in which we will be able to solve the political problems of this country.

I believe that the hon the Minister of National Education is a person who knows the situation in this country far better than any of us. Education is the key to the success story of this country. The pleas that are made in this House should not be debated year after year.

As far as the teacher issue is concerned, this matter should be resolved once and for all. I also want to make this last plea to the hon the Minister to understand, like the father he himself is, how he would feel if his own children were affected by being qualified and having to sit at home. He should be able to take a stand on this particular matter.

One cannot bring a new dispensation and all of a sudden stop in mid-stream, saying there is no money and we will not be able to provide these poor teachers with jobs. The whole tenor of this own affairs debate, as well as in general affairs, will focus on this particular argument. Funds are important and any kind of system, including own affairs, can only survive if we are able to pay more attention to those key issues of education and health services and welfare in this country … [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, at the outset I wish to thank all hon members for participating in this debate. Once again we have had a debate which was conducted on a high level and as always I experienced the feeling that I were welcome here. I would like to thank all hon members for their kind sentiments expressed towards me and my department.

In particular I would like to thank the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council for the very kind words expressed to myself and my department. From our side we also experience a very sound basis of co-operation with the Ministers’ Council and in particular with my colleague, the hon the Minister of Education and Culture. I think we have succeeded in developing a culture of real consultation with regard to all matters affecting education, which has benefitted the total educational system of South Africa. I can truly say that I have not laid down any policy where I did not succeed in getting some form of co-operation, if not an almost full consensus, from all my colleagues.

As the hon member for Red Hill stated, when one sits around a table and one deals with one of the key issues of the future of this country, one is almost overwhelmed by the sense of heavy responsibility which rests on one shoulders. Then it is easy to push aside unnecessary politicisation of a subject and to ask what is best for the children of our country. It is in that spirit that we in this department approach our task in education. Yes, we do have philosophical differences with each other, which were once again highlighted in this debate. However, in our joint intentness upon developing where further development is needed, building where we need to build new structures for education as well as expansion and rationalisation where they may be needed, we have formed a team. I wish to thank my hon colleagues for their support in that regard.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council raised certain questions with regard to particular aspects of the remuneration package of teachers and their conditions of service. Obviously my department will look carefully at these views. I should just like to highlight another viewpoint with regard to the matter he has raised and that is that we are also experiencing an explosion of knowledge in these modern times in which we are living and therefore further study for as many teachers as possible is the surest way to meet the challenges emanating from this explosion of knowledge.

The hon member for Red Hill and other members referred to the problem of unemployed teachers. Firstly, with regard to this we must realise that it is impossible to plan perfectly five, 10 or 20 years in advance. Therefore one often finds in many fields that based on certain departure points and information available at a particular moment, planners—also educational planners—form a vision of the future and calculate in good faith what the requirements will be in year A, B, C and D. Then quite often one finds that as a result of a confluence of occurrences those predictions do not prove to be absolutely accurate. In the past number of years we have gone through a period of things not going the normal way. For a very long and protracted time we have been experiencing an economic low in this country.

This has resulted in many patterns; it has also resulted, inter alia, in a lack of new job opportunities in the private sector. This has had an influence on the teaching profession as well. In my negotiations with some of the representative teachers’ associations they tell me that while, numerically speaking, there is also an oversupply of White teachers, as a result of the sudden upswing in the economy the total picture is changing within six months or even a year and suddenly there is an outflow of well-qualified teachers from the teaching profession. These teaching associations are concerned about this and I say it is a difficult situation to have. However, the Ministers’ Council of this House has taken certain steps to rectify a particular situation which is a temporary one, because already now with regard to existing trainees and the number of trainees that will be taken in in the next few years, I am sure there will be planning to ensure that this does not happen. This planning is in able hands.

I also want to say that we should depoliticise this particular issue. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council was right when he said that certain practical situations that we face today could not have been avoided by anybody in incumbent positions or anybody sitting on the shadow-side of Cabinets and Ministers’ Councils. It was unavoidable. I hope the steps that have been taken will to a certain extent rectify this position. The Ministers’ Council has the full power to avoid a repetition of this in future. We are fortunate to be able to say that since the Department of National Education came into being in its present form, one great improvement has been attained and that is that our whole data basis on which we can plan has been tremendously improved. We now have an information system that brings together all the relevant information needed by planners in a very scientific way, which is a definite improvement on the information systems that were not co-ordinated.

I can therefore almost give hon members the assurance—not because the planners of five or 10 years ago did not do their job properly, but because of better infrastructure and better information systems—that the planners of today are in a much better position to avoid a situation like the one we are experiencing now.

There is no quick fix for the present situation. The only quick fix would have been more money, and that I shall deal with in a moment; it is just not available, for other good reasons which have been argued very effectively by the hon the State President and my colleague the hon the Minister of Finance.

Therefore I appeal to all the hon members in this House through you, Mr Chairman, to stop hammering each other with regard to this question of the number of unemployed people and to realise that this is a practical situation which really could not have been avoided by anyone present in this House at this moment. This is how I see it.

But we have a moral obligation.

Yes, obviously, but in many other professions, also as a result of the economic downswing which has taken place over a number of years the architectural profession for example—people are sitting without work. There was a time when suddenly there was no need for new lawyers. I am a lawyer by training, so I keep my finger on the pulse of the legal profession. In many professions the very same problem has been experienced during the past two or three years.

One must also bear in mind—and this is the last word on this subject—that a qualified teacher has been trained on a broad level, and he now possesses knowledge, experience and insight which in any event makes him a valuable asset to the community and which in any event enhances his chances of obtaining good employment, outside the education profession, too where he can be of great use to his employer and where he can use this knowledge which he gained through his training to compete against other prospective employees.

To show my faith in the educational profession, let me tell you something personal. I have a daughter at university. She was not awarded a bursary, and therefore her chances of getting a post when she completes her studies are very small. Nonetheless I am paying for her to become a teacher because I think it is good for her to acquire that experience. Perhaps some day, if she cannot get immediate employment, when she is married and perhaps living in a small town, that town will need that sort of experience.

I am not, therefore, trying to belittle the problem; I am merely saying that we must be practical and realistic about it.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council also suggested—and to an extent the hon member for Red Hill supported this—that I should consider taking the initiative for a new constitutional dispensation for universities, technikons and private schools, and that they should be taken away from own affairs in as much as they are now centred there, and that they should be placed under the aegis of the Department of National Education.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is welcome to place this on the agenda of the Committee of Education Ministers. Basically I do not agree with that, and I just wish to put forward three perspectives in this regard. The first is that the strength of national education as it is, is that it is not involved in implementation of education. It is truly a policy department, and that also makes it to a certain extent truly a service department. It would fundamentally change its character and possibly compromise its position as a policy department if it were now also to be concerned with implementation.

The second perspective I should like to bring forward is that for this department to suddenly start running private schools would mean a new duplication within the ranks of the Department of National Education, because with our present manpower we simply cannot do so.

The same also applies to universities and technikons. In many other countries universities do not get their subsidies from one source in government. In the American system, the German system and many other systems there is not necessarily this co-ordination. With regard to tertiary education too much emphasis is put on from which Budget the subsidies emanate. We are dealing with autonomous organisations in any case. They are not being prescribed to and their ties with the Government, whether it is own affairs or general affairs, are of a very general nature and not as direct as in the case of pretertiary education.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council referred to the tendency in certain quarters to want to form trade unions for teachers. My point of view as well as the official policy of the Government is that teachers are members of a profession and trade unionism is not a machine that was designed for professions. It would detract from the professionalism of the teachers if the forming of trade unions was allowed. In the past some teachers did try to form unions but the rest of the profession reacted very strongly against these efforts. I am sure that the majority of teachers are against this and in the past they have insisted that it should be made impossible for teachers to form trade unions. I have a good idea that my colleague the hon the Minister of Manpower is considering the introduction of legislation in this regard to make it clear once and for all that this should not be allowed.

The hon the Minister of Education and Culture and many other hon members referred to particular problems in Indian education, especially the finance situation. He said that funds at his disposal were insufficient to meet the needs of his department and that he lacked funds for staff and the building of new facilities. Let me immediately say that I am well aware of the fact that with the cuts that had to be made to the education budget Ministers and officials had to budget very carefully. It is quite difficult to manage an education system when the required funds are simply not available in the ideal sense of the word.

However, the hon the State President and my colleague the hon the Minister of Finance have already explained the reasons for the stringent Budget with which we are dealing this year and which we are discussing today. I agree with them that we will have to make sacrifices now in order to benefit from these stringent measures in future. This applies to each and every department because I am sure that pleas are also made when other hon Ministers come to this House that more money must be made available for this and for that. The only way in which more money can be made available is to increase the taxes. To have done that—I am advancing only one argument at the moment—would have had a negative effect on the desired economic upswing that is taking place at the moment. If this Budget was allowed to expand beyond the proportions at which it now stands it would be inflationary. If we do not curb inflation we will experience greater pain and suffering every year.

Therefore, let us once and for all make this concerted effort now to also address some of the root causes of our economic problems. Then it will become easier and the cake will become bigger so that we can address the demands which are made more effectively in future.

With regard to finances, the hon member for Phoenix asked what yardstick was used in allocating funds to the various departments. I suppose he wanted to ascertain whether we had not perhaps done this department down and favoured another of the education departments. I want to tell him that the subsidy formula was once again used as a frame of reference in allocating funds to education departments during 1988-89 and that the sacrifices—because there are sacrifices—were evenly distributed over the various departments. He has that assurance.

In conclusion, let me make one general statement in this regard. If we look at education at this point in time the obvious priority, as some hon members have stated, is improving the level of the provision of education in those sectors which, from an educational point of view, are totally inadequately provided for. We cannot say that the Department of Education and Training of this House or of the House of Assembly fall into this category in that they are totally inadequately provided for. In the education department of this House and that of the House of Assembly the provision is today at a relatively high level. In the case of these two departments the situation is not unduly out of step with that obtaining in most parts of the world. Therefore, the priorities in the Department of Education and Training: House of Assembly as well as in the Department of Education and Training: House of Delegates must be to focus on improving the efficiency and effectiveness of education, that is to say the cost-effective expenditure of money without in any way compromising standards. Some measure of rationalisation is necessary and I would be dishonest with hon members if I did not emphasise that.

Another subject which has been widely referred to is the question of the alleged Indian relics in the Eastern Transvaal. The hon the Minister referred to them, as did the hon members for Cavendish and Camperdown and other hon members. They made an appeal that we should keep an open mind. Let me say at once that I have an open mind on this subject. [Interjections.] I am keeping an open mind.

If, as a result of further research, new facts come to the fore, obviously one will have to look at them with an open mind. The fact of the matter is that I am not qualified—and I do not know how many hon members here are qualified—to act as a judge if scientists begin to differ.

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

May I just complete my reply? I may answer the hon member’s question without it being asked.

We have the positive scientific opinion with regard to these relics, to which reference has been made. During the course of my involvement in this matter, having received certain requests and so on, I have also been advised that quite an important group of archaeologists hold a different opinion on this matter, and I want to give hon members their names. I do not think there is anything against my doing that. In terms of information which has been submitted to me one could say that there is almost consensus between the following scientists with regard to this issue in the sense that they disagree with the opinion to which reference has been made.

I am referring to Dr A Meyer, who was at one time acting head of the Department of Archeology at the University of Pretoria, Prof N J van der Merwe from the University of Cape Town, Prof T N Huffman of the University of the Witwatersrand, and Prof J Berg of the University of Pretoria. The factual situation, as far as we politicians are concerned, is therefore that we have before us conflicting scientific opinions.

Against that background, let me say that we have in South Africa a National Monuments Council, which falls under my department. That council must advise me and my department on the declaration of national monuments and also on the question of the institution of conservation areas. I think this is the right address to go to, and I am willing to request the National Monuments Council to investigate the issue in full and to advise me on the steps that I should take. The council has powers which include the right, within the law, to declare that area a conservation area.

However, we must realise that the National Monuments Council will be faced with exactly the same difficulties. Therefore, against the factual background, I would suggest that steps be initiated by whoever wants to make a plea that the area should be proclaimed a conservation area, to put forward scientific facts and arguments and even new scientific facts and arguments, so as to enable them to come to a conclusion in an informed manner.

Suspend all development in the meantime.

I would therefore, within the framework of what I have said, like to appeal to hon members not to prejudge the outcome of such an investigation. However, they can accept one thing, namely that if this matter is put before that council according to the prescribed procedures, they will also look at the whole question with an open mind.

Mr Chairman, I would like to ask the hon the Minister whether he is aware of the fact that Prof J Parkington of the Department of Archeology of UCT admitted on 11 April that he did not carry out any investigations at Duragova. As long ago as 21 March Dr Meyer said that he only passed through the area but did not carry out any investigations. Prof Huffman also admitted that he only paid a brief visit and he did not notice anything. They did not know what they were looking for. How can they then say that this is a conclusive report?

For that very reason, Mr Chairman, I am not saying that I am choosing sides. I am retaining an open mind. I was not aware of those facts. I have not necessarily quoted them with approval. I was just stating that there is a difference of opinion. The fact of the matter is that I have their names in writing and they were quoted to me by the municipality involved, as the authority on which the municipality took certain decisions. I am really not ready or informed enough at the moment to make a judgement as to which of the conflicting opinions—because there are conflicting opinions—one can accept.

However, we have this body, we have this law, we have this facility at our disposal—let us use it. This is my advice to hon members. I would suggest that hon members move soon. That body also has powers to make a preliminary declaration and if hon members move soon, the preliminary investigation can be carried out soon and they can reach an early conclusion as to whether they should freeze the situation or not.

Mr Chairman, will the hon the Minister take some measures to ensure that no disruption or development of the site takes place in the intervening period while investigations are taking place?

I have just stated that this National Monuments Council has powers to freeze the situation and to take preliminary steps on a very expeditious basis.

I would suggest that we move as quickly as possible so as to enable them to make a preliminary evaluation of the situation. If they can be convinced that there is a real doubt in their minds, then they have the power to ensure that no destruction of any nature will take place in the mean time.

The hon the Minister of Education and Culture also referred to other instances of historic importance to the Indian community. I am not informed on the factual situation, but I will study his speech and come back to him on a personal basis.

The hon member for Allandale expressed pride in the fact that Indians themselves made a major contribution to their own education system. I have a sound understanding of this pride. The same is also true of the Afrikaner.

*I must also always speak some Afrikaans when I am here. One of my great grandfathers came to South Africa specially to work as a teacher during the Great Trek. The Afrikaners’ education was a matter which they dealt with themselves for many decades. It was only in modern times that the State took over and the present position came into being.

†The hon member pleaded for accelerated upgrading of Black education. I think I have already dealt with that. I would like to thank the hon member for Cavendish for having given recognition to the progress which has already been made. I thank all other hon members who have pointed this out, too.

The hon member for Cavendish was concerned about drastic cuts in university funding by the Government. He also referred to the need for unrestricted study and debate at universities. I think the hon member for Springfield also touched upon facets of the very same situation.

The hon member for Cavendish was absolutely right when he stated that neither my department, nor the Government had any sinister motives with regard to the cuts that have been made in university funding. This year’s cut-back had nothing to do with the Government’s strong view with regard to certain unacceptable activities on certain campuses. This year’s cutback was caused by the present situation to which I have already referred.

We share the high appreciation that was expressed by hon members for the crucial role which universities and technikons have to play. However, let me comment briefly on the question of freedom of speech and academic freedom to which the hon member for Springfield has referred. There are many responsible people who are concerned about the possible abuse of academic freedom at universities. Nobody is against academic freedom, but the question is: Is it not being abused?

I would like to start out by saying that the Government supports the ideal of academic freedom. If one analyses academic freedom, it has to do with the essential function of the university, namely the impartial pursuit of the truth, or at least the most workable theory regarding a phenomenon. Academic freedom implies that there should be nothing to hamper this pursuit, or to delay the results to students and the research community. Underpinning this is the democratic notion that the truth is not the exclusive property of any group or ideology. It is not possible to predict on ideological grounds who will uncover the truth. Science should therefore be as objective as possible.

Ironically enough, the radical leftist views that are informed to a large extent by the philosophy of Marx, do not recognise this basis of academic freedom. Radicals to the left do not embrace the philosophy of academic freedom, because they wish to make science an accessory to the so-called struggle.

At the same time they use academic freedom as a stick with which to beat the Government. They accuse the Government of disregarding academic freedom, but as a matter of fact they themselves show no regard for academic freedom. Academic freedom does not mean that academics and students are free to disrupt the workings of a university. Disruptions and politicking have nothing to do with science, nor does academic freedom imply the right to break laws of the country or to use university facilities for non-academic and even revolutionary purposes. Academic freedom cannot be said to exist at a university which has aligned itself fully with leftist radicalism. Lecturers at such universities would be afraid of the consequences of an impartial search for the truth. This kind of pressure is often very subtle but it is there and the damage it does to academic freedom is incalculable. That is why today I would like to appeal to the real intellectuals at our universities to stand firm in the name of academic freedom against philosophies that make a mockery of the whole idea. I would ask of hon members in this Chamber not to make appeals for academic freedom only when they feel that the Government might be prejudicing that principle. Help me also to fight it when it is threatened by the leftist element.

Reference was made to the role of technikons and I would like to stress their importance in our present stage of development in this country. The technikon subsystem within our tertiary education system is a fully-fledged tertiary education system. It is not subordinate to the university system, but functions as its equal. Technikons and universities compliment each other. The technikons have their own objectives and their own style of teaching. They have their own philosophy and I say that this subsystem is of the greatest importance to South Africa. By international standards our country still has too few students pursuing their studies at tertiary level in technikons, and too many going to universities. School children planning their careers should know that intelligent and gifted pupils can find the highest degree of fulfilment in technikon studies and the occupations to which these studies lead. Therefore, I want to say that in our management of education we should also ensure that technikons will fully bloom and will be enabled to make their full contribution towards the manpower needs of this country.

The hon member for Springfield, to whom I have partially replied, also referred to the ten-year plan. In that regard I would like to say that I am unfortunately also being hampered, as my hon colleague here has been hampered, in really going ahead full-steam with this because of the particular stringency of this year’s Budget. The ten-year plan as conceived, was based on a real annual increase in education expenditure of 4,1%. This percentage was also linked to the expected growth of the economy at that point in time. Since that announcement was made the economy has not shown the expected growth and it has therefore not been possible to maintain a real growth of 4,1% in education expenditure.

However, firstly I would like to remind hon members that I never stated that equal provision could be attained within ten years. I did say that with a 4,1% growth a dramatic breakthrough can be attained in ten years and specific goals can be planned.

Secondly I would like to state that the plan has already been worked out in the necessary detail. The framework of this plan addresses such critical matters as, for example, growth in pupil numbers; per capita expenditure; and alternative methods of financing education. I can therefore report that important progress has been made in regard to the ten-year plan.

However, before this plan can be finalised and announced it has to be reviewed within the framework of the new economic and financial policies of the Government in terms of which this budget has been drawn up. I am in the process of negotiating with my colleague, the hon the Minister of Finance, about the effect that these policies may have on the 10-year plan. I shall thereafter again negotiate with my colleagues in education in order to achieve progress.

In the meantime I can also inform hon members that I have consulted with the organised teaching profession in order to lay a basis also for further negotiations about the 10-year plan with them.

The hon member also referred to the conditions for subsidisation which the court has in two instances ruled to be out of order for reasons supplied by it. We basically abide by that, but I want to draw this distinction: The method that we wanted to follow to attain certain goals was involved in the court action, not the goals themselves. I want to restate the four goals to which this Government remains committed and for which I also have the support of the hon the Ministers’ Council. These goals are: Firstly, uninterrupted and unhindered tuition of and study by students at all universities; secondly, the functional, constructive and educationally sound application of the taxpayers’ money; thirdly, the implementation of effective measures to maintain good order and discipline on all campuses; and fourthly, the maintenance of the universities’ traditional academic values and standards. I am sure that hon members subscribe to all of these goals.

I am also under the impression—and I have no reason to think this is no longer the case—that I have the support of the universities themselves for these four goals. Therefore it is not concerning what our objectives should be that we are in dispute with each other, but rather how we can ensure that those objectives will be attained. We are not convinced that sufficient steps are being taken at all universities to attain those objectives. That is why these conditions came into being.

With the conditions now negatived, we basically have two alternatives. Firstly, we can amend existing legislation to give us the powers to impose those conditions. Secondly, we can try to find a way, through a process of negotiation, to achieve the stated objectives. There is a third alternative and that is to do nothing and that is unacceptable to the Government. I personally think that the alternative—and I have the support also of my colleagues—to find a way through a process of negotiation to achieve and ensure that we achieve the stated objectives, should be looked at carefully.

It is important that the tension in as much as it exists in the relationship between the universities and the Government be eliminated without losing sight of those four objectives.

The Ministers concerned have agreed to withdraw the letters in which the conditions were imposed last year. Each Minister will now consult with the universities for which he is responsible and with me as Minister of National Education so that a method may be found to achieve the objective on which consensus has already been reached to a great extent.

In concluding what I have to say on this, let me say that it is essential that a workable solution be found as soon as possible so that the energy currently being expended in this conflict can instead be applied in a constructive manner to the benefit of the entire country.

We cannot allow stay-aways and the intimidation of lecturers to take place on campuses in South Africa. We will ensure that people will have a right to constructive protest, for debate and for criticism.

However, it must be done in an orderly and responsible manner, and in a way which will not serve the revolutionary onslaught on stability in this country.

The hon member for Lenasia Central pleaded for realism with regard to how we handle the challenges posed by the diversity of our population. He defended the right of the Indian community to be catered for in the same way as other groups which are being accommodated. I thank him for a constructive speech, and I think that he has shown courage in the realism which he expounded in his speech.

The hon member for Merebank pleaded for interaction among the young people of our country. Now, nothing stands in the way of interaction in many fields. However, when it comes to our schools, the existing system is firmly based on sound educational grounds. He quoted from the De Lange report and then went on to say that the White Paper was totally negative in that regard, for instance with regard to one central department charged with macro-policy. However, he is not fully correct in making that statement. National Education is to a great extent such a department, which formulates policy in respect of the four issues that were mentioned by one of the hon members as being set out in Annexure 1 to the Constitution: Norms and standards of financing; norms and standards of syllabi and of examination and certification; registration of teachers; and conditions of service of teachers. This department formulates the policy. It is a central department dealing with the affairs of all population groups in education, and therefore dealing with macro-policy with regard to very important issues. Therefore when the hon member says that this was totally blown out of the window, I think he is drawing an incorrect conclusion.

A single ministry.

A single ministry does not exist in any developed country. They have diversified departments in a country like West Germany, where there are 13 departments of education. What is more, I think they do not even have a single ministry with regard to macro policy on the same basis as we have. In America it is exactly the same. The whole tendency of education throughout the developed and developing world is decentralisation, and hon members are bluffing themselves if they think that if we eradicate all other departments and say there is one department, that this will solve the problems of education of South Africa. It just will not do so. The backlogs will remain as they are and the problems that are being experienced will remain what they are as well. It is wrong to say that it is the system we have that causes our problems. Our problems arise from the fact as we have a First and a Third World in this country. Some of the problems in Black education are the result of the high birth rate of the Black population, where there is a tremendous growth every year in the number of new pupils that have to be accommodated.

We must stop just looking for the fault in the system and blaming history and blaming the NP for all the problems of this country. If one removed the NP tomorrow and if one removed all Whites from South Africa the educational problems would basically remain what they are.

They would get even worse.

Yes, they would get even worse. Those are the realities, and we must stop arguing with one another on the basis of bland generalisations.

The hon member—I am sorry, I am not picking on him, but his speech best lends itself to reacting to this point—seems to share the impossible dream that the diversity of our country’s population can be ignored.

I say it is a dream. Diversity is a powerful force wherever it exists. In countries which have never had a NP Government it has caused havoc, war and genocide. The hon member and others who make speeches like that must stop paying lipservice to these bland generalisations.

We must keep our finger on the pulse of our people. I am not an expert on how the pulse of the Indian community beats exactly but I have a feeling that that pulse will tell hon members that they demand a fair deal for everybody in this country. However, at the same time they demand security for themselves. They demand protection of their vested rights and interests. They also demand the upholding of their right as a community to remain what they are. Hon members have made a plea for the preservation of something that they believe may originate from their history in this country. What else is that than saying that one wants one’s own culture to be recognised and to be preserved? This is necessary in a diverse society. It is not negative discrimination to differentiate and to acknowledge the reality of diversity and the needs arising from that.

That is my closing statement. The Government has set itself to attain two goals. Firstly, to bring about a just and equitable situation for all the inhabitants of the country, irrespective of race and colour. Secondly, we are convinced that it can only be built on the foundation of the recognition of the need of security, maintenance of identity and absolute assurances with regard to minority rights. It is only with this balance that we can get the co-operation that we need in this country.

Vote agreed to.

Chairman directed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.