laid upon the Table:

1. (1) Second Finance Bill [No 99—85 (GA)]—(Standing Committee on Finance).
2. (2) Financial Institutions Amendment Bill [No 100—85 (GA)]—(Standing Committee on Finance).

To be referred to the appropriate Standing Committee, unless the House decides otherwise within three sitting days.

Mr Chairman, I move the amendment to the Vote printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

1. 1. To substitute the amounts indicated below for the corresponding amounts in Column 1 of the Schedule:

Schedule

This motion serves to make available funds amounting to R150 million as further drought aid under the programme “Agriculture Financing” of the Vote “Agriculture and Water Supply”. In this connection it is important to note that, in spite of what I have said in my reply on 28 March, namely that for the moment we are making provision for only nominal amounts because we do not know what the weather and farming conditions are going to be, a further amount of R50 million over and above the announced amount of R100 million is now being asked for in respect of loans for fodder, the subsidization of fodder and the transportation of fodder.

Since it has already become clear at this stage that relatively high expenditure in this connection is unavoidable, I felt compelled to vote substantial funds for this purpose at once.

My colleague the hon the Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply is prepared to enter the debate if necessary.

Mr Chairman, the amount of R150 million which is required by the Department of Agriculture and Water Supply forms a major part of the revised estimate. The provision of this supplementary amount is an indication that an unusual combination of circumstances has been at play over the past months. These circumstances are to be found in the aftermath of one of the worst droughts with which this country has ever had to contend.

A great deal has already been said about the drought and its effects on the farming community in previous debates, and it is not my intention to take up the time of the House in repeating this. I would simply like to state that by having made it possible for farmers in financial distress to have access to agricultural loans, production loans, fodder loans and similar assistance, the department has played a major role in stabilizing our farming community. I must make particular mention of the debt consolidation scheme which has been of inestimable value to a large number of farmers.

The question which inevitably arises is whether or not funds which are made available for loans and subsidies of this nature provide a long-term solution to the financial problems of the farming community. My candid reply to that question would be that they do not, and neither are they meant to. They merely represent emergency aid that has been made available to meet an emergency situation which was unforseen and unpredictable. This is the reasoning behind the request for additional finance such as that we are being asked to agree to this afternoon.

There are a few important points that have to be made. It would be most unfortunate if aid of this nature were to be taken for granted by the farming community, and if it were to be seen as some sort of right rather than a privilege. The way in which aid of this kind has been dispensed in the past has led to much criticism from outside of the agricultural sector. To be frank, this criticism has often been justified. For example, it has been said that those improvident farmers who abuse their farms during the good years and then spend their money on fancy cars, beach cottages and other non-essentials, are usually the ones who stand first in the queue for handouts and subsidies when the hard times come. Few people who have had experience in agriculture will deny the validity of this claim.

It is for this reason that we in this party were particularly pleased to hear the hon the Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply introduce his new grazing strategy and pledge his every effort to making it work. Unless a fanner can now be seen to be complying with certain strictly defined conservation practices he will be refused assistance in the future, and this is the way it should be.

If the hon the Minister and his department are able to identify those who truly need aid as opposed to the “chancers”, and if they are able to couple aid to strict conservation practices and make this policy work, then I feel sure that the need for such large amounts of relief aid in the future will not be necessary.

Mr Chairman, I shall respond briefly to the hon member for Albany. I can in part agree with some of his comments, but I cannot help saying that the impression he created, rightly or wrongly, that some of our farmers in good times waste their money on unnecessary luxuries and then in times of adversity queue up for “hand-outs”, as he put it, from the State, is incorrect. I do not think it is right to send such a general impression into the world. I think it just is not true.

In the times in which we are living we are thankful for this additional amount of R150 million that is now being voted for agricultural loans, subsidies on interest and also for relief of distress in respect of fodder and its transportation. I want to emphasize, however, that this aid to agriculture which has now become essential cannot be ascribed merely to the drought conditions that have struck agriculture in the past few years. Apart from the drought conditions there are also other factors to which it must be ascribed. Put shortly, in certain sectors of agriculture the farmer is insufficiently compensated in respect of his input costs and his efforts in the interests of the country in general. In particular, there are also the excessive—I want to emphasize this again—and prohibitive interest rates which the farmer has to pay in respect of his input costs and his livelihood. Were it not for that, I am prepared to say that a large portion of these subsidies would not have been required.

As the hon member for Albany said, the solution for agriculture in general cannot rest with ad hoc State assistance from time to time. A long-term solution for agriculture—and in particular for agricultural marketing—and also for agricultural financing, which after all go hand in hand, must provide the final solution for agriculture in our country, as in other countries in the world. That is why I believe that, although the amount now to be voted represents a marked improvement for and will bring relief to the agricultural industry, it cannot in any way be seen as a long-term solution. I doubt whether it is even a short-term solution.

After all, looking especially at conditions particularly in the summer grain industry, the rise in production prices—particularly in the past year—and the fixed price the farmer gets for his product at the end of the day, I think this will prove to be a measure providing but scant relief. I fear, however, that for many farmers it will be insufficient to enable them to become economically productive in agriculture again. That is why, as the S A Agricultural Union demanded—or, at least, requested—and as I believe we have already demonstrated in the past, not only has it become imperative that the State undertake a comprehensive investigation of the financial position of the farmer, but the time is also more than ripe for the authorities, with the aid of the S A Agricultural Union and also with the aid of the various co-operatives, to determine which individual farmers can really still be helped to become economically productive again.

With those few words I want to indicate that we in these benches welcome this supplementary appropriation but also ask that the long-term solution which is still awaited be sought as speedily as possible.

Mr Chairman, we in these benches would like to lend our support to comments that have been made in relation to the additional amount of R150 million in respect of the various forms of financial assistance that are envisaged for farmers. I want to make it clear that we stand firmly on the point that, when applications for loans are being processed, there should be a thorough study made of the applicants’ farming practises; in other words, it should be ascertained that these practices conform to all the necessary requirements in relation to soil conservation methods and also in relation to the conservation of agricultural resources generally.

It serves little purpose to pour water down the drain as it were, by making assistance available to applicants who are not in any way farming in accordance with conventional principles and procedures. That is why we in these benches feel very strongly that greater attention must be given to a person’s ability to meet the commitment for which he has sought assistance.

I want to point out too, Mr Chairman, that while welcoming the national grazing strategy announced last week—which happens to be a very fine document—one should also not lose sight of the fact that intensive and semi-intensive agricultural enterprises are the ones with high input costs, and these are the ones that are probably in the most serious financial predicament at the present time. It is for that reason that particular emphasis will have to be given to farmers who are involved in intensive and semi-intensive aspects of farming.

The one other point I would like to make, Mr Chairman, although it is more or less a repetition of a point I made during the debate last week, amounts to a genuine appeal—and I make no apologies for reiterating it—to the Government to take note of the need for financial assistance to be made available in respect of housing facilities for farm employees. When one considers the amount that has been made available for this purpose by the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure over the past few years and one relates it to the overall financial assistance that has been granted in the form of relief measures, one realizes that it is no more than a minimal amount. It is, however, a very important component of an agricultural undertaking and it is vital that attempts to improve the housing conditions and the living standard of the farm workers receive the encouragement and assistance they deserve.

Before resuming my seat I wish to make a final point. We hear much emphasis being placed on the private sector being involved in the development of housing schemes in the urban areas, but I would point out that a similar responsibility also rests heavily on the agricultural sector to do the same. The difference is, however, that the agricultural sector has been meeting this commitment for years.

Mr Chairman, at the outset I should just like to express my heartfelt thanks to the Minister of the Budget for the fact that, in his capacity as Minister in charge of the Budget for own affairs, he was able to obtain this sum of money for us. This amount has been made available in consequence of certain recommendations contained in a report of the Jacobs Committee. It is with great pleasure that I can say that, apart from R6 million, the full amount recommended by the Jacobs Committee was eventually accepted by the Government. I therefore wish to thank all those who co-operated to obtain this sum for us, and that at a time when, as all will admit, the finances of the country really demand the greatest discipline from all of us—not just from us as hon members here, but also from people outside—when it comes to the spending of State funds. It will be quite impossible for us to get the economy going again if we do not all make a contribution in this regard. I am thankful, therefore, to be able to say here today that we indeed obtained R150 million.

I am not saying that it is not justified that we are getting an additional amount of R150 million for agriculture. I think it is entirely justifiable. No matter how well the farmer farms, as a result of circumstances totally beyond his control he was unable to avoid certain difficulties. In our summer cropping areas certain farmers have this year already experienced their fourth bad harvest. I wonder whether hon members all realize what it means to have four bad harvests in succession, particularly in the light of the input costs per hectare to plant maize or wheat—I shall come back to that in a moment. Those costs have increased considerably over the past four years. Farmers are optimists by nature. So they all tried in this period to plant as much maize as possible in an attempt to make up the losses they suffered.

I therefore want to use this opportunity today to express my heartfelt sympathy with the farmers who are now facing their fourth bad harvest. I should perhaps warn that we should not be too defeatist concerning agriculture and its future. At the time of the drought of 1933 I was still very young. I personally experienced hardship. I saw farmers trek hundreds of miles with their stock. I recall that my late father said at the time that he did not know whether agriculture would ever be able to recover. Those who experienced subsequent events know that agriculture did indeed recover and at one stage was reasonable prosperous.

In the late 60’s and the early 70’s we had the same experience, in that we were confronted with a disastrous drought which in some regions persisted for more than seven years, but despite that agriculture recovered.

Therefore, I want to sound the warning that we should think very carefully before saying that agriculture is done for. Agriculture—we saw this in recent times with regard to our economic position—remains for me the foundation of a healthy economy in a country. About that I have no doubt whatsoever. Therefore, although in certain sectors of agriculture things are not going at all rosy today, I want to say we can but hope that the rains will come, and I believe firmly that everything will come right again.

Allow me shortly to set out the details concerning the amount of R100 million, the amount which has been put aside for the summer cropping areas. R40 million was voted for the consolidation of debt at the Agricultural Credit Board, but the recommendation has now been made that an additional amount of R15 million be made available. For the subsidization of interest on carry-over debt an amount of R172,65 million was voted, but now there is an additional amount of R46,5 million. For production loans provided by Agricultural Credit—those are the loans of R75 000—an amount of R36 million was voted, but now an additional R37 million is proposed.

That makes up the total amount of R100 million that is now proposed, and that is why I want to return to a remark made by the hon member for Lichtenburg last week to the effect that it all concerns loans. If we analyse these amounts, we find that the total sum to be spent by way of subsidies, including the voted sum and the proposed additional sum, amounts to R219,15 million. That is all subsidies. The total proposed in respect of loans is R129,5 million. Therefore, I do not know how the hon member arrived at his figure. It is very clear to me that the largest amount is still being made available by way of subsidies. Although making this point, I am not complaining about it. Indeed, I am very grateful for it.

I want to agree with hon members that we must take great care to ensure that these amounts, the voted amounts as well as the additional amounts, will be applied in such a way as to benefit those who need it most. It is true—and I should like to emphasize this—that in the past we had difficulties with regard to the application of drought aid, but fortunately that relates to the exception. I can agree that the majority of farmers profitably use the aid that is provided. They use it to the benefit of their farming operations. I shall come back to that too.

I want to direct a friendly appeal to co-operatives today, because the interest subsidies on carry-over debt, although monitored by the Land-Bank, are mainly administered by co-operatives. It is cash credit loans granted to the co-operatives on which an interest subsidy is earned. In all seriousness I want to appeal to co-operatives today to ensure that interest subsidies are used only, and I repeat, only for production loans to farmers. I make this appeal with good reason. It is a pity that the good offices of the State in attempting to keep farmers on the land are sometimes abused. I am not saying that that is generally the case and agree with the hon member for Barberton that that happens by way of exception, but one must sound an early warning.

An amount of R50 million has been set aside for fodder loans and fodder subsidies and also for a rebate on the transportation of fodder. The hon the Minister of the Budget initially wanted to vote a larger sum, but we decided on R50 million because over the years we adopted the approach that, since we does not know when it is going to rain and when areas are going to be descheduled, it is dangerous to vote too large a sum at the outset. It is better to provide a supplementary amount in the additional appropriation. It is a good practice preferably to make provision for disaster aid in the main Budget or in the supplementary estimates. That is why we have this amount of R50 million in the supplementary estimates. It is impossible at this stage to say if it will be enough, but if it is not, I want to give the assurance that we will make provision for it in the additional appropriation.

†I want to reply briefly to what was said by the hon member for Albany. He inquired about aid as far as the fodder scheme is concerned. I think we are entering a completely new era in relation to subsidies on fodder. When I announced the new grazing strategy, I stated very clearly and explicitly that farmers who continue mining their land will no longer get aid from the State. This must be very clearly understood by all.

*We will screen people. In terms of the new stock grazing scheme it is stated clearly that before a farmer can qualify for any aid in the form of subsidies on fodder, he must reduce his stock by a third in terms of the new provisions relating to carrying capacity. As I stated very clearly in the debate on my Vote, we will apply the regulations very strictly. We are moving away from the time when the man who damaged his land most was the first to apply for and receive subsidies. There is no doubt in my mind that every member in the House and any responsible person outside will agree that we cannot go on in this way. We cannot use the man who allowed his land to be over-grazed as criterion for the introduction of drought aid. Under the new scheme we will have a national drought committee and also a regional drought committee in every region, which will consist of members of the conservation committees and members of the agricultural credit committees, and they will monitor the situation carefully before recommending to the national drought committee that a region should qualify to receive aid. I hope we will get widespread rains so that we will be able to deschedule all regions and hopefully will be able to start next year with a clean sheet and apply the new scheme.

The hon member for Barberton in his glib way again tried to drag me into the question of determination of prices for agricultural products. I do not want to join issue with him on that. Perhaps he has something there in certain respects. Allow me just to put the following question: If he had sat in these benches this year, would he have made the maize price R270 per ton? [Interjections.] The hon member says “yes”. Then I want to ask him a second question: What would the consumer have had to pay if maize cost R270 per ton? The consumer would then have had to pay very close to R290 per ton for maize, unless the Government injected R500 million, R600 million or R700 million into the industry. We must be realistic after all. That hon member farms with a product that is exported. Over the years he has grown accustomed to accepting the price he obtains from the foreign markets. He has no choice. He does not have the option to have the production costs of his product built into the price.

Must we not reach the stage where we pay a good price to the producers of basic foodstuffs for internal consumption, such as wheat and maize, but say to them that everything they export must be exported in accordance with a pooling scheme such as applies to all the other export industries in this country? Does the hon member not agree with me? The hon member shakes his head. I think we have to come to an agreement to start considering this point, because in my opinion that would result in a meaningful debate.

I want to agree with the hon member—I am not an expert in this field, but speak as a layman—that the suppliers of the means of production did not sufficiently discipline themselves when fixing their prices. I do not want to dwell on this too long, but I just want to say with all the responsibility at my command that I am aware of the fact that certain fertilizer companies go to the larger farmers and say to them: If you demand my product at the co-operative, I will pay you a certain amount under the counter after it has been delivered. They decide together on the price. If that is done with larger farmers, why can it not also be done with the middle sized and smaller farmers? Surely it is not right that only the larger farmers who are large users of fertilizer should get the advantage of that? Why is it not also given to the smaller farmers? Those are, after all, the farmers for whom I must fight. It is those younger small farmers I should like to see remain on their land. It upsets me to have to say that, but that is what is really happening. I issued warnings and stated very clearly that if this practice should continue, we would be forced to take other steps, because this concerns subsidies paid in respect of input costs. We cannot afford that. In that regard I want to support the hon member by saying that the people who supply our farmers with their means of production in my opinion did not sufficiently discipline themselves in order to keep the farmers’ costs as low as possible.

I believe the Government set an example by at least trying to keep increases in administered prices below 10%. Then we must also ask—and I am glad the hon member mentioned it—why others cannot do the same. It is true that we have a free market system, but if those people want to kill agriculture and particularly those sectors producing our basic foodstuffs, they must continue along that road.

†I want to react very briefly to the hon member for Mooi River. I have already clearly stated that applicants for drought aid who do not follow proper farming practices are out. There is no doubt about that.

I do not wish to pursue any further the question of the houses of farm labourers. However, I cannot but fully agree with the hon member. I wish to concede to the hon member that it is of the utmost importance to have good and proper housing.

*A few weeks ago I visited the Rural Foundation here in Stellenbosch. I went and had a look at what these farmers in the Western Cape have done. This does not concern merely the improvement of housing, but also a strategy of total upliftment. One starts with one’s house. One ensures that one at least has a bathroom in the house and also a good stove. There are many examples of how it must be done. Hon members need but consult Messrs Boland Coetzee, Okkie Bosman and others in Stellenbosch about what they have achieved: How they increased the productivity of their labourers, and particularly how the attitude of those people changed absolutely since their housing has been improved and changed measures for their upliftment have been introduced. I therefore regret it very much that we had to suspend this scheme temporarily. I regret that very much and I really hope that we will be able to reintroduce it next year and will also be able to increase substantially the amount available for loans.

Once again I should like to thank the few hon members who took part. It is very good to know that all are appealing to people not to abuse drought aid. I want to associate myself with the remark of the hon member for Albany that it is not something one simply accepts, but that it is something one is granted because of difficulties one is faced with due to circumstances beyond one’s control. There are, however, certain factors over which one does have control. I think we should consider those. I am very grateful to hon members for their contributions in this connection.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister mentioned that certain farmers will receive aid provided they reduce their livestock by a third. Like the hon the Minister we too would not like to see our farmers allow our veld to be overgrazed.

However, I want to draw his attention to one category of farmers—and they are mainly young farmers—who, because of the circumstances recently, have been placed in a position where they cannot make ends meet. I want to give him an example. It is the example of a young farmer who has a farm of 3 000 morgen—according to the norms of that time, an economic unit. He received a Land Bank loan and at that stage paid 6% interest on the loan. In the meantime the interest on this Land Bank loan has risen to 14%.

He could farm with 1 000 units of small livestock on this farm. However, as a result of soil conservation decisions, that have been taken in the mean time, the carrying capacity was increased so that this man could no longer farm with 1 000 units of small livestock on this 3 000 morgen, but only with 750 units of small livestock.

When this young farmer initially farmed with 1 000 units of small livestock and paid 6% interest, he could cope. When, however, the interest rate rose to 14%, he began to experience great difficulty. As a result of soil conservation measures, that man can now farm with only 750 units of small livestock on that 3 000 morgen. Added to this, there is now the condition that, if he wants to qualify for aid, he must still reduce his livestock by a third. In other words, this man who, a few years ago, could farm with 1 000 units of small livestock, who paid 6% interest, and who could cope, is now burdened with 14% interest. Apart from that, if he is to qualify for aid, he must farm with a mere 500 units of small livestock. We will be chasing this man off the farm if he cannot be assisted.

I want to ask the hon the Minister to take cognizance of these people. I know he is a man who has much sympathy in his heart for this type of case. There are at present people in his constituency who are suffering a great deal because of this problem. There are such people in my constituency too. I would therefore just like to ask him to take these people into consideration. They have been placed in a difficult position as a result of the increase in the carrying capacity and also as a result of the increase in the interest rate of even the Land Bank. We must help these people because we would still like to see them on the farms when the interest rates eventually come down—and we hope that will eventually happen—and when the Good Lord has sent rain. I want to appeal to the hon the Minister to consider these people.

Mr Chairman, I did not intend to speak in this debate, but the hon member for Springs asked me to take part and that is why I am doing so.

I just want to tell the hon member for Kuruman that one should, in my opinion, always strike a balance between the financial position of the farmer and the condition of the soil. I believe, however, that the hon the Minister will respond further to what the hon member said.

[Inaudible.]

I believe the hon the Minister will respond to the points raised by the hon member.

Do you still stand by the maize price?

Mr Chairman, that hon member for Kuruman must not mess about with the maize price—I shall shove a cob into a place where it will hurt him! [Interjections.]

I rise just to thank the hon the Minister for the comments he made this afternoon about the input costs. I am very grateful that he, as Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply, who is concerned mainly with handling the affairs of White farmers, put forward the viewpoint here that input costs are one of the biggest problems in agriculture.

[Inaudible.]

Order!

As Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply, he did not hesitate to take a stand in this, the highest Chamber in the country, against those suppliers of the means of production who are, in some cases, seriously exploiting our farmers. I want to associate myself with that and I want to appeal to him that we not only talk about it here, but that we also take the case further and possibly confer with those people in an effort to provide our farmers as cheaply as possible with the means of production. If we can cheaply provide our farmers with the means of production, we will enable them to produce more cheaply. This will also be to the benefit of the consumer. I just wanted to express my support for the hon the Minister in this regard.

Mr Chairman, I wish to reply shortly to the plea by the hon member for Kuruman. In the first place I just want to say that I cannot recall when the interest rate of the Landbank was 6%—it must be many years ago.

1976.

No, we are talking about many years ago.

Six or seven years ago.

Aikôna!

Seven, eight, nine, ten years ago …

Twelve years.

The hon member there says it was 12 years ago. In any event, that is not the point at issue.

Let us analyse the problem. This man had 1 000 head of cattle on 3 000 morgen of land. We know that is too many—so, what happened on his farm? His position was gradually deteriorating, and what happened in the process? His production dropped year by year.

[Inaudible.]

If his production did not drop at that specific time, it would in any event have started dropping very soon.

It was the drought of three or four years.

It has been incontrovertibly proved—these provisions relating to the carrying capacity are scientifically very sound. The hon member must make no mistake on that score. The hon member must now not draw us into an argument with the agricultural scientists, because these reasonably homogeneous areas were established absolutely scientifically.

[Inaudible.]

All right, I say that if we do not at some stage introduce a check, a lot of farmers will in any case become uneconomic within ten years.

[Inaudible.]

No, wait the hon member must not interrupt me—I listened to him very quietly.

If we do not introduce a check today, a number of farmers will in any case become uneconomic within a few years because with the over-grazing of the veld they just will not be able to make a living. About that there is no doubt whatsoever. Surely that is the truth. I have seen them ruined in their hundreds in my lifetime for just one reason, and that is that the land simply could no longer carry them after a time.

I now want to make a second point. The hon member said he had to reduce his stock to 750 head of small stock. I want to claim, as I also did in the Agricultural debate, that the number of head of stock does not determine income. It is what the stock eat and produce that determine the farmer’s income. I want to state today without fear of contradiction: Fewer head of stock does not necessarily mean a lower income.

It is the drought aid …

No, we are coming to the drought aid. I say that fewer head of stock does not necessarily mean lower income. An animal that is fed, produces twice as much as other animals. I recently quoted statistics to prove that. There are small farmers in my constituency who, although they have considerably fewer than 1 000 head of stock, make a good living, but hon members must go and have a look at their veld.

Let us now turn to drought aid. The farmer must now reduce his stock by one third— he must therefore reduce his stock by 250. For that third by which he reduces it, he gets R1 per sheep per month as a free gift. He therefore gets a net amount of R12 per sheep per year and has no expenditure whatsoever. That is why we introduced an incentive for farmers to reduce their stock. A farmer therefore gets R1 monthly for each sheep he gets rid of. It does not matter how large his farming operation is. He has to reduce his stock by a third and is subsidized to a maximum of 1 250. Surely that is an incentive for a man to reduce his stock, because he gets that R1 per month and there is no expenditure involved. In other words, that is a net contribution by the State to his farm. We created this incentive precisely so that also the small man can reduce his stock. Therefore, I do not think that the hon member’s argument holds water, because it is not true that by means of drought aid we enable farmers to farm uneconomically; on the contrary, we have created an incentive precisely so that that farmer can reduce his stock.

That is not what I said.

I asked you to adopt a sympathetic attitude towards these people.

But we are sympathetic towards them. That is why we introduced this scheme. The point I just want to make is that we must be careful. We are looking at this matter because on paper a number of people are going to be made uneconomic by the provisions concerning carrying capacity. That is so, because they will then not be able to keep more than 1 000 breeding ewes while according to us 1 300 breeding ewes constitute an economic unit. A number of farmers will have fewer than 1 300 ewes, but that will not mean that their net income will ultimately decrease, because I claim that an animal that is fed produces twice as much as one that is not fed.

As regards the speech of the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke, there is one further small point I want to make relating to input costs. A few evenings ago I was chatting to some farmers from the Western Cape about the application of fertilizer, and they stated categorically that some of them were able, by means of soil analysis, to cut back their fertilizer account by as much as 50% per year. With the aid of soil analysis they were able to establish exactly what they required and therefore they did not use fertilizer unnecessarily. I think that that is a matter we will have to follow up, because it is very easy to make a soil analysis. Any farmer can do it. I must really say that in many cases too much fertilizer is used. A few nights ago I obtained positive proof of that and I think that that is something we shall have to look into. I take note of the hon member’s point and think we must really investigate this matter thoroughly and ensure that input costs do not rise so rapidly.

Mr Chairman, it gives me pleasure to thank the hon members who took part in the debate.

†I could clearly detect a note of responsibility. I also wish to appeal to members of the industry and co-operatives to assist the department to make sure that aid is given to deserving farmers. I think hon members all agreed to that particular point.

The hon member for Albany referred to the stabilizing role played by the Government in granting this aid to the agricultural industry, and I wish to thank him for that positive note.

*I should also just like to refer to the hon member for Barberton who justifiably spoke about the high interest rates. I just want to draw his attention to the fact that more than 50%—in truth, 87%—of this R150 million consists of subsidies, inter alia also on the high interest rates. The hon member will also concede that we are engaged in a very important fight against inflation which necessitates these high interest rates. The hon member referred to long-term solutions and I agree wholeheartedly with him that we must seek those, but nobody can come up with a better solution than the industry itself. He and I are both farmers and I think that, like me, he too believes that an industry saves itself.

I wish to thank my hon colleague the Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply for participating in this debate. I think he replied fully to all the points that were raised and therefore I shall not add anything.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

House resumed:

Bill, as amended, reported.

Mr Speaker, I move, subject to Standing Order No 52:

We have been discussing the budgetary proposals in this House for almost 32 hours with a view to the voting of funds for own affairs expenses by the Administration: House of Assembly for the financial year which ends on 31 March 1986.

The meaning of own affairs is no longer a symbolic concept, but has manifested itself in an administration, with its Ministers’ Council and its departments, for which money has been voted in principle for the execution of their respective functions, through which the principle of own affairs will be established with increasing firmness. The debate covered the role of the Minister of the Budget and the functions of each of my hon colleagues, as is shown more clearly in the printed Budget which hon members have in their possession. I thank hon members of the House for positive contributions in respect of the mentioned spheres and for proposals made to me and to my hon colleagues with a view to better provision of service and a refinement of the concept own affairs.

As far as the members of the Opposition parties are concerned, I accepted that they would use this Budget to try to show that the system is expensive and duplicatory. It is my opinion that I have given enough evidence to prove that this is not the case. In addition the full scope of the sphere of the functions in respect of own affairs is not yet in the hands of the Ministers’ Council of the House of Assembly, but in future, as I have pointed out on a prior occasion, we shall be able to reach a point where we can quantify the administrations for own affairs and compare these with possible alternatives.

On 6 May 1985 the hon the minister of Constitutional Development and Planning made an interesting speech in this House, in which he made certain announcements which have a very direct effect on second tier government, as we know it today, and the administration for own affairs. One of the most important aspects of his speech was the statement that those functions in respect of own affairs, which, according to the Constitution, have to be transferred to the Ministers’ Councils and still fall under the provincial administrations at present, should be transferred to the Ministers’ Councils as soon as possible.

This announcement has given added momentum to the fulfilment of the constitutional process launched by the Constitution of 1983. The actions connected to this will probably be of the most important ones the Ministers’ Councils will deal with during the next few months.

A task group for the administration has been formed under the leadership of the Director-General of the administration, assisted by the head of my Department of Budgetary and Auxiliary Services. This task group has already got to work with the Commission for Administration’s project team with a view to submitting final recommendations on the distribution of functions, manpower, funds and other assets to the Cabinet for final decision-making as soon as possible.

In a conversation with the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, the Ministers’ Council transferred three directive policy standpoints as far as the Administration of the House of Assembly is concerned. I regard it as important to direct this to the attention of hon members at this stage, namely: Firstly, functionaries on the second tier should not deal with general and own affairs at the same time. Secondly, the executive and other functions of own affairs functionaries on the second tier will have to be cleared with the Minister by negotiation before final decisions are taken. Thirdly, the executive and other powers of own affairs functionaries on the second tier will be obtained by delegation from Ministers of the Ministers’ Councils.

There is confidence that by the time we deal with the budgetary proposals for the 1986-87 financial year of the Administration in this House, there will be much more clarity concerning the actions which have been launched now as I will be in a position to give hon members much more information, not only as far as the provision of funds for own affairs is concerned, but also concerning the transferring of provincial own affairs functions to this Administration.

In my introductory speech to the handling of the Committee Stage of Vote 5 of the Administration of the House of Assembly’s Budget I pointed out that terms such as “collective bargaining”, “solidarity” and “combined search for solutions and attaining of consensus” have emerged during the past nine months. These terms are characteristic of the type of government system which has manifested itself in the Ministers’ Councils and which will inevitably lead to the establishment of new conventions.

In this third reading debate we want to establish the possibility of a further convention. The age-old motto of “no supply without redress of grievances” is still valid. As it is the last debate which deals with provision of funds and it gives hon members the last opportunity to talk about it or about any other grievance or problem, I should like to invite my hon colleagues of the Ministers’ Council to enter into this debate freely.

This kind of practice will not only emphasize the collective nature of the Ministers’ Council, but also give my colleagues a final opportunity to reply to questions and provide the House with further information on important aspects of their department’s activities, thus rounding off the debate very nicely.

Mr Speaker, the debate that is now being concluded is of course a significant one in the sense that it is the conclusion of the first Budget for own affairs under the new Constitution. It is perhaps then appropriate to review what is really taking place in regard to the constitutional development of South Africa.

What I think is significant is that the new Constitution which to many people of all colours in South Africa was designed to be a period of reform has also coincided with a period of instability. I think it is a most unfortunate situation that we have had a concept that reform and instability go hand in hand. This holds some very serious dangers for South Africa.

What is even more significant is that this period of reform in the constitutional sense has actually coincided—I think it is unfortunate—with a period of what I regard as serious economic conditions but which the hon the Minister of the Budget does not regard in so serious a light as he is already talking of a 2% growth rate during this year. I may add as an aside that I challenged him to put some money on the Table of the House and I am still waiting for it to appear. I hope that perhaps the hon the Minister will do it during this debate. [Interjections.]

The reality is that whichever way one looks at it, it is this combination of reform on the one hand and adverse economic conditions on the other which has brought about instability in South Africa. It is indeed tragic that we find ourselves today debating this first own affairs Budget in the House of Assembly at a time when we have actually never had the degree of endemic violence which has existed in many parts of South Africa during recent weeks. One has to ask oneself then what actually can be done in order to improve that situation. That is the challenge that I want to issue across the floor of this House today: What can we do in order to improve that situation?

I think there are quite a few things we can do. The first thing we can do, I believe, is recognize that in South Africa the major problem confronting us is the question of providing work for all our people. It is interesting to look at the statistics that are available. Let us take, for example, the period of the past 10 to 12 years. What has happened in South Africa during that period? Our population has grown at a rate of some 2,8% a year while employment has only shown a growth rate of 2,6% a year. The result of this is that every single year the pool of unemployment in South Africa becomes greater and greater and, unless we actually set as a major priority for South Africa the creation of jobs, all the constitutional structures which anybody cares to evolve are not going to solve the real problems of South Africa. When people are unemployed and when they have no jobs and no means of support, instability creeps into the system causing those people to become a fertile ground for agitation. It is then that politics is regarded as the panacea for all ills. In other words, it is held out to the unemployed and deprived that if only they had political power everything would change overnight. The fact that it will not change is entirely another matter.

The reality is, however, that to the deprived that panacea is offered, and that is what ultimately becomes the key to the whole problem. Until such time …

What is the magic formula for creating jobs? Tell us!

The magic formula for creating jobs? I do not claim to be a magician, Sir. I do not claim to have any magic formula. If, however, I am asked to give what I believe to be the solution I will tell the House what that solution is. The solution, I believe, lies in the ideas, for instance, of Prof Lombard, which—and I hope the hon member has listened to them or read them—show that the greatest market for our manufactured products is in South Africa. That means that if we were only to turn inside to South Africa and create the jobs to produce the goods and raise the living standards of our people and give them increased purchasing power which, in turn, will increase a demand for manufactured goods, we will indeed have created self-generating work. [Interjections.]

Orderly urbanization and the creation of production of that kind, I believe, is the magic formula, if the hon member really wants a magic formula. [Interjections.]

You know, Sir, it is really one of those strange things. The National Party—and I will talk about it again later—talks about consensus and about trying to be constructive, but the moment one talks about the real problems of South Africa and asks for a solution to be sought to those problems, one is met almost with hysteria from the hon backbenchers of that party. That is because they do not want anybody to find a solution to South Africa’s problems since they want to remain in their dominant position and to use that as an excuse for what is going wrong. That is the tragedy, Sir. They do not want anybody else’s ideas. That is indeed the tragedy of South Africa. They talk about consensus … [Interjections.] Yes, they talk about consensus, Sir, but one only has to listen to that hon member at the back there. In his stupidity—which is the only way one can describe it—he fails to understand that I, who am an optimist for South Africa, despair when I see the power to effect changes in South Africa in the hands of people like himself. [Interjections.] That is the danger that exists. That is the tragedy of South Africa and that is what the problem is.

We are hearing far worse from an hon frontbencher.

You know, Sir, that hon member’s morality is something he is going to have to account for one day. He must just remember that. He must remember that his lack of political morality has not helped him that much. [Interjections.] Just look at him today! He is a rather sad old man, sitting there. Then he talks about political morality. [Interjections.]

Is your conscience troubling you?

Order! As far as this point is concerned, I think we have heard enough. The hon member must please proceed with his address.

I will leave it alone, if those hon members leave it alone. If they start again, I shall come back to it. I shall respect your advice, Sir.

Nobody spoke about your morality. It is only immorality! [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Yeoville must proceed with his address.

As I say, Sir, I try to preserve my optimism for the future of South Africa, but I find myself in great despair when I have to listen to this kind of talk and am confronted with this kind of behaviour. However, I am going to try to continue in an optimistic frame of mind. Despite all the noise, the abuse and the frustrations of the gentlemen opposite, I am going to try to continue in that optimistic frame of mind.

What I want to say—and this is what I was leading up to before the rather crazy interlude from the back there … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member may proceed.

What I wanted to say is that I think that at the present moment a halt must be called to certain practices if we are to solve the problems relating to the endemic violence which affects South Africa. Not only is the cause of endemic violence an economic one, but the endemic violence is also in turn affecting the economy. There is no doubt that as regards foreign investment and investor confidence in South Africa, they are in turn affected by the endemic violence which exists in South Africa. I think the time has come for people to stop introducing preconditions for talks between the various race groups in South Africa. I think that responsible leadership in the Government should take things at face value and that responsible leaders of other race groups in South Africa should also cease introducing preconditions for dialogue. If they wish, they can keep what they call their non-negotiables for the conference table, but I think that the concept of preconditions before dialogue should not be applied. I think that what we need in South Africa is for people to say: “Let us at least begin talking in order to put an end to violence”. If we start talking and then put an end to violence, then one may find that at that conference table there will be grounds on which one can agree and matters on which one can make common progress even though it seems that people are poles apart. That is why I wanted to start off today making an appeal that people should cease introducing preconditions for talking to one another. They should get together around a table and try to find some common ground from which to proceed to the next stage of perhaps creating structures within which more formalized dialogue can perhaps take place in South Africa. I make that appeal and I hope it will not fall on deaf ears.

The second thing I should like to touch upon is the whole question of the own affairs with which we are really supposed to be dealing. If I may say so, I am to a large extent disappointed in the hon the Minister of the Budget because he has not really dealt with some of the issues we raised during the course of the debate. On certain issues answers are still outstanding at the present moment. I want to touch upon some of them once again. This relates particularly to the question of the provincial councils.

I asked the hon the Minister whether he would tell us how they were going to take over the various functions from the provincial councils and how they were going to divide them up. Very humorously he said, with the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning sitting in front of him—they made a big joke about it—that they were going to divide those functions into general and own affairs. Ha, ha, very funny!

I think that is ludicrous. It actually makes a farce of the whole thing. I want to repeat my request to the hon the Minister to tell us during this debate how the provincial functions are going to be divided, who is going to get what and where the particular things are going to be.

I should like to give an example to the hon the Minister. I raised the question of the assets and liabilities, the buildings of the provincial administrations. Where are they going to go? Are they going to go to general affairs or to own affairs? How are they going to be divided?

In passing I raised the question of the Raadsaal and the question of using it. To the use of the Raadsaal the hon the Minister responsed positively, but he did not tell us whether the Raadsaal was an own or a general affair. If I may guess, I would imagine that to the hon members of the CP the Raadsaal has a great historic background. I would imagine that they would like it to be an own affair. Yet it is a matter which possibly fits better into general affairs. Surely they are entitled to know and I am entitled to know what we intend doing with it. Where do we intend putting it? The Raadsaal is just one example.

Let me mention some other examples. There is for instance the question of road traffic control. This I think is a general affair, and I hope I am right. Is there perhaps an own affair road-traffic control? Is it going to go to the local authorities? Is it going to be centralized and, if so, where is it going to be?

Let me take a further example, perhaps a funny one. Let us take horse racing. Is horse racing an own affair or is it a general affair? [Interjections.] It depends upon whether one regards horse racing as a recreation or whether one does not regard it as a recreation. If it is a recreation, then it should be an own affair, but if it is gambling, then it should be a general affair. If it is related to agriculture and the breeding of horses, then it should be an own affair.

Leave sport out of it.

I should like to, but it is part of the issue. [Interjections.]

Let us take nature conservation for example. Nature conservation, I would imagine, is a general affair. If nature conservation is, however, used for recreational purposes, does it change from a general into an own affair?

I give these examples not in order to try to score a debating point but in order to try to provoke the hon the Minister into telling us where everything is going to lie. When the hon the Minister said:

He forgot that he had told us that his own department needed 2 000 extra jobs from outside. He said that he had proved that it was not so. The fact that there are 2 000 extra jobs is forgotten but they are clearly there. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, I want to return later in the course of my speech to the anomaly pointed out by the hon member for Yeoville in connection with the reform programme on the one hand and today’s economic situation on the other and then more specifically in respect of the unemployment this results in. Once again he has succeeded in identifying a few general problems without producing really useful solutions to those problems. I want to agree with him, however, that dialogue in South Africa is very necessary and that we should enter into dialogue with one another.

Before I deal with that aspect, I want to make a statement and hear the hon the Minister’s commentary upon it. It concerns the Auditor-General’s function of reporting on the management of State funds. He does this by means of submissions made to Parliament, which are then monitored by the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. The budget of the House of Assembly has to be monitored in the same way. I find it difficult to imagine how a standing committee can perform this House of Assembly function. What I should like to know, is whether the House of Assembly is going to appoint a committee to perform this monitoring function and whether the White component of the standing committee is going to accept this responsibility. I am asking this merely to gain clarity, because as the budget is only in respect of Whites, I find it logical that this House should fulfil the function. The other two Houses will fulfil the same functions in respect of their budgets.

We are probably all aware of the present economic conditions in the country and it is probably not necessary to say that on the economic level many people are having great difficulties. The economic levelling off is claiming its victims every day and every day there are entrepeneurs who have to throw in the towel. A distressing number of business undertakings have become insolvent, not merely as a result of the inability to manage, but because of the lack of liquidity and available cash. Recently the relationship between own capital and borrowed capital has changed dramatically. Borrowed capital has increased drastically, to such an extent that such capital is barely available or has become extremely expensive. Another factor also plays a role. The consumer of borrowed capital has overburdened himself to a great extent to obtain such capital. He has borrowed more than he can pay, which, in view of current interest rates for the borrower, makes it almost impossible for him to fulfil his interest repayment obligations. What is happening now, therefore, is that viable undertakings are also becoming victim to this condition. The owner has to throw in the towel while his business undertaking is still sound and viable, because he has reached a condition of complete liquidity exhaustion.

Conversations with owners of smaller and medium undertakings show that a spirit of total and absolute despondency has set in. One can argue that the stage of the “survival of the fittest” has entered. One can argue that the time has come for an economic clearing of the throat, that the economy is getting rid of appendages, difficulties, non-viable economic colds and that this process of elimination must take its course and the victims merely have to accept it. It is not that easy. Most of these entrepeneurs, and in this case the smaller ones, are Whites. It is mainly the Whites who fulfil this role. Inevitably it is also true that the Whites are the ones who are becoming the victims of this so-called cleaning up process. The White entrepeneurs are the ones who have to close the doors of their enterprises and hand over the keys. They are the ones who have to go home and tell their people there is no longer any income. It does not end there, for their employees, White as well as non-White, are in the same boat. Suddenly there is nothing and no income is available. The official available unemployment figure is that of December 1984, viz 40 298 registered Whites, Coloureds and Asians and more than 500 000 Blacks in the non-agricultural sectors. It is probably reasonable to accept that at present the figure is much higher than that official figure. I want to assert, however, that it is not as high as the hon member for Walmer said in the Committee the other day. Our people are getting hurt in this process. There are many who are affected by these conditions. There are children who cannot be fed sufficiently. We are already seeing the warning lights in Press reports of children who go to school hungry, of congregation and community auxiliary services which have to establish emergency services to render assistance. We shall have to take hands in future to make a stand against this situation.

There is already anxiety because more and more house-owners are not capable of fulfilling their instalment obligations. Bond interest rates have risen dramatically in the past year and a half—by approximately four per cent. The alarming thing about this situation is the tendency of some building societies to increase instalments disproportionately to the increase in the interest rate. I have received certain enquiries in this connection from people in my constituency. Building societies will have to accept their responsibility in these difficult times. Surely reasonable or realistic increases of instalments are necessary if interest rates rise, and I am not fighting those institutions which have adjusted their instalments to the increased interest rate in a responsible way. Fortunately there are still building societies of this kind. I am speaking, however, to those institutions which have to ask themselves why there is a sudden increase in reminders and demands sent out by their offices and then have to conclude that the increases in premium obligations are the cause. They will have to consider this matter soon. I really do not hope that it is the motive of some or certain of the building societies’ to foreclose mortgage bonds. Let us accept that this is not the motive. In that case a maladjusted instalment increase does result in an obligation of this kind placing the house-owner in a dilemma. I really hope that this observation of mine has bearing only on certain isolated cases and has not become a general tendency in our economy.

I want to return to the unemployment condition to which the hon member for Yeoville and other speakers referred repeatedly and to their linking of it to the unrest situation. If one accepts that unemployment can surely result in those people affected by it over-reacting in certain situations, surely it is also true that there has to be a certain built-in self-discipline in actions. The statement that unemployment is the cause of the present unrest and that it leads to blatant and reckless stone-throwing, the stopping of cars, the stoning of people and the burning down of buildings, is over-simplified and naive. A game which can no longer be accepted in South Africa is being played with this unrest. There is no better way of promoting disinvestment and instability in South Africa—to which the hon member for Yeoville has just referred—than by this very cancer of unrest which is being experienced in South Africa at present. If this is to continue and the conditions are to be extended, one must accept that many people in South Africa are going to be hurt bitterly in this process. Eventually the group against which the unrest is supposedly aimed will not be the only one to suffer. Eventually the Blacks themselves will be the ones to suffer most in this process.

Today I truly want to plead with these people to stop this senseless action. To those who want to continue to throw stones, raise fires and take people’s lives, I want to say the following: Be careful! Where the creed reads at present, “unemployment is the cause of the unrest”, it can change tomorrow and people will have to tell one another, “unrest is the cause of unemployment”. Unrest, as experienced in the RSA at present, has the ability to lead to complete polarization in South Africa.

This Government has placed itself on the road of reform. This Government, and also the NP, is prepared to extend the hand of negotiation to the Black people in South Africa. I therefore seriously want to ask the Black people not to allow that hand to be spumed. Initially one can argue that the unrest is being activated by a group of activists and revolutionaries. Their purpose is to take the mass with them in order to effect complete disorder in this way. It appears that they have succeeded to a certain extent.

If the Black majority is going to allow these ringleaders to take them into tow, they will succeed effectively in bringing about total polarization and a gulf between Black and White which will be difficult to overcome. The majority of Whites were prepared to take the road of reform, and I believe this is still the case today. Where we as Whites are prepared to extend the hand and to display the will to negotiate, that hand must not be spurned.

The present condition is not to the advantage of anyone in South Africa. A condition such as this one cannot be endured for much longer. The Whites are going to allow the demolition of what was build up over a long period only with great difficulty. We are grateful that the majority of Blacks share these sentiments with us. It is necessary, however, that they, that is those people who share our sentiments, declare their interests and rearrange their priorities so that they can co-operate in the search for an attainable and acceptable solution to the political problems in South Africa.

Mr Speaker, I am not going to respond to the hon member for Gezina’s speech, but possibly I shall refer to it briefly later.

We have now come to the end of the discussion of the first Budget of the Ministers’ Council for so-called own affairs. It is significant that where we are moving towards the end of this session of the House of Assembly, no other Bill has been brought forward by the Ministers’ Council in connection with or referring in any way to so-called own affairs, apart from the Bill under discussion which is in its third reading stage at present.

If one looks at the new dispensation objectively and level-headedly one cannot but conclude that where in our previous Constitution we had a three tier Government institution—the first tier, the second tier and the third tier—we now have a new development according to which the second tier government as we knew it by means of executive committees and provincial councils is in reality to be replaced only by these Ministers’ Councils which we have at present. I shall tell hon members why. This afternoon we had the proof of this in the shape of a welcome addition to the Budget for Whites’ own affairs, viz R150 million for agricultural financing and subsidies. This could not be done upon the decision of the Ministers’ Council or the House of Assembly alone. This is an indisputable fact. The hon the Minister and the Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply had to go to the hon the Minister of Finance and the mixed Cabinet hat in hand to obtain allocation. In addition, although we are now on the point of quite probably passing the third reading of this Appropriation Bill, it is interesting that in the final instance the three Houses of Parliament will once again have to approve the total appropriation which was determined, for otherwise this will be a senseless practice. The R150 million which has now been added by means of a Supplementary Budget already appears on the Supplementary Budget of the hon the Minister of Finance. Yet we are told that the Whites are retaining their right of self-determination over so-called own affairs. In reality, even if the Ministers of this Ministers’ Council sit together with us in the House of Assembly, in the first place they are not members of the Cabinet, they cannot decide as a Ministers’ Council about the scope of their Budget and the total appropriation to each one’s department, and they are completely dependent upon the mixed Cabinet for their financing. This is a fact.

We have heard repeatedly, from the side of the NP and in particular from the side of the State President, that they are not in favour of a so-called unitary state; they reject a unitary state. I believe, however, the time has come for us to ask them to spell out to us what they understand under a “unitary state”. We are told a unitary state is not acceptable. We are told a federal scheme will not be acceptable. I want to ask, however: What is acceptable then? I want to assert that the dispensation we have at present in terms of this Constitution, which involves Whites, Coloureds and Indians, can be regarded as nothing but a unitary state. We are not dealing here with separate states. We have one general Budget which is applicable to all three of those population groups—White, Coloured and Indian.

Was it different before?

Of course it was no different! In the past this House of Assembly was the sovereign legislative authority of South Africa. [Interjections.] That was the factual situation, after all. To argue now that this new dispensation is not a unitary state, is a colossal bluff in my opinion. [Interjections.] If the Government, in their search for a solution—for they themselves know they have no solution—move in the direction of a confederation eventually, we should like to remind them that a confederation is not a single state, but a loose unit of sovereign, independent states. Is that where the NP is heading? Evidently the answer is that this is not the case, for it is not the answer the NP has given in connection with the Coloureds and the Indians.

What I find interesting, is that the NP and its leaders make such easy use of terms. We were told that the NP’s new point of view is that relatively speaking. Whites, Coloureds and Asians are now one nation. [Interjections.] The hon member confirmed this. The argument was that nation is a constitutional concept. Relatively speaking if we are one nation, we all share one state which is of necessity a unitary state. It has to be. If the NP then continues with the development of its concepts, also in respect of the Blacks, and tells them what it does not find negotiable, but neglects in particular to tell its own people what it does not find negotiable—and even more important—what else it is prepared to sacrifice in respect of the measure of sovereignty the Whites still have over themselves … [Interjections.]

The Whites sent the people who are sitting here to the House of Assembly. A referendum was held about a new Constitution and in that dispensation there was no talk of Blacks being involved in a new dispensation as individuals or as nations. Now, without a further mandate, or even an explanation to the White voters, this government—in their own words—is seeking new structures. They are negotiating without a mandate and the White voters want to know what their negotiations with Black leaders are about. They want to know which additional concessions the NP is prepared to make. [Interjections.]

What is left of so-called own affairs? All that is left is, perhaps, own schools. Universities are no longer an own affair for they too have been thrown open. Fortunately my alma mater is still keeping its head.

Which one is that, Oom Cas?

Tukkies. [Interjections.] Hospitals remain an own affair and one can argue that at least in third tier government, in municipal and town management as a last ditch effort, the Whites will retain complete control over their own affairs. Is that what will happen, however? Even now, according to the plans spelt out to us by the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, he is going to introduce legislation which will force White local authorities willy-nilly into a general multiracial scheme of things. They will not have a choice as to whether they want to be part of it or not.

Not willy-nilly.

The future legislation determines that White local authorities will have no choice but to join in with the new multiracial regional services councils.

That is not true.

We shall debate it later. [Interjections.] I want to be fair and concede that the phasing in of the new system has experienced certain problems and will still cause problems. We are being accused of not stating our alternative. Our alternative was the classic alternative of the old NP, viz that the Whites want all facets of political power over themselves in their own hands. [Interjections.] In that process we also grant all the peoples of South Africa, including the separate Black peoples of South Africa, that same political power. Now the NP, which has led this country on that specific course for decades, is turning in its tracks and removing one piece of legislation which it placed on the Statute Book after another. This is praised as a victory for reasonableness, love and reform.

I am not referring to measures placed on the Statute Book by other people, but to measures placed on the Statute Book by the NP. These are being referred to today as if they were monstrosities, something that should have never taken place. They are removed from the Statute Book and this is regarded as the great breakthrough for the new Utopia which is going to descend on South Africa. We are dealing here—and I choose my words carefully—with a calculated process which is being extolled to our people unobtrusively step by step. Gradually they are being made used to one small step after another, until eventually we shall have full political integration.

Mr Speaker, after having listened to yet another speech of the hon member for Barberton, it leads me to wonder whether he and we who sit in these benches can really debate the future of South Africa together. I say this because his perception of things in South Africa is totally different certainly from my perception of things. I see him as a man who perceives that we as Whites can be totally independent in this country. He said that he would like to see a budget and a political structure allowing the White man to be totally sovereign with regard to his own affairs and his future. He accused this Government of creating a system whereby “today we are entirely dependent for the financing of own affairs on a mixed Cabinet”.

I want to ask that hon member—and I believe he is a farmer—whether he is entirely independent as a White man in operating his farm. What role do his employees play? Maybe they or their grandparents were born on his farm and, if not on his farm, then certainly in the vicinity. What is the hon member for Barberton saying to those Black people who help him make his money? Does he say to them that they are aliens there and must abide by his will? It reminds me of Thomas Jefferson, one of the founding fathers of the American constitution …

So are you going to give him a vote in the unitary state?

Will that hon member just keep quiet? He will get his turn to talk and can then tell me what he thinks I was going to say. [Interjections.] Thomas Jefferson said: “All men are born equal”. However, he was a slave-owner. He said that everybody would have equal rights under the constitution as far as votes were concerned, except for slaves who had three fifths of a White man’s representation as far as voting was concerned.

That hon member has the mentality of those founding fathers whose minds and thinking were still entrenched in the old ideas of slavery and the White man’s domination over Blacks. [Interjections.] I want to put it to him that there is no way in which he or any of his hon colleagues who sit in those benches can operate their businesses without the aid of a Black or Coloured man working in those businesses. Somewhere along the line we have to come to terms with this.

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

No, Sir, my time is limited and I wanted to speak to the hon member for Yeoville. I told him that I was going to refer to his speeches and requested his Whip to see that he would be in the House. I sincerely hope that he will be here when I come to addressing him.

The hon member for Barberton asked: “What are you negotiating with the Black leaders?” He asked that question. I now want to put it to that hon member that what this Government is negotiating is self-respect for every group in South Africa. That hon member waves these words away, Sir. He is not prepared to give self-respect to the Black labourers working on his farm because he wants to treat them as aliens in Barberton. What we are negotiating is the need for mutual respect. The hon members sitting in those benches do not have the perception of the future South Africa that will enable them to negotiate a system which will breed mutual respect between races and groups in South Africa. [Interjections.]

I want to speak to the hon member for Yeoville. I reminded him beforehand that I wanted to respond to his speeches. Oh, there he is. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Yeoville made a statement on Thursday in reply to the hon the Minister’s statement that inflation was more dangerous than unemployment. The hon member for Yeoville replied to this by saying (Hansard, 23 May 1985):

The hon member went on to say:

Quite right!

We think that hon member was playing to the emotions of the public of South Africa. I would say to that hon member that I believe inflation is more dangerous to South Africa than unemployment. I honestly believe that.

That is because you are a fat cat and not unemployed!

I employ people—probably more people than that hon member employs. Therefore I know about unemployment and people’s needs.

I want to say to that hon member that not only does the hon the Minister believe it and not only do I believe it, but Mr Raymond Parsons, Assocom’s chief executive, also believes it. I want to quote as follows from The Natal Mercury of 23 May, which is the very day on which the hon member made that statement:

I want to ask that hon member how he and his party propose to overcome the unemployment problem in South Africa. [Interjections.] He spoke earlier on of the population growth and the lack of economic growth. The reason why our economy has not grown at the rate that we require it to grow is because of inflation.

In referring to the creation of jobs, in his same speech last week the hon member for Yeoville said (p 191):

He referred to the need for savings so that we can have reform in this country because out of economic growth will come reform.

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

No, I do not have the time. I only have three or four minutes left. [Interjections.]

That hon member criticized the Government while the hon Minister of Finance is following the correct economic policy in order to put things right in South Africa. That hon member said in his speech that we should rather create jobs by bringing in capital from outside. We do need a certain amount of foreign investment in South Africa but most of all we need savings in South Africa so that we can invest in our own development. We dare not rely on imported capital for our total economic growth in South Africa. In order to achieve this growth we have to save. I therefore say that what the hon Minister of Finance is doing is correct for South Africa.

He is tightening up on the money supply and consumer credit and causing people to save so that we can beat inflation and reduce our debts. In this way we will bolster our rand which, because of inflation, has now dropped to the very low level of some 52 USA cents.

I want to say to the hon member for Yeoville in conclusion that one only has to look at the other countries in Africa and South America which have not been able to get on top of inflation to see how dangerous inflation really is. Time magazine of 29 April refers to the problems facing these countries, and also to the recent meetings of the world’s financial leaders. It says that Brazil and the Argentine have been refused IMF help in order to roll over some of their debts because they did not meet the IMF’s requirements in their efforts to control inflation. It is no use leaders of Africa and elsewhere crying about the IMF exerting some new kind of colonial pressure upon them. The nations of the Third World and South Africa must learn to manage their economies correctly so that they can generate productivity within themselves and pull themselves up by their bootstraps. The Western World has for possibly 3 or 4 decades been pumping billions and billions of dollars and pounds into aid to the Third World but this has been to no effect whatsoever. Until we learn to save, work, grow and build we will not be able to reach the standard of living which we would like to have for all our people. I say to that hon member he should think again. He should stop simply accusing the hon the Minister here of being callous. Hon Ministers are doing what is right for South Africa. The hon member also has to think of his responsibility to the public. Instead of telling the public that this or other hon Ministers are simply wasting public moneys and so on, he should tell them that the time has come for politicians to be honest with their electorates … [Interjections.]

You would have been unemployed! [Interjections.]

The hon member for Mooi River must be very careful. It requires a number of people to be honest with themselves. [Interjections.] I should remind him of certain things that happened prior to a particular congress. The time has indeed come for hon members to be honest with themselves and their voters. [Interjections.] It is time for the hon member for Yeoville, who is his party’s official spokesman on financial matters, to tell the public of South Africa openly that he backs the economic reforms of the hon the Minister of Finance. I believe I should remind the House that the hon member for Yeoville left the United Party as a Reformist, along with one or two others of his colleagues and formed the Reform Party. [Interjections.] Mr Speaker, if he is a true reformist he must look at what this Government has been doing in recent times since it is this very Government that is led by the greatest reformer South Africa has ever seen.

He reformed the labour laws in this country. He reformed the Constitution. He reformed the economic policy of South Africa. He is reforming South Africa almost week by week. [Interjections.] He is probably changing things in South Africa so fast that he has even left the arch-reformist, the hon member for Yeoville, far, far behind.

Who passed those laws he is reforming? Tell us that!

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Yeoville keeps returning to 1948. Meanwhile hon members of the Conservative Party would like to go right back to the Great Trek. I put it to those hon members that we in the National Party are living in 1985; we are not looking to the past; we look to the future. We are looking to the year 1990 and to the next century. [Interjections.] If this party has its way then, by the year 2000, we will have the economy which will be able to provide the jobs on which the hon member for Yeoville keeps harping all the time. [Interjections.]

Mr Speaker, the hon member for future integrity … I am sorry, Sir, the hon member for Amanzimtoti … [Interjections.] The hon member for Amanzimtoti made a very interesting speech. I should, however, merely like to make the point that he stated that the economy had not grown because of inflation. With due respect, Sir, who caused that inflation? It was largely caused by the same party that the hon member is supporting today. [Interjections.] How did they cause it? Why did they cause it? They did it in the same way in which inflation was caused in the countries of South America, to which the hon member indeed referred—and also of course in African countries. It is inflation caused by too much money spent on arms, on prestigious buildings and on wasteful projects generally. This is where our inflation has come from, Sir. [Interjections.] I will, however, leave the hon member for Amanzimtoti at that and go on to a more important matter. [Interjections.]

I was very interested to hear the statement made by the hon member for Yeoville. I believe that was one of the most important statements I have heard for some considerable time in that he believes that all should get away from the concept of preconditions to discuss the future of this country. I believe that is a vitally important change of policy on the part of his party, and I assume he enunciated that policy change on the strength of a mandate received from his party. The policy of the PFP—hon members will know—has been throughout that before one can have discussions one must have a declaration of intent. I should like to be assured that that is in fact the case because a declaration of intent indicates what one is going to achieve and how one is going to achieve it. So, the question of removing the declaration of intent is most interesting politically. We are very interested that there will now be no more preconditions.

If it helps you, the leader of my party agrees with me.

So, that is fine. I am glad to hear that there will be no more preconditions. We support that one hundred per cent. We are glad to hear that, when people come together, there will be no blocks in the way, there will be no limits to the discussions and that a declaration of intent will not be needed. I find that most interesting.

The hon the Minister of the Budget has had a very easy time of it so far. It seems as if almost everybody has been talking politics rather than considering matters related to the Budget. In the Committee Stage, while the Vote Budgetary and Auxiliary Services was under discussion, the hon the Minister of the Budget chose to take me to task for referring to certain aspects of the own affairs Budget as a burden. He looks upon them as an opportunity and a challenge to resolve problems. That was the expression he used. I was, of course, referring primarily to local government matters, of which, I assume, the Minister, judging by what he said, does not really have a great deal of experience. I feel that that must be the case, because to be so naive as to refer to this as an opportunity under these circumstances is really quite remarkable.

If I may quote from a speech that was made in the Natal Provincial Council only last week, the hon the Minister will understand what I mean. In that speech it was said that in Natal alone there have been, in the last few years, 22 commissions of inquiry into local authorities, 9 investigating committees into their various affairs and 38 problem local authorities. In addition, at this stage in time—I do not like that expression very much, but I have used it—there are 7 local authorities who are causing the Executive Committee tremendous concern “through maladministration, dishonesty of purpose and personality clashes”. These are long-established local authorities which, with a strong leavening of experienced councillors, are performing functions with which they are totally familiar. Furthermore, they also have a very strong corps of experienced officials.

Now, under the Government’s new proposals, many local authorities may well be split into three or possibly even four parts, thus, of course, substantially thinning out the number of experienced councillors and officials who, with their expertise, will be available. What is more, they are going to have to take upon themselves additional responsibilities and functions of which they have no previous experience. I therefore appeal to the hon the Minister not to underestimate the problems he is going to get with this local government business. It is all very well to have a Boy Scouts attitude of “Rah, rah, rah! We will do jolly well, old chap!”, and that sort of thing. That serves very well as a morale booster, but I can assure the hon the Minister that local government is a very, very serious business which requires a lot of common sense and a lot of hard work and experience. If the dedication to apply all those is not available when needed urgently, there is going to be a lot of trouble with local government. So, whilst I admire the hon the Minister’s enthusiasm, I feel that he is inclined to be a little flippant in his treatment of this matter.

Speaking of additional responsibility being given to local authorities, I should like to raise a current issue involving a local authority. You know, Sir, it has been stated on a number of occasions that the Government’s policy of the devolution of power is not devolution at all, but rather delegation. For some weird reason the Government believes this to be devolution. I just wonder whether the Government really believes in devolution as such or knows the meaning of the word. The City of Durban quite recently made application to the Department of Local Government and Housing for permission to build old-age homes at the South Beach in Durban. They investigated it very, very thoroughly indeed, and what was the result? It was turned down by that department, and I have the quote here if the hon the Minister is looking a bit perturbed about it:

The Administration Section of the House of Assembly’s Department of Local Government, Housing and Works turned down the council’s application for the subeconomic loan.

Here is one of the most responsible local authorities not only in Natal but in fact in South Africa in the sense that they are the only local authority in the whole of South Africa and one of the very few in the world which is totally free of external debt, and yet they cannot be held responsible enough to decide how and where and what type of accommodation should be provided for 200 or 300 elderly people for whom they want to provide decent accommodation! For that purpose they wanted certain subeconomic funds made available to assist them.

What sort of delegation is that when even a responsible body like that is not allowed to handle it? What on earth would the hon the Minister do if supposedly the less responsible local authorities of little places—I am not going to talk about Blikkiesdorp or Pampoenkop or whatever—had this type of responsibility in their hands?

But you want local option.

That is a twittish remark to make.

Yes, I know that. [Interjections.]

I want now to get away from that subject. In his reply to the debate in the Committee Stage the hon the Minister said that he would not support the concept of deductibility of compulsory school fees from taxes because it would narrow the national tax base. If ever I have heard utter nonsense in my life, that sort of statement is such. The very concept of charging compulsory school fees is a tax in itself and is in fact broadening the tax base. Making parents pay tax on this forced levy is tantamount to making them pay tax upon another tax. So, to say that to relieve them of tax burdens on this compulsory levy or whatever it may be which they have to pay for schools is a narrowing of the tax base, is absolute twaddle.

The attitude of the hon the Minister is, to say the least, quite thoughtless and on a par with the sort of speech made by the dearly lamented Marie Antoinette when she said: “If they cannot afford bread, let them eat cake.” We all know what happened to that lady. Not so long after that she lost her job and her head. I just give that as a thought to the hon the Minister to bear in mind too. It may well be that the hon the Minister’s munificent salary of R78 000 plus motorcars, houses and the like has insulated him from the needs and the effects of this sort of thing on the ordinary man in the street. I appeal to him to give a little more thought to this particular subject.

Frankly, I consider his attitude very coldblooded and callous because I know of people who are going to suffer. If this levy is compulsory and they send their children to school, they will be too proud to appeal for some sort of a means test. They will pay that levy, but they are going to suffer. The hon the Minister, however, apparently does not care a darn. I think that is appalling. I really believe that he will be doing himself and South Africa a service if he does review his thinking on this particular point. He should certainly not repeat the nonsense that it is narrowing the tax base.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Umbilo raised certain matters to which my hon colleague will reply, but in passing I should like to tell him that I have great faith in the capabilities of our local authorities and in the responsible way in which they normally deal with matters. Since both of us served on the Commission of Inquiry into Township Establishment, the hon member knows what my attitude is towards the responsibilities of our local authorities. The commission, the hon member and I agreed with the delegation and the transfer of certain functions to local authorities. The hon member knows full well what the philosophy of my department will be in connection with the functions and the responsibilities which will be transfered to local authorities.

The hon member raised the specific issue of an application for the building of an old-age home in Durban. I am not in a position to reply to the hon member on this specific issue now as I have no particulars available. However, the hon member is always welcome to approach me or the department beforehand with a specific matter like this, which he has now unfortunately raised here for the first time, so that I can be in a position to reply to it fully during the debate.

*I should like to use the brief opportunity at my disposal to make a few intimations to the House on the strategy decided upon for the provision of land for housing. Before getting to that, I wish to congratulate my colleague the Minister of the Budget most heartily on the occasion of his first handling of the appropriation of the Administration: House of Assembly. On behalf of my department I thank him sincerely for the cooperation we receive from his department throughout.

Recently a committee of my department put forward recommendations as regards making serviced and unserviced land available for housing purposes. In the first place the recommendations were aimed at residential land in the possession of the department which would not be required within a reasonable period for own departmental purposes and which could be sold so that the proceeds could be applied for housing or the creation of infrastructure or for the acquisition of land elsewhere where the need exists.

In the second place the recommendations were aimed at ensuring that land would be available for residential purposes to all income groups on a continuous basis where such land was not acquired by the private sector itself and made available for housing. It might be necessary for the department to acquire additional land for this purpose on a programmed basis according to need.

The criteria taken into consideration by the departmental committee are the following: Alienation shall take place rapidly; alienation shall take place in conjunction with the minimum of restrictive conditions; complicated conditions shall be avoided; alienation shall take place on a competitive basis as far as possible; alienation shall take place at market value as far as possible; where alienation takes place at market value, no pre-emptive right shall apply; alienation shall take place for cash as far as possible; to prevent stockpiling of land and to ensure development, a development clause shall be formulated and registered in the title deed; to prevent monopolies, an excessive amount of land shall not be sold to a single developer; there shall be no encroachment upon the terrain of the private sector but, where there is no private land available for development, it shall be made attractive to developers to acquire land for development from the department; alienation of land for housing of lower income groups may take place out of hand at amounts below market value and taking the paying capacity of those involved into account; where sale is effected at prices below market value, a pre-emptive right shall be stated to prevent speculation and the amount of land available shall be in accordance with the short-term need.

In the light of these criteria the committee made certain recommendations.

Strategy:

A strategy shall be laid down comprising the following:

1. (i) The identification of the need for building sites and unserviced land in the light of details in the data bank and in consultation with local management for a period of say five years in advance;
2. (ii) determination of the degree to which the private sector and local management will fulfil the need under their own steam;
3. (iii) determination of the need which the department will have to fulfil as regards the acquisition of land and provision of sites;
4. (iv) five-year advance programming on an annual basis of the acquisition of land and installation of services as well as programming for the provision of necessary funds in respect of the responsibility of the department;
5. (v) allocation of funds, if necessary, on a priority basis;
6. (vi) identification of suitable land and acquisition on a continuous basis. All the necessary land and rights shall be acquired and all limiting factors identified timeously with a view to the avoidance of problems in consolidation etc;
7. (vii) provision of services as required on a continuous basis;
8. (viii) provision of main supply services where these cannot or will not be carried out by private developers;
9. (ix) provision of serviced sites and unserviced land as required.

Serviced Single Residential Sites:

1. (i) The department and/or local authority shall have a continuous supply of sites available especially for lower income groups to which it has an exceptional responsibility and which cannot be accommodated by the private sector. If departmental supplies are reduced and there is a need, as established by the housing data bank, the supply shall be supplemented either by its own establishment of townships or by setting conditions on the sale of unserviced land that after development the developers shall resell a certain number of serviced sites to the department at prearranged prices.
2. (ii) In the first instance sites shall be available out of hand on merit to people on waiting lists but may also be made available to utility companies and employers. Should there be a surplus of sites, they may also be made available to individuals not qualifying for housing assistance and preferably on a competitive basis to builders and developers. At places where the private sector does not supply sites, the department will have to pay attention to all market sectors.
3. (iii) A site ought to be sold to a breadwinner with a monthly income up to R1 200 at a price below market value depending upon the particular circumstances and the paying capacity of the purchaser. In such a case a pre-emptive right and building clause shall apply.
4. (iv) Where housing utility companies furnish housing to persons with an income below R1 200 per month, sites may similarly be alienated out of hand to such companies below market value. Where provision is being made for the income group above R1 200 per month, market value ought to apply but sale at a reduced price may nevertheless be considered depending on circumstances in order to launch a young utility company. Utility companies ought to register pre-emptive rights against properties they sell.
5. (v) Sites made available out of hand to persons with incomes above R1 200 per month, employers, builders or developers, shall be sold at market value. No pre-emptive right shall apply but only a building clause.
6. (vi) Payment shall preferably be in cash but short-term instalments may be considered in respect of individual buyers of plots.
7. (vii) Where sites may be made available to local authorities for the furnishing of housing to lower income groups, it may take place out of hand at an amount below market value as agreed.
8. (viii) A development right to sites may be granted to developers on a competitive basis to erect dwellings for specific income groups and for persons on waiting lists according to departmental instructions. An agreement shall be concluded with the developer regarding prices of dwellings marketed by him. Transfer of the sites, however, shall take place direct from the department to the purchaser. A pre-emptive right ought to apply only if the site has been alienated at below market value.

Flat and Group Housing Sites:

This type of site shall be alienated to local authorities, utility companies, employers and private institutions at a price below market value on the same basis as single residential sites.

Unserviced Land:

1. (i) Unserviced land designed for alienation shall be subdivided into viable “packages” for provision to local authorities, utility companies and private developers. Negotiations on the composition of such packages may be conducted with such institutions in advance.
2. (ii) The sale of land to local authorities and utility companies may take place out of hand at prices below market value depending on the paying capacity of the income group for which provision is being made. If provision is being made for persons with an income above R1 200 per month, market value shall be paid. Institutions shall themselves set pre-emptive rights in respect of persons to which land is sold at prices below market value. A development clause shall apply in respect of land sold to such institutions.
3. (iii) Packages of land shall be made available to private developers on a competitive basis for sale. Where no competition exists, negotiations may be conducted at market value.
4. (iv) Nevertheless negotiations ought to be conducted in advance with bona fide developers in order to arouse their interest in packages of land or combinations of packages to be offered for sale.
5. (v) The minimum restrictions possible shall be set in conditions of tender to private developers. Nevertheless it shall be required of developers to submit a development programme with their tenders and a development clause based on an agreed development programme shall be embodied in the title deeds at transfer. This will ensure that land is not stockpiled and left unutilized.
6. (vi) Should the department experience a need for building sites (either for its own use, local authorities or utility companies) it may be set as a condition of tender that a specified number of plots be resold to the department at a prearranged price after development.
7. (vii) Care shall be taken in the allocation of tenders not to create monopolies.
8. (viii) Conditions of payment ought to be: 10% cash on signing of the agreement of purchase and sale and the balance with interest at Treasury interest rates against transfer.

The successful tenderer shall be permitted to postpone transfer until immediately previous to the commencement of the installation of services if he wishes.

These recommendations are acceptable to me and have already also been approved by the National Housing Commission and the Community Development Board. The department is proceeding with the implementation of the foregoing approach and I am sure that, together with the implementation of the recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry into Township Establishment and Related Matters, will assist in providing sufficient building sites at reasonable prices to fulfil the need.

Mr Chairman, I have no comments in response to the hon the Minister’s announcement which I believe will be generally welcomed.

During the debate members of the opposition parties, both the PFP and the CP, have done their best right from the Second Reading to belittle own affairs and to denigrate them as something of no importance. That is why I saw fit to draw the attention of the House of Assembly to a few of the matters transferred from the Ministry for general affairs to the Ministers of the Ministers’ Council because this emphasizes the importance of the Administration: House of Assembly.

There has been a transfer of inter alia 25 Acts or portions of Acts from the Minister of Community Development to the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Works. Amongst others these Acts include Acts applicable to various settlements and the control of settlements, namely the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act, The State Land Disposal Act, the Community Development Act and the Housing Act.

In terms of the Marriage Act, certain matters have been transferred from the Minister of Home Affairs to the Minister of the Budget.

The Minister of Education and Culture has received 27 Acts or portions of Acts from the Minister of National Education, inter alia the Educational Services Act, the Technical Colleges Act, the National Educational Policy Act, various Acts applicable to universities, the Universities, National Education Policy and Technikons Act, the Suid-Afrikaanse Akademie vir Wetenskap en Kuns Act, the Culture Promotion Act and the Cultural Institutions Act.

Eight Acts have been transferred from the Minister of Health and Welfare to the Minister of Health Services and Welfare, inter alia the National Welfare Act, the Aged Persons Act, the Children’s Act, the Mental Health Act, the Social Pensions Act, the Health Act and the Blind Persons Act.

A large variety of measures have been transferred from the Minister of Environment Affairs and Fisheries to the Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply. These measures relate especially to the regulation of waterworks and irrigation affairs.

Measures relating to the training of apprentice artisans have been transferred from the Minister of Manpower to the Minister of Education and Culture.

The Minister of Agriculture has transferred six measures to the Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply, inter alia the Tobacco and Wine Research Accounts Act, the Agricultural Research Account Act, the Agricultural Credit Act and the Promotion of the Density of Population in Designated Areas Act.

Consequently more than 70 Acts or portions of Acts have been transferred to the Ministers entrusted with own affairs. [Interjections.] The importance of this lies not only in the number of Acts and their extent; the nature of the measures is of greater importance. I believe that with these steps we succeed in complying with the spirit of the Constitution, that matters of cultural interest to a population group be transferred to that group as own affairs. By means of the measures mentioned, we have embarked upon the way of permanent and unique solutions in South Africa in the search for constitutional solutions for our country. The phasing into this department of duties currently undertaken by the provincial councils will increase its extent and importance. The CP objection to our current constitutional dispensation is that Whites have supposedly been deprived of their sovereignty. As a White I have never gained the impression that I have been deprived of my sovereignty or anything else when I only have to share it with someone just as entitled to lay claim to it as I.

Let us share your salary!

Even in our time democratic processes in this country will see such evolutionary development that they will be regarded quite differently and will appear totally different from the accepted form in which we have known them up to the present.

The CP now has to accept certain facts once and for all and I shall mention a few of them. We live in Africa and South Africa is an African state albeit with its own character and level of development. Our community is fully integrated economically. We form part of South Africa and share the full infrastructure in South Africa with other population groups and cultural communities. South African inhabitants of colour are not enemies of the Whites. Great mutual respect and co-operation exist among our respective population groups. No political party, whatever its policy, will have the financial means to institute total partition in South Africa. No political party in South Africa will succeed in achieving permanent political solutions in this country without the co-operation and agreement of all population groups.

These are a few facts members of the CP will have to take into account when they parade their selfish ideological daydreams. If in time to come they wish to contribute as a political party in this country to the future of the country, they will have to cease their political wishful thinking and their daydreaming. They will have to take note of the practical, hard facts of politics in South Africa and abide by them. They will become involved in those realities and will have to find solutions to them. They will not be able to build castles in the air, colour them to suit themselves and then say, “We selfish Whites have always had control over everyone and everything and wish this to remain.” In that way we shall ultimately have nothing in South Africa.

My last remark is directed at the hon member for Yeoville as he is present. When we put a few questions to him by way of interjections, the hon member for Yeoville immediately became personal. [Interjections.] This is so typical of that hon member. The moment he is unable to find an answer he becomes insulting and personal instead of, as a frontbencher and senior member of this House, suggesting a few solutions to us to the problems he can illustrate with such facility. [Interjections.] The identification of problems is something of which even I, the “‘stupid’ agterbanker” to which he referred, am capable in my stupidity. For once he should furnish us with solutions in this House to problems we have long since identified.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Springs referred to the importance of own affairs. I think my colleague the hon member for Barberton has already proved the contrary in his speech this afternoon. The hon member must remember that the R2 200 million which has been appropriated for own affairs constitutes only 7% of the total general affairs Budget. Moreover, if one were to include the Budgets of the SATS and the Post Office in the general Budget, the own affairs Budget of the House of Assembly would constitute a mere 4% of the total Budget. When one takes this into account, the hon member for Springs will see how much importance his Government attaches to own affairs budgeting.

I should like to respond to two points raised by the hon member for Amanzimtoti. He made the point—as I understood it—that the worker one employs on one’s farm or in one’s business necessarily has a say in the management or ownership of that undertaking. Surely that is not true. We all have workers in our employ but they are not co-owners and do not necessarily have joint control of the enterprise. The hon member also said that politicians should be honest with voters. I almost shouted from my bench: Look who’s talking! The hon member should look around him. There is a member of his party who, when asked during the referendum whether or not there would be Coloureds in the Cabinet, said: No, it is just a carrot which is being dangled before the Coloureds. [Interjections.] The hon member is sitting in this House. I do not want to embarrass him but he knows who he is. [Interjections.] Must I mention his name?

Yes! [Interjections.]

No, I am not a gossip.

I am not saying you are a gossip …

The hon member is in this House. He is sitting here in front of me and he knows who he is. [Interjections.] It is not the hon the Minister of Communications just in front of me.

Order! Did the hon member for Rustenburg say the hon member for De Aar was a gossip?

No, Mr Chairman, I did not say so. [Interjections.]

During the past few months we have experienced the most difficult financial situation since the depression of the 30’s. [Interjections.] The financial steps the Government is taking to bring about a redistribution of income so that the standard of living of the Whites will fall and that of the other groups in South Africa will rise are adversely affecting the lifestyle of the Whites, and it is the Whites who are being asked to make a substantial contribution towards the development of the Coloureds, the Indians and the Blacks in the financial, technical, agricultural, educational and other fields.

We have the problem that interest rates which recently reached record levels are bankrupting people throughout the entire economy. The consumer, the businessman—especially the smaller entrepreneur—and the farmer are being strangled to death by these high rates of interest. Over the years the farmer has been encouraged to produce food but, as a result of his financial retrogression, he is naturally dependent upon credit for his production. He has to obtain credit from either the commercial bank or from his cooperative, and in both cases he has had, until recently, to pay 25% interest on that credit—in most cases this situation has not yet changed. We have even had the situation in the case of one co-operative of which I know where the farmer has had to pay not only the 25% interest on his production loan but also a 2,5% commission to the co-operative in those cases where for instance, the co-operative pays for his electricity as part of his production loan. In such cases the farmer pays 27,5% interest, which is 2,5% higher than that paid to the commercial bank.

He can surely obtain his production credit in terms of a six year scheme.

Yes, he could normally do that, but I am referring to a specific case. In fact, I want to discuss this specific case with the hon the Minister.

As a result of the extremely high rate of interest it is understandable that the farmer’s production costs are increasing enormously. This also applies to those who provide the inputs for agriculture.

It is said that one third of the farmers in the RSA are in a critical financial state. This is indeed so; and it becomes clear when we look at the position of the summer crop farmers who last year had at their disposal only seven cents for every one rand of operating costs. Right up to today we have the situation in our own agricultural budget where provision has been made for R421 million of which R252,8 million has been made available for assistance to farmers. I am very grateful for the announcement made today of the additional R150 million. One has to remember, however, that the farmers paid out R1 300 million in interest alone last year.

The hon the Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply referred in passing to the maize situation. I just want to point out that the maize prices have only been fixed at the producer level. There is no price control in respect of the sale of maize and maize products in the retail trade. Consequently the consumer—this is a situation which will have to be looked at—pays R400 per ton to in some cases even R1 000 per ton for mealie meal and other maize products. The farmer receives R217 or R218 per ton. As I say, the consumer pays R400 per ton for mealie meal in 1 kg packing. So there is a gap between the R218 per ton and the R400 per ton; and in the case of maize products, the price rises to as much as R1 000 per ton. According to the economic indicators determined by the Directorate: Agriculture, it costs R267 to produce a ton of mealies. An amount of R48 has therefore to be absorbed by the maize farmer. I do not want to elaborate any further on this matter because I think it has already been discussed in a fair amount of detail.

The situation today is such that if the Government does not want to plunge the country into chaos, it will have to ensure that no further restrictive monetary policy measures are instituted. There will have to be drop in the rates of interest which have our economy in such a shambles at the moment. They will have to come down because such a situation cannot be endured for very long. Our people must be enabled to obtain the necessities of life and luxury articles taxed more heavily.

The MRA, Market Research in Africa, contends that 44% of homes in Black urban residential areas have television sets while 29% had television sets in 1983. The point I want to make is that, although one does not begrudge the people these items, one nevertheless has the situation where there are rich people among them while others cannot afford to buy food and clothing. The same situation prevails among Whites. There are also White children in our country who are starving.

Unfortunately my time has almost expired, but there are a few other matters to which I want to refer. There are a few situations we will have to look at because they really give one cause for concern. We will have to address the problem of depopulation on the platteland very soon because the survival of some towns which still have the right to exist is being threatened. The housing problems should also receive attention. As far as the provision of housing is concerned, we could possibly consider whether or not the housing bonds could be taken out over a longer period. Considering our situation, we should, I think, also look at the tax-free portion of the income of the working married woman with the view to increasing that portion.

Mr Chairman, it is with pride that I stand up here today as a member of the NP which, for all practical purposes, has been governing this country now for 37 years. [Interjections.] We look back with gratitude on those 37 years during which we achieved great success in this country. They were also 37 years in which we made mistakes; but we are correcting those mistakes now.

Is Rev Hendrickse also a member of the NP now? [Interjections.]

In pursuance of that remark by the hon member for Kuruman I should also say that we have also had a stroke of luck or two during this period. The NP had a stroke of luck the day that that hon member left this party. [Interjections.] That was one of the great days in our history. Just look at the great progress the NP has made since these hon members left the party. We are filled with gratitude.

Is the Rev Hendrickse a member of the NP?

No, the Rev Hendrickse is not a member of our party.

He is, however, a member of the Government!

He is not a member of our party.

He is governing the country!

Yes, of course he is a member of the Government.

While I am on the subject of the CP, there is one point I should like to mention. There is one thing that has always struck me since I became a member of the House of Assembly. I was always under the impression that we debated matters in this House but to my great surprise I found that the CP did not participate in debating in this House. [Interjections.] They have introduced a totally new style into this House, to wit, their shouting of political slogans. Every hon member of the CP makes one of two statements or both of such statements. The first is that the NP is an integrationist party. The second is that we are selling out the White man in this country. [Interjections.] Each speech they deliver is exactly the same as the previous one, apart from a few variations. One after the other they get up and deliver the same speech.

Let us look for a moment at economic integration. The hon member for De Aar referred to the depopulation of the platteland. The platteland, however, is not depopulating; it is simply a question of the Whites’ numbers dwindling. What are the facts of the economic situation? Were it not for the purchasing power of people of another colour on the platteland, many Whites would no longer be carrying on business there. Hon members know the platteland, after all, so they know what the situation is on a Saturday morning when the Coloureds, Indians, Blacks and Whites stand shoulder to shoulder to make their purchases.

We all know too that this applies not only to the platteland but also to the urban areas. On the mines, in factories, in local authorities and on our farms Whites, Blacks and Coloureds stand shoulder to shoulder and work. That is so, is it not?

I read an interesting allegation in the CP’s Programme of Principles and Constitution. I would like to recommend this reading matter to hon members on this side of the House. It will not take long to read and should, in fact, provide them with an entertaining hour of reading. It is even better than the articles in Rapport. Hon members would do well to read it. [Interjections.] In paragraph 1.5 the CP states that integration “…in whatever form and at whatever level is rejected.”

I want to ask the hon members whether or not they reject economic intregration. They must tell us. If they do reject it, how will they implement their decision if they come into power? [Interjections.] If they do accept economic integration, then surely they are an integration party. [Interjections.] Let me put this question to the hon member for Langlaagte.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon member for Parow a question? [Interjections.]

No, I am putting the questions.

Order! The hon member for Langlaagte must please resume his seat. The hon member for Parow may continue.

I shall put a question to the hon member for Langlaagte; he need not put questions to me. This hon member is involved in the development of many townships and talks about economic apartheid. Have those hon members ever wondered how good the hon member for Langlaagte would look digging a sewage trench? [Interjections.] Hon members should give some thought to that.

Let us look for a moment at the political integration of which we are accused. This booklet makes very interesting reading. The CP’s policy in respect of Blacks is set out in paragraph 2.3.6, and I quote:

They go on to say in paragraph 2.3.7 that local authorities can be instituted for those Black residential areas on White land. In other words, in this White South Africa which we are always hearing about, Blacks can rule over White land. That is, after all, the purest form of integration that one can get. Yet we are accused of integration! [Interjections.] That party is an integration party. They are on the road to political integration. [Interjections.]

A second statement of the CP to which I should like to refer is that we, the NP, are ostensibly selling out the White man. I would like to make the statement today that a party which misleads the people of South Africa is selling those people out. A party which tells the people there is a farm for sale in Adderley Street is misleading the people. A party which tells the people that one can start an economic pig farm in Israel is misleading the people. [Interjections.] First a heartland which was not homeland but a speckled land à la Hartzenberg, then a homeland again, then an own fatherland, and than a geographical area of jurisdiction—which is really a group area but which is parenthetically a heartland—is the policy that is being offered. It is nothing but a dreamland; it is not a heartland.

You are being flippant.

Sir, one can only be flippant about such nonsense.

Order!

Let us talk about the CP’s slogan of freedom with justice. Let us test that against the policy of the CP. This party says that a Coloured heartland will comprise the existing Coloured group areas plus the few portions of Coloured rural land. The CP also says that the Indian homeland will comprise the present Indian group areas. The rest of South Africa will become a White homeland. I ask the CP: Is this freedom with justice? It is no wonder that the hon leader of the CP at their congress on 7 September 1984—

Naturally this is so, They cannot point out the boundaries to us.

What about Bophuthatswana?

Let us talk about partition and, with great respect to the hon leader of the CP, let us talk about Bophuthatswana. Partition can take place on only two grounds.

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

No, Sir, I am not prepared to answer a question. There are only two grounds on which partition can be morally justified. The first is the historic occupation of land. I challenge hon members to tell me which areas in this country have been occupied historically by the Coloureds and Indians.

The second way in which one can do that is on the basis of numbers. One could then have partition on the basis of numbers. That is moral. What would be the position, however, if we were to divide land on a moral basis among the Coloureds, the Indians and the Whites of this country? [Interjections.] Whites would get 57%, the Indians about 10% and the Coloureds 33%. Who would do the dividing and who would do the choosing?

What about the Blacks?

No, I am speaking in terms of the CP’s policy. [Interjections.] The CP has already demarcated the Black homelands. They say in their constitution that the 1936 provision is final. That is so, is it not? They do say the 1936 provision is final! Or is that not so?

Ha! Ha!

“Ha! Ha!” Now the hon member laughs. [Interjections.] I contend that anyone who tells this kind of story to the voters is selling out the people of South Africa and is selling out the Whites in this country. [Interjections.]

The hon member tells me they are going to follow the parliamentary way of instituting a Coloured homeland. The parliamentary way? They are going to persuade the Coloureds to accept a homeland, and the Indians too.

However, I heard another story—from reliable sources. Apparently they have realized that this is not going to work, and now they are wondering how to get the Coloureds and Indians out of Parliament. If they come into power they will reinstate section 16 of the Immorality Act and the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act. [Interjections.] The Coloureds and Indians will then have no alternative but to withdraw from the new dispensation. Where will they go then? To a Coloured homeland? [Interjections.] I think that people who gamble with the future of our country in this way are selling out the Whites in this country. [Interjections.] The CP talks in this booklet of promoting White majority occupation in the RSA. Yes, they talk about promoting White majority occupation in the RSA! Do they not realize that they will have to send 5,5 million Blacks—and that is not taking into account the increase in the population—back to their Black areas in order to bring about White majority occupation in this country? [Interjections.] These are the stories they are telling the voters. [Interjections.] Is it not enough to make one weep?

With this type of slogan about integration and with these slogans about selling out the White man, that party is trying to hijack the spirit of our people. They are trying to hijack it. Unfortunately, in this process they are exploiting two weaknesses in our people. The first is that our people sometimes feel superior to members of other population groups. The second is our fear of the Black man. That is a contradiction. It is a contradiction because if one is superior one is not afraid; and if one is afraid, one cannot be superior. However, that is what those hon members prey on.

When we take steps to remove and succeed in removing discriminatory measures, our actions are labelled integration. [Interjections.] This is not done because we are right—and we are right, after all—but for the sake of their political survival the CP has to give a name to our actions. So they call these actions “integration”. However, I should like to say today that this party will continue to remove discriminatory measures. We will continue to work our solutions for our survival. We will continue to present the facts and realities to our voters. We will go on not misleading our people and thus not selling them out by promising them farms in Adderley Street.

Order! Before calling on the next hon member to speak, I should like to read a notice to hon members at the request of the Chief Whip of Parliament. It relates to tomorrow’s proceedings and there will be no other opportunity of reading this notice. The notice reads as follows:

Mr Chairman, I thought the speech of the hon member for Parow was rather amazing. He is very good at making that kind of speech—I have heard them before in the provincial council. The theme of his speech was his pride in being a Nationalist and that his party has governed this country for 37 years. He proceeded to devote most of his speech to lecturing the CP on what is wrong with their policies. Their policies are, of course, essentially the policies of the NP of not very long ago, and he did a wonderful job of showing how ridiculous and unworkable the policies of the NP were. That is why they had to change.

I also find it strange that that hon member can be proud of a 37 year rule when we face endemic unrest in this country—the worst we have ever had—when we are fighting a rearguard action against disinvestment in respect of our trading partners, and when our living standards have dropped over the past decade. At this stage when the country is in a state of political and economic crisis, the likes of which we have not known before, the hon member for Parow is proud of the performance of his Government. I shudder to think what has to happen in South Africa before he will be concerned about or ashamed of that performance.

We have come to the Third Reading stage of the own affairs Budget, and it is appropriate to review a bit of what has gone before. With rare exceptions, the debates on the own affairs have been boring, irrelevant, unrelated to own affairs and, on many occasions, poorly attended by hon members, showing what they thought about them. During debates on many votes, unlike general affairs votes, the allocated time was not even used up by hon members. There have been few questions on own affairs and, if my memory serves me correctly, there has been no legislation whatsoever.

The whole concept of own affairs has been artificially bolstered in a transparent attempt to justify the existence of three separate Houses and Ministers’ Councils. It is an expensive charade that we can ill afford. The work could be done by half the number of Ministers and a reduced number of departments resulting in a considerable saving of taxpayers’ money. This charade is a natural consequence of the policy of separate development, a policy that is not working and is not going to work.

The whole approach of the Government is based on a false premise, namely that separation of the races is necessary to avoid friction, and that contact will lead to greater animostity.

Surely we recognize this to be false? Contact is more likely to produce understanding and sympathy than conflict. Our daily lives illustrate this to us regularly.

I should like to quote from something that Allister Sparks wrote in 1974, which I think explains it very well:

Is that not what we have in South Africa today? Separation has led to a breakdown in communication, to misunderstanding, suspicion, fear and violence in townships across the length and breadth of this country.

The Government needs to wake up before it is too late. For 17 years we have had the Prohibition of Political Interference Act. Apparently it is going to be scrapped now after much irreparable damage has been done. The new Constitution has polarized races more than ever before, something which has been belatedly recognized by Cabinet Ministers. The whole field of non racial political activity was handed on a platter to extra-parliamentary groups. Now the Government has taken fright. It realizes that it has lost control of the situation and that non-racial political movements are needed to play a vital role if peaceful negotiation and evolutionary change are to take place.

It is ironic that at the very time that the Government is conceding the importance of contact rather than separation we sit here debating the first own affairs Budget. We live in an increasingly integrated society—in the economic, political, sporting and even cultural spheres when one looks at the Nico Malan, Capab and the Afrikaanse Taalmonument, for example—but the Government insists on clinging to a diminishing island of racial exclusivity in residential areas and educational and welfare institutions.

Let us look briefly at education. The PFP believes in contact, in non-racial education and in freedom of choice, while the NP believes in enforced segregation. At most universities in this country racial integration is increasing all the time, but the Government nevertheless still insists—with very few exceptions—that technikons and teacher training colleges remain rigidly segregated. There is no logic in it; just expediency and racism.

School education suffers the same treatment. It is an own affair. According to section 14 of the Constitution, this means that schooling has to do with the maintenance of identity and the upholding and furtherance of the way of life, culture, traditions and customs of a population group; not a religious, cultural or language group but a population group; not English-speaking, Afrikaans, Catholic, Jew, Muslim or Hindu but White, Black, Coloured or Indian.

How do we know who to group together, forcibly, to protect their identity, way of life, culture, traditions and customs? We turn to the Population Registration Act which tells us the following:

Now that is the person whose identity, way of life, culture, traditions and customs we are trying to protect provided that neither of his natural parents has been classified as a Coloured person or a Black. A “Black” is—

A “Coloured person” is—

Now, these are the own affairs we are talking about. These are the identities, the ways of life, the cultures, the traditions and the customs that we are protecting. They are population groups, race groups and colour groups and certainly have nothing specific to do with the cultural groups that we heard the State President telling the BBC about on television last night. The sophistry of own affairs in education is nonsense. The reality is racism and compulsion. That is what it is.

Why does the Government not allow freedom of choice? Why should English speakers be forced to swallow segregated Christian National Education whether they like it or not? The future of South Africa is going to depend on our Children’s ability to find better ways of achieving peaceful coexistence. Their ability to do so will be enhanced by greater contact rather than by being kept apart and growing up as stranger or, worse still, as rivals or enemies. It is strange that leading Nationalists, in Parliament and in the President’s Council, have chosen to send their children to multiracial private schools. All due credit to them, but has the identity of those children been threatened? Should it be a privilege reserved for the wealthy? I believe not.

I believe that there are thousands of parents of all races who want their children to have a non-racial education. They know that their children need to be prepared to face the challenges of a multiracial South Africa. They know that contact with children of other races is what their children need, not separation. Let us move away from the doctrines of compulsory separation and contrived own affairs.

The intention to scrap the prohibition of Political Interference Act is a partial recognition of the need for contact rather than separation. That process must be extended rapidly if we are not to be overtaken by a future too ghastly to contemplate.