Order! In connection with the debate on the Parliament Vote, which took place in the House yesterday, I am obliged to draw the attention of hon members to certain matters.

Section 31 of the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act, 1963 (Act No 91, 1963) vests control of money for the services of Parliament in the Speaker. In terms of subsection (1) the Speaker’s authorisation for such expenditure and the appropriation of moneys for those services shall, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law “be taken to be in all respects good, valid and effectual”.

In reply to questions before the Committee on Public Accounts in 1944 on the Speaker’s control in terms of section 31 of Act No 19, 1911—that is the Act prior to Act No 91, 1963—Mr Speaker Van Coller ruled as follows:

Although section 31 of the present Act contains more provisions than that of 1911, the main provisions, that is section 31(1) correspond for the most part with the 1911 provision. Apart from that the ruling by Mr Speaker Van Coller is in my opinion still applicable in any case, also by virtue of the established practice that the Speaker may only be criticised by means of a substantive motion, after notice.

†I further wish to point out that the administration of Parliament is the responsibility not only of Mr Speaker but also of all hon members through their representatives on various committees such as the Rules Committees, the Joint Committees on Internal Arrangements and the Library of Parliament, and also the Council of the Parliamentary Association of the Republic of South Africa.

*Because hon members themselves exercise control over the administration of Parliament the Parliament Vote was until a few years ago agreed to as a formality and without discussion. Another reason for this was that the Speaker, who is responsible for the administration of Parliament, cannot appear on the floor of the Chamber, and therefore has to ask another person, as in the case yesterday the hon the Leader of the House of Assembly, to take charge of the Vote on his behalf.

In the nature of things the Speaker’s representative is not conversant with the administration of Parliament. Matters concerning this administration ought to be raised in the Committees controlling them, and not on the floor of the Houses.

†I also wish to point out that it is most certainly not in the interests of the Chair, and therefore of Parliament, that irregularities in the administration of Parliament are suggested, as was done yesterday by the hon member for Sea Point. Any prior consultation with me would have made it quite unnecessary to refer to a cover-up as was alleged by the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central. Because of the questions put to the hon the Leader of the House of Assembly yesterday and the accusation of a cover-up, I am now placed in the invidious position of having to make this statement from the Chair.

*The particulars of the hotel account which was mentioned yesterday are as follows: Early in November 1987 the Secretariat, at my request, approached the Department of Foreign Affairs for information on the possibility of inviting overseas and foreign parliamentarians to attend the ceremonial opening of Parliament in the Chamber of Parliament as guests of the Parliamentary Association of the Republic of South Africa. I did this with a view to achieving the objective of the Parliamentary Association, viz the promotion of mutual understanding and cooperation among the members of the legislative power of the Republic of South Africa and the legislative powers of other countries. The invitation stated that they would be the guests of the Parliamentary Association from 4 February 1988 until as soon after the opening of Parliament on 5 February as possible. Several parliamentarians from other countries accepted the invitation.

†The Department of Foreign Affairs thereupon offered to accept financial responsibility for overseas guests who wished to come sooner or stay longer and to organize a programme for them. Of the amount of R2 766 referred to yesterday the Parliamentary Association paid R1 057,63 plus a credit of R254,35 still due by the Department of Foreign Affairs to Parliament. This amount was due for the period 4 to 6 February, while the couple were the guests of the Parliamentary Association. The remaining sum was paid by the Department of Foreign Affairs. No payment was made out of parliamentary funds in respect of any guests who accepted the invitation.

*I am sorry that the matter was raised in this way by the hon member for Sea Point and that reference was made in such a derogatory way to guests who were well-disposed towards South Africa. When they hear about this incident it can only cause them embarrassment.

†As far as I am concerned that disposes of the matter. Hon members who require additional information can raise the matter at either the joint meeting of the Rules Committees, which will be held on 14 June, or the meeting of the Parliamentary Association which will be held on 17 June, both of which were convened before this matter was raised on the floor of the House.

Mr Speaker, after a short absence, it is a pleasure for me to participate in this debate this afternoon.

Order! I had no knowledge of the hon member’s absence from the House.

Sir, if you had read Die Burger this morning, you would have been aware of it!

Thank you very much. [Interjections.]

In the short time at my disposal I do not intend to speak on the impact of and circumstances surrounding the present economic conditions in South Africa. Another reason for not doing so is the fact that I think the impact of our own affairs budget on the economy as a whole has been minimal because the hon the Minister of the Budget and Works in my view cannot be regarded as a Minister of Finance or a junior Minister of Finance. I want to say why, and I shall quote a very good authority. When this Bill was introduced on Monday, 21 March this year, the previous hon Minister said (Hansard, 1988, col 4275):

Order! I must interrupt the hon member. Since I do not have a list as required in terms of Rule 89, the debate will be conducted in terms of Rule 90.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Perhaps you have not been advised of it, but the arrangement was that we should hand that list in to the Table. Today’s list is at the Table.

Then it must be available to the presiding officer at the commencement of the debate. At the moment I have before me a list of times, but no names, except for the names of a few hon members of the governing party. If it was handed in in time, I tender my apologies to the hon Chief Whip of the Official Opposition; if not, the ruling I have just given stands.

Mr Speaker, may I ask you please to reconsider your ruling?

Order! I have just been given the list containing all the names. The hon Chief Whip must forgive me, but I did not have it. The hon member for Barberton may proceed.

The then Minister of the Budget and Welfare said further:

The Minister said, therefore—we have said this repeatedly in the past—that in effect this administration has no budgetary authority, because it must go hat in hand to the hon the Minister of Finance. But the then Minister of the Budget and Welfare, now the hon the Minister of Administration and Privatisation, gave out the good news:

For three years we have been asking the hon the Minister of Finance and the Government when we were to get the magic formula in terms of which funds would in future be allocated to the various own affairs administrations. We were pleased to hear from the hon the Minister on 21 March that the hon the Minister of Finance would introduce legislation this session which would give effect to those intentions.

We are almost at the end of this session, and I ask the hon the Minister of the Budget and Works if he could not find out from the hon the Minister of Finance, from the Cabinet or someone—most probably from the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning—when we can expect that legislation.

Why are you quarrelling with me?

I am not quarrelling with that hon Minister. I am simply giving advice to the hon the Minister of the Budget and Welfare. Perhaps he can get advice from the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning.

It seems to me that this session will also pass without our getting legislation for that magic formula. It seems more than likely that to meet his requirements the hon the Minister of the Budget and Works will again have to go hat in hand next year to the hon the Minister of Finance.

If I may just refer to two aspects of the present Budget to which I should like to give attention, the first one is the position of our social pensioners. Since we are speaking in this House, let me refer to the White social pensioners. I think it is scandalous in the present circumstances for us to give those people an increase of only R5 per month for the whole year. [Interjections.]

It was my disagreeable privilege when I went to pay my water and light accounts in my home town the other day, to stand next to an old lady who had also come to pay her water and light accounts. I had to listen to her asking the municipal officials to cut off her lights because she no longer had any money to pay for them.

That is not true.

Does the hon member say it is not true? Is he alleging that I am not telling the truth [Interjections.]

You live on a farm. You do not have light and water accounts … [Interjections.]

There is another matter which also demonstrates this administration’s total dependence on the hon the Minister of Finance for the provision of funds, and that is the situation which obtains in regard to White teachers’ salaries. The hon the Minister of Education and Culture has had experience of this. I do not think he was satisfied for one moment with the arrangements made for White teachers.

However, we were thankful to read in the Press that there has apparently been some progress and that White teachers will seemingly get their rightful increase to wipe out the backlog under which they have suffered. We hope that is right, and if the hon the Minister does succeed, we shall be the first to thank him for having persuaded the hon the Minister of Finance to put matters right for the White teachers.

Why do we have this problem, however, that the justified demands of White pensioners and teachers cannot be satisfied? I want to stick my neck out now. When one lives in a homogeneous society, in a First World society, in which the taxpayers or well-to-do section of the population are also in the majority, there can be social expenditure to provide for pensions, education and hospitalisation. One can do this fairly easily without disrupting the economy.

When one lives in a country like South Africa with its mixed economy, with a First World and a Third World component, and one aims—as the present Government has done—at equality in the field of education, equality in the field of hospitalisation and equality in social pensions, one is then faced with the inexorable fact that the contribution the First World component makes to State revenue is the most important contribution. I am not being racist when I say that—it is a fact. Those who stand in queues for social assistance in all those spheres are mainly people from the Third World component. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to follow up on the hon member for Barberton. The hon member made a few remarks about White pensioners. This, of course, is an enormously exploitable issue on the political agenda. It is an emotional matter which can easily be exploited. I am not saying now that the hon member did so today. The hon member drew attention to the fact—I think it is fairly correct—that White pensioners today also find it difficult to come out on what they receive.

I do not have to tell that to my colleagues on this side of the House, because they know it. They also know that it is not only the White group of pensioners who face difficulties in these specific economic circumstances, but also the other groups which form part of the system as a whole.

The hon member said further that it was a fact that the First World component in a society such as ours had to bear the heaviest burden and that the people at the receiving end were mainly people from the Third World component. That is a reality we cannot escape! We definitely cannot.

Does the hon member want to argue now that it should have been the other way round, or that the Third World component is in a position to make the same financial contribution as the First World component to the State as a whole?

We could very easily use this argument, and the CP uses it to try and score political points. But if one looks at it logically, it is a complete absurdity and we dare not descend to that level to score a political point.

I am pleased the hon member for Lichtenburg is here today, because I want to touch briefly on a very emotional speech he made in this House a few days ago. [Interjections.] That speech concerned the so-called McCann document.

About the owl and the chameleon!

About the owl and the chameleon and the rock lizards. [Interjections.] And the tortoises, says that hon member. [Interjections.]

Allow me to quote one paragraph of what the hon member for Lichtenburg had to say. The hon member referred to the document which read as follows:

This was all in the document from which the hon member quoted—

Then the hon member went on to quote what the document had to say—

The hon member then said:

I am tempted to say ”Oh, shame!” [Interjections.]

I want to ask the hon member something. When he came into possession of the McCann document, surely he knew what the main aim was which was mentioned in the document. I concede therefore that the hon member surely has sufficient political and general insight in this connection to know that the main aim was to try and persuade people to participate in the elections for third-tier government. Surely that was the main aim.

[Inaudible.]

If the hon member takes such exception to it as being the main aim, what else could it be?

The work of the ANC!

Which opposition parties to which the hon member referred would have to be opposed with State funds? The hon member is working on the assumption that they are the CP and the PFP. That is not true, however. The opposition parties being referred to here are the ANC, the UDF and similar organisations. [Interjections.]

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

Mr Speaker, the hon member must be brief and to the point.

Mr Speaker, can the hon member just tell me how many UDF and ANC members will be taking part in the White election?

That is just the point. It seems to me the hon member is really confused. [Interjections.] The State is also trying in this way to counteract the ANC and the UDF so that the municipal elections among the Blacks, Coloureds and Whites will not be jeopardised. That is the crux of the issue. That is the opposition that was being referred to. Now that hon member is voluntarily ranging himself and the other opposition parties alongside opposition elements such as the ANC and the UDF. [Interjections.] Surely that is what is happening.

Who is it who talks to the ANC?

According to the policies of the Official Opposition it is, after all, also essential for Black people to take part in an orderly fashion in municipal elections. Is that a correct statement, or is it not? [Interjections.] The hon member is not responding, because he knows I am right. If there were perhaps any doubt about this, I should like to quote to the hon member from their relevant policy document which says the following under point No 2.3:

That is their policy, therefore. They go further and say:

How is the CP going to achieve all this in respect of its own policy documents if orderly third-tier elections do not take place? That is precisely what we wanted to promote through this document which fell into the hon member’s hands. I ask myself: Suppose I were in the hon member’s shoes and such a document came into my hands. What would one reasonably expect an hon opposition member to do with such a document?

To act responsibly.

Yes, to act responsibly and also to decide what effect conduct such as that of the hon member for Lichtenburg would have on the country’s interests generally. I want to tell him it was a wrong, stupid almost unpatriotic step to publicise the contents of the document in that way, knowing what its objective was. [Interjections.]

The NP …

No, not the NP. That was sensible action which was marred by the hon member for Lichtenburg … [Interjections] … who did that even when we, notwithstanding his behaviour, did not oppose the aims of that party, or even of the PFP. We simply used it in an attempt to encourage people, and through it we want to try to encourage people to take part in a democratic process.

I have often quoted this wonderful piece of work by the CP, Leer die Konserwatiewe Party ken. Question 13 asks the following:

When we do everything possible to achieve this, to establish credible Black leadership, that party puts a spoke in the wheel. I find it remarkable that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition—I am sorry he is not here this afternoon—referred to a main policy document of the NP on which we fought and won the last election.

Won it well!

Yes, won it well. The election was preceded by a federal congress of the NP. At that congress certain policy standpoints were put by the hon the State President, standpoints which were eventually clarified and adopted by congresses of the NP and which formed the basis of the political struggle during the election. This document refers to Black rights, and I quote briefly:

That is precisely what we are trying to achieve. That is the first policy standpoint.

The second policy standpoint in this connection is the following:

We said to the voters:

That is our standpoint. In contrast to that, the Official Opposition has said they stand for a policy of 13 partitioned states and all that that entails. I am struck by what the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition said recently, after they had lost the election, when referring to this main document on which we contested the election.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition now says the following, and I quote from the television debate between him and the hon the Minister of National Education:

He was referring to this policy document—

Can hon members imagine that? When they had lost the election, the hon the Leader of the Opposition also began to think as we do—

When did the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition wake up to this point of view? He went on to say:

[Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, we in these benches would believe that in the municipal elections people of all races should go to the polls in their millions. We believe that it is important that people engage in the system in order to change it.

What we question, regarding the document cited, is the means being utilised to fund that campaign and why the hon the Minister of Information did not discuss it under his Vote earlier. [Interjections.] These are pertinent questions … [Interjections] … and we will continue to raise them. [Interjections.]

When we commenced the debate on this Budget we indicated quite clearly, as we have over the past four years, that we rejected the concept of racial own affairs and its structuring by this Government. We believe that there is a commonality across racial groupings that extends far beyond the rigid restrictions that this governing party has imposed constitutionally. Here we can cite examples.

The only department that has been publicly argued by the NP as fully deserving of a place in own affairs is the Department of Education and Culture. That is an “eie saak” from beginning to end. The others have bits and pieces in general affairs: health and welfare, local government, agriculture and all the other aspects are permutated into general affairs. However, not education; that is an “eie saak”.

The question that we have constantly asked about own affairs education is on what it is based. What is the moral basis of own affairs education? Is it that it is based around a common language, as happens in other countries? We have acknowledged that it happens in Switzerland, Belgium and in Yugoslavia. Is it based around a common religion as happens in some countries, with Catholic and Protestant schools? No, there is no commonality among Afrikaans-speaking people in one department in this country. There is no commonality among English-speaking people in one department. It is purely on the basis of skin colour, irrespective of all other issues.

We believe that it is important that this Government, if it is going to wrestle with reality in South Africa, will have to move away from skin colour. Here I want to cite the hon member for Umhlatuzana who spoke last week in connection with own affairs. He said it had to be extended—I mentioned this on Monday—including local government which had to be fully incorporated into own affairs. Then again he also mentioned another organization. I want to quote as follows from his speech where he quotes Clarion Call, the Inkatha publication:

He does that. He returns later to the subject:

He then goes on to say:

That is the fact that the majority of Whites do not wish to be dominated. He says:

He goes on to put the point of the distance between the NP and the moderate organisation of Inkatha. I want to put a direct question to the NP and the hon the Minister who is going to reply to this. What is the position of the NP, because that hon member was followed almost immediately by the hon member for Innesdal who had talked about the necessity of sitting round the table with the ANC? He indicated later that it could only take place on the condition that they forswore violence. I want to ask the hon the Minister where the NP stands with regard to negotiations and discussions with Inkatha. Are they absolutely, inflexibly and dogmatically behind the concept of own affairs as a keystone of the future of South Africa?

Of course!

Is it not negotiable?

One cannot really negotiate that. [Interjections.]

That is the key point, because I believe the moment the NP indicates that it is a negotiable option for the future of South Africa, we will have got past the log-jam in which we are caught today. [Interjections.]

I want to revert to a matter on which the hon the Minister did not answer me on Tuesday and that is the question of teachers’ salaries. I am not fighting with him. This question was brought up in the Ministers’ Council and in the Cabinet this week and the hon the Minister knows the TFC also talked about it. When the TFC indicated on Tuesday that they had met with the hon the Minister of National Education on Tuesday morning and that he had indicated that there was a possibility of something happening in the near future, they were content to leave it in the hon the Minister’s hands.

I would just like to indicate once again to this hon Minister that resignations of teachers have to be submitted by the end of a school term which is due in two weeks’ time. I trust that the hon the Minister or his colleagues will make an announcement on teachers’ salaries very soon. I want to indicate clearly that I am not saying the NP are doing nothing. What I am saying that they have to get this matter out of the log-jam.

Finally, the subject of rationalisation in education has been raised by the hon the Minister of Education and Culture in the House of Assembly.

*He will be aware of the monthly publication of the Transvaal Teachers’ Association, Mondstuk, in which an article appeared under the heading “Rasionalisering onder die kombers?” On page 3 of this publication the following questions are asked:

†They ask a series of questions of which not one has been answered satisfactorily. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Pinetown will pardon me if I do not react to his speech. In the limited time available to me I want to touch on another aspect.

Since we started discussing this specific Appropriation Bill in March this year my impression has been that we have been shadow boxing. It reminds me of the story of the account of the heavy-weight boxer who had to defend his title against a much lighter opponent. The argument was presented to him that his lighter opponent would be too quick for him. His reply was that his opponent might be able to run away, but would not be able to hide.

We are dealing with an opposition which manages to run away as well as hide. I say that out of frustration, because when I spoke about this Bill in March I devoted my speech of nearly 20 minutes, and put specific questions, to the hon members for Bethal and Ermelo.

I had a book with me of which they were coauthors—Witman waar is jou Tuisland?—and I pointed out certain contradictions in full and there was not a single reply forthcoming. However, in mitigation I must add that the two hon members were not in the House at the time. In order to give them an opportunity to give a proper reply in this regard I briefly want to point out to them once again certain contradictions between what they profess in the book and what they profess in this House.

In the book the two hon members totally reject the linkage policy which the NP applied at that stage and called it a ploy. In this House they defend the linkage policy. My question then was and is once again: How have they resolved this contradiction of theirs in the meantime?

Even if they told you you would not understand!

We are asking them for an explanation. If they do not reply and persist in running away and hiding, after a while they start …

Mr Speaker, I merely want to ask the hon member whether, in regard to this specific point which was also raised by the hon Minister of Transport Affairs, he read my reply to the question he is now asking.

Mr Speaker, I did not read the reply. I do not know where it has been placed on record. [Interjections.] I should also like him to tell me when he deals with it again or refers to the place where he discussed it in the past to tell me how he is able to describe the linkage policy as a ploy in the book and is able to agree with it here. How can he say that in that book, of which those hon members are the authors, because they are not people who are intellectually unendowed? In that book it is said that the Blacks who established themselves in the RSA would have to receive full political rights. That is a fact which is stated in that book, and it is thoroughly argued, but in this House those two hon members support a policy according to which Blacks will in fact be permanent, but will not receive any political rights. That is a completely irreconcilable contradiction for which I have not yet heard any explanation, and we are still waiting. I am waiting for the occasion on which those two hon members can explain it to us.

For example, in the book the two hon members discuss the desirability, which they proclaim, of an attenuated and scaled down Afrikaner region, in other words, a small White homeland. That is in reply to the question: White man, where is your homeland? In that book they say that the RSA is grey and will remain grey. In this House, however, these hon gentlemen say that the White area will remain as it is at present, and that it is a White area. Those are direct contradictions, and are irreconcilable. Once again, I should like to hear the explanation, if it has already been given.

In the book the two gentlemen proclaim that further consolidation of Black areas in the Black homelands is a waste of time and money. In this House—according to their policy of course—they support the further consolidation of Black homelands.

The statement I actually want to make is the following. I accept that there is a reason. I accept that it could perhaps be explained. Nevertheless, I do not know how, and I have never been informed. If these two hon members do not do so now, I must begin to doubt the bonafides of their standpoint in this House. Of course I should not like to do that. [Interjections.] I therefore ask for a clear statement. What has caused those two hon gentlemen to relinquish the idea of a pure, smaller White homeland, which they have extolled with so much praise?

I want to quote a short passage to indicate the extent to which they sing the praises of the concept of such a small homeland. I quote from their own book:

In this House they say the borders must remain as they are. Surely that is totally contradictory; quite a different concept; quite a different philosophy. In this debate these hon members have the opportunity to reply to this.

Now I must admit that an attempt was made to reply during the absence of those two hon members. The hon member for Soutpansberg reacted to my previous speech. He said my speech was too learned. He did not understand it. He did not understand what I was trying to tell him. If he does not understand, I know that at least those two hon members, who were both senior advocates in their day, will understand and will try to furnish a reply. [Interjections.] We are waiting in tense anticipation for a clear reply and an adequate explanation as to how this about-turn occurred; otherwise we are going to associate that book and what they wrote in it with them for the rest of their days and they will not be able to evade the responsibility for that.

Those two hon members have a further problem of course. They also operate in the sphere of influence of the AWB, between whose philosophy and that of the CP there is also a lot of conflict, especially in view of the fact that in this House they have to march under the CP banner. I think those two hon members have a real headache when they have to try to reconcile the whole series of separate factions they have already supported. One would have to have something resembling a split personality in order to accommodate these divergent standpoints.

That brings me to another aspect, namely that that party, I notice, is now engaged in proving themselves further—as in the past—as being the destroyers and underminers of Afrikaner institutions. In yesterday’s edition of The Citizen I read that they were also engaged in breaking away from the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut. Not only was it necessary for them to break away politically, not only was it necessary for them to establish their own Afrikaner-Volkswag, in the cultural sphere, not only was it necessary for them to break away to the right in the clerical sphere, but in addition to the political, the cultural and the clerical sphere they now even have to go so far as to break away in the economic sphere as well.

Does that party really have no respect, no feeling for the importance of the Afrikaans ethnic group? Will they, for the sake of their political policy—which can never work in any case—and out of pure frustration try to destroy our ethnic group and put it at a disadvantage on every level of our Afrikaner life? I am now speaking as a member of that ethnic group and a person who attaches great value to it. [Interjections.]

In one of his statements, Mr Daan van der Merwe, former MP, speaking on behalf of the CP explained why it was necessary to break away from the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut. I quote from yesterday’s The Citizen. Mr Daan van der Merwe complained and said:

Mr Speaker, to say that the hon the State President could make pawns of those bodies is surely the most ridiculous thing anyone could say. How could one person accomplish something like that. No, the Official Opposition is too useless to maintain themselves in those bodies, and that is why they ran away. [Interjections.] In their incompetent and frustrated way they are now proceeding to destroy the Afrikaner and his institutions. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, it is remarkable that the national economy simply does not want to get under way. There was a kind of temporary artificial revival, but we see that it is declining again. All the signs indicate that it is simply going to level off again.

One of the reasons for this unfortunate state of affairs is of course the great lack of confidence. The reason for this is that there is a lack of confidence in the reform plans of this almost played-out Government. [Interjections.] A few months ago the HSRC said in their report on reform that only 13% of the Afrikaans-speaking people had confidence in reform. Even in the NP there are already 38% who are opposed to reform. How on earth can one gain people’s confidence in the economic sphere if one has lost their confidence in the political sphere? [Interjections.]

Order!

The HSRC has also found unequivocal signs that the momentum of reform was slowing down at a breathtaking rate and would peter out before long. McCann, the NP’s psychological adviser, told them for example that they should no longer try to reach the voters as the NP; they should make use of the Owl and the Chameleon because they were far better than the NP. Now we wonder who is going to be the Owl and who is going to be the Chameleon as 26 October approaches! [Interjections.]

The NP’s magic words during the past year were “security, peace, prosperity”, but what about security? Twenty-five per cent more Whites were murdered or assaulted by Blacks recently. That is the security the NP is referring to!

Peace? We read that even the lives of MPs are in danger. The ANC is active, three bombs in one day! What we have never ever experienced before we are experiencing now. Where is the peace?

Prosperity? Where are the new projects? On the contrary, there are fewer employment opportunities.

Last year the hon member for Caledon said in the corresponding debate that the CP (House of Assembly: Hansard, col 4769)—

He then went on to say in col 4769 that—

The hon members therefore dissociate themselves from the CP.

I want to ask why an increasing number of Afrikaners are turning their backs on the Government. [Interjections.] The NP no longer has the confidence of the Afrikaners. The NP has become an extreme left-wing radical party. They have completely disregarded the heartbeat of the Afrikaners and their ideals, their vision and what belongs to them, and want to cast these ideals like pearls before swine.

Furthermore the hon member said the CP would be reduced to a regional phenomenon representing only a third of the Afrikaners. A great shock awaits the NP on 26 October. [Interjections.] This afternoon I want to predict that more than half of the Afrikaners in South Africa are going to vote for the CP. This afternoon I also want to predict that almost a quarter of the English-speaking people in South Africa are going to vote for the CP on 26 October. Hon members will see that on 27 October when the results are out. [Interjections.]

Furthermore I also want to tell the hon member that the outside world does not fear a CP Government, but it does fear the inability of the present government to govern …

And its dishonesty.

… and its overcautious way of approaching the future which renders investments here totally unsafe.

Order! Which hon member said “the Government’s dishonesty”?

Mr Speaker, I said it.

The hon member must withdraw it.

Sir, I withdraw it.

Would anyone invest in a business which has no direction, and which tiptoes apprehensively into the dark future?

Besides an unstable Government, there are also other reasons for the poor economic condition and the lamentable growth rate of our country. Firstly, the public sector is spending hopelessly too much. Of the last 10 years there has not been one year in which the Government’s books balanced. In fact, there have even been years in which 15% more was spent than what was collected. What a poor example this Government is setting the citizens of this country! They say “Go ahead and spend more than you earn, you do not have to worry, because we are also doing that.” [Interjections.]

In order to even things out, privatisation has to take place at full speed. The accumulated debt of years, which amounts to the enormous total of R54 billion, now has to be paid off with capital goods. [Interjections.] What a tragic day that has dawned for this once proud and growing South Africa! [Interjections.]

A further problem is the almost irresponsible way in which parity is being applied. Suddenly everyone must enjoy all the benefits, regardless of whether they can afford it or not. [Interjections.] Of the approximately 15 000 families in Alexandra, for example, only 250 are not in arrears with their rentals. How can an economy grow if things proceed in this way, with such norms? We have also heard that in the next few years parity has to be achieved in education. Can our country afford this almost impossible quest for parity in every sphere? (Interjections.]

Furthermore, Die Staatsamptenaar of April 1988 said that the staff of the Public Service had increased and added:

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

I only have a few minutes left, Sir.

Parity was applied so that salaries rose as follows in the five years up to 1987: Whites, 90%; Coloureds, 152%; Indians, 161,5%; and Blacks, 171%. [Interjections.] Everything must simply revolve around parity, and that is the downfall of the economy. [Interjections.]

The third factor which is devastating our economy is low productivity. According to the National Productivity Institute, productivity in South Africa is among the lowest in the world. [Interjections.] That is the main reason for the high rate of inflation. From 1981 to 1986 the per capita growth rate in South Africa was 2,1%. In Iran it is 4% and in Taiwan 6,4%. Since the ill-considered action of the Government, namely of creating non-White trading unions, the emphasis in South Africa has shifted from production per person to remuneration per person.

If we read the front page of today’s edition of The Citizen we see that the strikes of the past three days are costing this country R500 million. [Interjections.] If the farmers speak of R400 million, more than one person argues that they should not get it. [Interjections.] If the salaries of teachers had been raised by 11%, it would merely have cost the country R660 million. Here R500 million was thrown down the drain in only a few days because the Government, in an ill-considered deed, approved of these unions. [Interjections.]

The emphasis is shifting from the employer to the employee. We apparently want to create a workers’ paradise with Third World workers and use Europe as a model. The consequences are that the costs of labour have risen astronomically. There is no prosperity if there is no productivity. [Interjections.]

In reply to a question by the hon member for Brits to the hon the Minister of Transport Affairs in regard to the punctuality of the air service between Johannesburg and Cape Town, he said that there were delays of 30%. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I am following up on the hon member for Witbank who drifted along aimlessly, touching on various aspects and in each case dwelling on the emotional and never the factual aspects, because the emotional tenor of his speech would have had to be watered down if he had had to deal with facts. Facts differ from the emotion which is so often displayed by that side of the House. I do not, therefore, want to say much about that because hon members opposite are afraid of the facts; they are fond of stirring up emotions.

I want to respond to a few aspects which were raised recently in the debate on own affairs. The first deals with speculations about Groot Constantia. Recently there were more speculations about Groot Constantia Estate when an amount of R5,7 million was approved for Groot Constantia in the supplementary estimates on 7 June. I am grateful for those funds, because they will definitely help to solve Groot Constantia’s problems.

I also noted, with great, appreciation, the very worthy sentiments expressed in regard to Groot Constantia. It merely proves to me once again that Groot Constantia is one of the most important culture-historical assets of the Republic of South Africa, and that all groups have a sentimental attachment to Groot Constantia. The Government is not insensitive to the Groot Constantia Estate.

Reference was made to privatisation by hon members of the House and my colleague, the hon the Minister of the Budget and Works. He indicated, quite correctly, that privatisation of a State-owned estates was not his responsibility, but fell under the Department of Agriculture and Water Supply.

As the Deputy Minister responsible, I should like to react to the matter of privatisation. After the State had taken over control of Groot Constantia from the private sector, it soon became clear that the management and preservation of the Govemment estate should not again be entrusted to the private sector. It should rather be placed under the orderly management, in the culture-historical sphere, of the Board of the South African Cultural History Museum, with the farming sector under the Groot Constantia Control Board.

The figure of R5,7 million which has been voted in the supplementary estimates is, in fact, the money we have to pay out now as a result of private control of the estate in the past. We had to replace all the vines, something which they had neglected to do. Groot Constantia must also be seen as a unit, in the sense that the vineyards and the buildings represent a joint culture-historical asset, and with certain sentiments attaching to it as consisting of separate components.

The Ministers’ Council has given thorough consideration to the privatisation or otherwise of Groot Constantia. Last year the Ministers’ Council discussed the various alternatives, including privatisation of the estate, and decided that privatisation was not practicable. Other alternatives were consequently decided upon, namely the setting up of a co-ordinating committee to supervise the future of Groot Constantia.

Two representatives, each from the Board of the South Africa Cultural History Museum and the Groot Constantia Board of Control will serve on the committee to delimit the areas of control of each of the two bodies and to co-operate on joint issues. In other words, we have looked at a form of control other than privatisation to iron out the problems. We have discussed other alternatives.

This means that the future of Groot Constantia will be vested in the functions and activities of the culture-historical component and the farming component, which will be divided into two distinct entities. Good co-operation has thus been achieved. The culture-historical aspects of the farming activities, for instance, will be included in this component. In other words, there has been a clear delimitation.

The culture-historical facet will be rationalised and administered by the Board of the South African Cultural History Museum in terms of the National Monuments Act.

The farming sector will be vested in the Groot Constantia Board of Control in terms of the Groot Constantia Estate Control Act. The Groot Constantia Board of Control will advise the Ministers’ Council on the management and financial running of the estate, including the handling of loan debt, privatisation, should it eventuate, and any other matter the control board wishes to bring to the attention of the Ministers’ Council.

A new control board for Groot Constantia has been established, under chairmanship of Dr Dawid de Villiers, assisted by Mr J van Niekerk of the KWV, Dr J Deist of the Viticultural and Oenological Research Institute in Stellenbosch, Mr Sydney Beck of Paarl and Mr Hendrik van Zyl, who through the Cloetes, has ties with Groot Constantia. This board, which has functioned since the beginning of this year, has performed a mammoth task in identifying and solving problems and putting Groot Constantia on a new path of co-operation.

Through the few ideas I have expressed here, I want to make it clear that privatisation forms no part of the solution which we foresee for Groot Constantia, that no privatisation of Groot Constantia Estate in any form is being considered by the Ministers’ Council and that speculations in this regard can now cease.

I also want to touch on another matter which has not been raised yet. Because this is the last debate on own affairs, we must deal with this matter which has its roots in the past. One of the subjects discussed in previous agricultural debates is being used by the opposition outside the House to discredit the Government. The campaign is specifically being conducted by the opposition, in spite of appeals not to do so by the hon the Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply and by me. I am referring specifically to circumstances surrounding the sequestration of Mr J N Beyers and I want to discuss this matter briefly. I do so because agricultural finance falls within my delegated powers and I am therefore responsible for matters relevant to this case.

The controversy was started by the hon member for Lichtenburg who passed certain remarks about the court documents in the matter between North-West Co-operative Ltd and J N Beyers. The hon member for Lichtenburg said in his speech:

This is a quotation from the speech of the hon member for Lichtenburg.

These circumstances were then and still are being presented by the opposition as an indication that the action of the two hon Ministers was unfair to the Beyers family. The hon member for Lichtenburg went further in his speech and quoted certain other aspects of the court case. He said:

The hon member for Lichtenburg then quoted the judge:

That is, the judge …

The opposition is now using the judge’s words against us on political platforms, as if the hon the Minister of Agriculture and the hon the Minister of Finance were actually responsible for the Beyers’ sequestration. In my view this is where, in a certain sense, the hon members of the opposition indulge in cheap, misleading politics and selective quotations, even from court cases, to put their case across.

We are aware that judges are protected by privilege, and we have accordingly taken legal advice on how we should interpret the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case in which North-West Co-operative Ltd applied for the sequestration of the estate of Mr J N Beyers. That is the case from which the hon member for Lichtenburg also quoted certain portions. According to the advice we received from the legal advisers the judge’s remarks that he did not necessarily agree with the Government’s interpretation of the Stateguarantee scheme, could be regarded merely as obiter. In fact, the judge stated that for purposes of the relevant decision, he need make no further comment on the State’s opinion. The term obiter dictum is used in the legal profession and means “remark in passing” or “incidental statement”, and does not form part of the judgment, ie the ratio decidendi or the considerations on which his judgment is based. That remark, therefore, does not form part of the judgment and for that reason is not regarded as authoritative.

You should become a lecturer in law!

Well, I do have legal advisers. [Interjections.] We have certain basic points of departure in regard to legal advisers, as I have explained to that party. The CP, however, are again doing what they always do when we are dealing with facts—they start making interjections, because they are afraid to hear the truth. [Interjections]

The hon member for Lichtenburg used these incidental quotations from the judgment as the basis of his statement, and I quote further from his speech:

It is clear, therefore, that the hon member for Lichtenburg tried to use this judgment to bring the House under a misapprehension by only quoting the incidental remark made by the judge. He is only doing it to make political capital and get at the hon the Minister. [Interjections.]

I also want to point out that neither the State, the Government or the Minister were party to these proceedings. Consequently, the State and the hon the Minister were not required to explain the Government’s standpoint on the workings of the State-guarantee scheme to the court.

I am of the opinion that if the court had had to give a ruling on the conduct of the State, it would first have given the State or the hon the Minister the opportunity to put their side of the case. Had the court decided to call for an explanation of the Government’s implementation of its policy in so far as the State-guarantee scheme was concerned, and approached the Department or the hon the Minister in this regard, we would have brought the following facts to the attention of the court. These facts must be taken into account when deciding on the course of the actions the hon member for Lichtenburg mentioned.

As far as the State-guarantee scheme is concerned, ie the action between the Land Bank and the co-operatives, let me say that the scheme originated when farmers were unable, as a result of crop failures and droughts, to repay the money they had borrowed from co-operatives to plant their crops. Because of the farmers’ weak financial position and large debt burden, the cooperatives were unwilling to grant further credit. The farmers could therefore not obtain money to purchase seed, fertiliser and diesel oil to enable them to plant again.

The State realised the problem and introduced a scheme through which the co-operatives could, subject to certain conditions, advance Land Bank money to farmers. These funds could only be used for planting crops, and for no other purpose. In other words, it was only production credit.

After the crop had been harvested, this crop production loan had to be repaid to the cooperative, which in turn repaid the debt to the Land Bank. If the farmer again suffered a crop failure and had to be sequestrated, which meant that the farmer could not repay all the money, the State would repay to the Land Bank that portion of the debt which could not to be recovered from the farmer. This scheme was known as the R800 million State-guarantee scheme and was implemented in 1982.

The scheme functioned under specific conditions. The first was that only the funds for production credit advanced by the co-operative to the farmer, and no other debt, were covered by the State-guarantee scheme. The second was that the co-operative had to collect the outstanding debt, and if the whole debt could not be recovered, the State-guarantee scheme became operative and the State would then make good the difference.

In May 1984 these conditions of the guarantee were further clarified to the effect that the Land Bank had to reach an agreement with the relevant co-operatives on the formulation of a clear credit and debt-collection policy and that the Land Bank would regularly monitor the implementation of this policy. In this way the Land Bank had to satisfy itself that the co-operatives concerned were adhering strictly to the policy.

This statement also made it clear that when a debt could not be collected in full from the member in question, the guarantee would apply only to that portion of the outstanding debt after all the assets of the member concerned had been converted into cash. In February 1987 the guarantee was extended further …

Mr Speaker, may I ask the hon the Deputy Minister a question?

No, Sir, I do not have the time now.

In February 1987 the guarantee was further extended so that any outstanding production or carry-over debt, incurred after a settlement agreement had been reached in terms of the provisions of the Agricultural Credit Act, would also qualify as a claim under the State-guarantee scheme. Hon members must take note of the date, namely 1987. Only arrangements in terms of the Agricultural Credit Act would be placed, as outstanding production debt, under the Stateguarantee scheme after sequestration in terms of the provisions of the Agricultural Credit Act.

According to the Beyers’ first draft settlement application, the settlement was not presented in terms of the conditions and arrangements pertaining to the Agricultural Credit Act. The Stateguarantee scheme was therefore not involved, and only the 1985 provision applied, ie that all assets must be converted to cash.

The hon the Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply announced a further financial aid scheme on 8 June 1987 in an effort to keep farmers on their farms. The Lichtenburg attorney submitted this settlement application to the Land Bank as a preferential creditor in terms of the Stateguarantee scheme, requesting the Land Bank’s approval. The Land Bank was not satisfied that the results of the draft settlement agreement would protect the rights of the creditors and, therefore, could not accept it. A court order for sequestration was therefore the only way to bring the State guarantee into operation.

We come now to the R400 million scheme. Hon members may disagree with this, but this is how it works.

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

No, that hon member can put a question to me when I have finished.

This scheme specifically came into being purely as a result of bad farming conditions. The object was not to help all those farmers who were faced with sequestration proceedings. It was introduced in conjunction with the SA AU, and those provisions were made public in advance and implemented by the Agricultural Credit Board. There were conditions that had to be met. The most important provision related to security, the board deciding and implementing normal agricultural credit procedure.

This R400 million scheme, therefore, had other norms and guidelines which had to be adopted but which differed from those of the R800 million guarantee scheme. According to that scheme, a settlement arrangement application had to be submitted to the local magistrate and the normal procedure had to be adopted. The Agricultural Credit Board, which is an autonomous board, then gave its decision based on the prescribed guidelines and provisions of the legislation and on the merits of the application.

When considering an application, it is important for the sections of the Act to be borne in mind. A very important point comes to the fore here. In my presence the hon the Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply requested the Agricultural Credit Board to examine the circumstances as sympathetically as possible within the ambit of the Act.

This application, first addressed to the Land Bank and then to the Agricultural Credit Board, was not found to be acceptable. That was one of the major political problems we encountered. After the draft settlement agreement was turned down by the Land Bank, it was submitted to the Agricultural Credit Board, and we found that the situation of the Beyers group was extremely complicated as a result of individual estates which were interwoven, farming companies and all kinds of sureties and mortgages. All the provisions were not fully complied with.

Because of the time factor I just want to make a few final remarks in this connection. The Agricultural Credit Board considered this arrangement with the utmost compassion. It took account of all the provisions of the Act, as well as the conditions of the R400 million scheme, but faced with a debt ratio of liabilities 284% in excess of assets—in other words, R11 million liabilities as against R4 million assets on their own valuation—the board decided that the application could not succeed and that there was no reasonable prospect of continuing to farm successfully. The board came to its decision as an autonomous body, and I have examined all the information and support the board in the decision it has taken.

In conclusion I want to say that I am sorry that this matter has had to be discussed in the open again. It affects people who have suffered. They were people of standing in the community and they did a lot for agriculture. We have been forced by the opposition to focus on this matter again, and I hope that with this explanation it will now be finalised and removed from public debate.

Mr Speaker, I am not able to comment on the hon the Deputy Minister’s statements about the Beyers case. As far as Groot Constantia is concerned, the hon the Deputy Minister has outlined the new direction it is to take. There is certainly no way in which the cultural-historical section could possibly be privatised. I have reservations about the fact that the farming section of Groot Constantia is now going to be run by a control board. We have already got ourselves into a bit of a mess in that respect.

It is not a control board.

I believe there is a possibility that the operations on that ground could be contracted out more successfully, but we shall give the hon the Deputy Minister an opportunity to show whether this can be turned from a burden into a national asset.

I am a little surprised that the hon the Minister is not here today, because I want to discuss Vote 2, Agriculture, and specifically Programme 4 which covers agricultural resource utilisation. I want to repeat our contention that agriculture is not an own affair and I wanted to urge the hon the Minister to reason with his Cabinet colleagues and to persuade them of the absolute stupidity of this sort of nonsensical separation. [Interjections.]

I have only taken agricultural resource utilisation as an example. The stated aim of this programme is to evaluate the optimum food production potential of agricultural resources; to identify utilisation and production problems and find solutions for these problems; to develop new scope for production; and to exercise control over the use of agricultural resources. The programme also gathers knowledge concerning our resources, soil, water, climate and energy.

How can this in any way be regarded as an own affair operation? Climatically, the sun that shines on the Whites in South Africa also shines on Coloured, Indian and Black people, including farmers. When it rains, it rains on all of them. We live side by side in the same areas. Our farms, even if White-owned, need people of other races to enable them to operate at all. Agriculture is in fact one of the most integrated of all our industries in that people of all races work side by side to work the farms and to produce food for us all. When agricultural produce finally gets to the consumer we do not divide it into own affairs and general affairs mealies! We stand side by side in shops and supermarkets to buy the produce of our farmers.

That is general affairs!

The whole concept makes South Africa look ridiculous.

In a debate on this subject in one of the other Houses the hon the Deputy Minister described farming as a leveller “because it exposes people to one another, because people need one another, and because it teaches them to co-operate”. He was quite right. In reading the report of that debate it was quite evident that the hon the Deputy Minister was avoiding the whole issue of separation in agriculture. He was running away from criticism because he could produce no logical argument at all to defend a position which was quite indefensible.

The hon the Minister of Agriculture himself on more than one occasion in the past has tried to justify the situation by saying that research and knowledge attained through our own affairs department is readily available, not only to White farmers but also to farmers of other races through their various departments. If the research programme is designed to provide knowledge for all farmers, why is it not a general affair? I believe this question is unanswerable.

Even more disgraceful—I return to another section of the hon the Deputy Minister’s speech—is the situation with regard to agricultural credit dealt with in the same Vote under Programme 6. The aim of this programme is to provide financial and other assistance to farmers and farming enterprises with a view to safeguarding and promoting the farming industry; to promote the optimum density of population in remote areas; to acquire land and improvements for farming purposes; and to exercise control of such land.

When it comes to the promotion of optimum density of population in remote areas, are we talking about Whites only? Are people of other races not going to be counted when we promote optimum density? South Africa has been faced with a continuing problem of farmers leaving the land. This has been particularly so in some of the more remote border areas.

When we talk about encouraging farmers to farm these areas, are we talking about White farmers alone? If we are, I say that the programme is doomed to failure. What we should be doing, is persuading qualified people of any race to farm these areas for their own benefit and for the benefit of South Africa as well. Encouragement must come through Government assistance, and it is ridiculous and discriminatory that the Agricultural Credit Act is applied as an own affairs act, and it is.

Because I believe that the hon the Minister and the hon the Deputy Minister of Agriculture and their colleague the hon the Deputy Minister of Water Supply are reasonably intelligent men, although somewhat misguided, I just cannot believe that they are convinced in their own minds that this separation in agriculture is a logical and intelligent way of supporting and servicing the agricultural industry.

It is a crutch for own affairs!

Whenever they attempt to defend their position, their arguments lack conviction completely, and they must know that this cleavage just does not make sense at all. They must know that trying to separate an already integrated industry is nonsensical. I am sure that in their heart of hearts they must know that the present system is not in the best interests of agriculture and that it is not in the best interests of South Africa. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, during the discussion of the Vote of the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council on 16 May, the hon member for Brits thought fit to launch a scathing personal attack on me, which I regard as unfair, and to make certain allegations concerning me, to which I would very much like to reply now. I am very glad that the hon member is in the House, and I cordially invite him to listen now so that he gets the true facts in this regard once and for all.

That hon member accused me—that was on 16 May—of withholding from the public the facts and the reasons why the teachers’ training college in Paarl had been closed and was subsequently going to be amalgamated with the one in Wellington later. On 16 May the hon member said, inter alia, the following:

That is both tragic and comic, Sir. I spurn and reject with contempt that hon member’s claims and those of his party to want to convey the facts to the public, because this side of the House has shown on numerous occasions in the past that confusion has arisen when the CP has gone out to convey the so-called facts, whether it is because they do not get their little sums right or because they have not put the whole matter in perspective.

The hon member then went on to say:

Let us see what debate the hon member was referring to. The hon member was referring to the debate of 10 March on the private member’s motion by the hon member for Brentwood. I would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that I made the announcement about rationalisation in a Press statement as early as 9 October last year, and I will return to that in a moment. It was 10 March when the hon member first spoke about rationalisation here, and that was in a debate which dealt with the meaning and principle of rationalisation as formulated by the hon member for Brentwood.

The interesting thing is that in Hansard—I made it my task to look this up—the hon member’s speech on that occasion runs to six and a half columns. The hon member’s reference to rationalisation comprises only three quarters of a column. In the rest of his speech he vented his spleen and accused me of leaving my people in the lurch—a large part of his speech was about that—because my colleague, the hon the Minister of Education and Development, had apparently said in one of the other Houses that I had also played a role, an important role, in accomplishing a favourable division of educational means in the interests of all South Africans.

Let me tell the hon member now that I am proud of that. Yes, I am proud that I could make a contribution. Yet I stand on this side of the House primarily to watch over the interests of the education of the White community. That is my responsibility.

It is nevertheless just as important, in the interests of the country and also of the Afrikaners and the Whites, that I take care that we also do everything possible to act as Christians at all times, and not just to preach or make hypocritical references to our Christianity. It is a proven fact that there are certain backlogs in the provision of education to the other population groups. This Government has, however, committed itself to developing towards parity in the course of time.

In my heart I am completely happy and content in the knowledge that the improvement in the provision of education to the other population groups as well will eventually also be in the best interests of the Whites of this country, and I make no excuse for saying so.

The hon member for Brits devoted the last half column of his speech to entertaining the House—hon members can consult Hansard if they wish—by referring to what reliable people had alleged to him. He was referring to what reliable people had apparently alleged in relation to certain things concerning the closure of the Paarl College of Education.

Who are those people?

Well then, Sir, let me now reply to the hon member. He also accused me of neglecting to provide the public with reasons. In fact, in the particular debate to which the hon member referred, and in respect of which he accused me of not replying to him, I did not reply to him. The hon member is absolutely correct. I did not devote a single word of my reply to answering the points he raised. The reason for that is that we were engaged in a meaningful debate on the essence and the principle of rationalisation. Then the hon member started plodding around trying to dig up things which, as I have already indicated, took place in October last year. It was already March this year when that hon member decided he wanted to debate that matter, and he put forward what he had ostensibly gathered and the information that certain reliable people had ostensibly given him.

There is a second reason why I did not reply to the hon member. I spent my time answering those speeches which made sense.

Now you are talking like a chameleon!

Furthermore, by that date I had already answered the questions to which the hon member referred, and in respect of which he made his accusations against me during the debate on 16 May on the Budget Vote of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council, on several previous occasions.

In spite of that, the hon member went on to say in his speech of 16 May:

That was his attack. Now let us see whether I had actually done so before. Yes or no? The hon member must now test this against the so-called truth which he wants to proclaim to the public and about which he wants to make the facts known.

What are the facts? On 29 September 1987 I announced in a Press statement that certain rationalisation steps were to be taken in all four provinces, and these included the phasing out of the Oudtshoorn Teachers’ Training College. The reasons for this rationalisation—the hon member must have a look at that statement—were spelled out clearly. I also indicated that rationalisation would ensure the highest possible standard of education and training in future.

Thereafter, in two separate Press statements on 9 October 1987, I stated the principles and policy fundamental to rationalisation and announced that initial teachers’ training would take place in future at the Wellington College of Education, the Cape Town Teachers’ Training College and the Port Elizabeth College of Education. I made this announcement as long ago as that.

Furthermore, in a comprehensive letter published in Die Burger of 2 February 1988 I replied to a number of questions which Die Burger had put to me. My letter was published in its entirety. In it I mentioned, inter alia, that discussions had been held as widely as possible with all the affected parties. I also said that numerous interviews had been conducted at the earliest possible opportunity with various parties and that, as the minutes indicated, the problem had been discussed incisively, honestly, candidly and, in all cases, with mutual understanding and in a very good spirit.

I ask the hon member now to measure this against the information he was given by those so-called reliable people.

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

No, Sir, the hon member must first wait and take his punishment.

In the same letter appeared the following:

I am still quoting from the letter:

This is important—

This is a clear answer to the hon member’s questions, in which I was accused of not informing the general public. The letter continues:

I want to ask the hon member if he agrees with that. Does the hon member want us, here in public, to play off against each other two institutions with such proud traditions? Is that what the hon member wants?

I never said that.

That was the standpoint I adopted during interviews, and it was accepted with understanding and acknowledgement.

That is not all that happened. I also appeared on television. During a TV interview on 10 February 1988 I said, inter alia, the following, and I quote verbatim:

This refers to the closure—

I want to take this further. In answer to two questions from the hon member on Tuesday, 1 March 1988, I provided the House of Assembly with the reasons for the closure of the Paarl College of Education. He came and asked about it again on 16 May. I mentioned then the facilities which were available at the Paarl College of Education but not at the Wellington College of Education, and vice versa.

After that, the hon member also tried to make petty politics out of the matter in a speech. I shall leave it at that because I do not have the time to go into details.

Furthermore, I announced in a Press statement on 2 March 1988 that most of the facilities at the Paarl College of Education would be taken over by the SA Police, while the rest would be used by the Cape Education Department.

Lastly, on Tuesday in this House I gave replies to another six questions. The hon member had ample opportunity then to stand up and ask supplementary questions, but he did not do so.

Now I want to know why the hon member thought fit, when he had a turn to speak on the Budget Vote of the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council on 16 May, to abuse this opportunity by launching such an attack. I am sorry, but in all honesty and fairness I have to ask the hon member whether it was because he could not make a meaningful contribution on the subject of education. [Interjections.] Yes, I am sorry for that hon member in the CP’s back benches, but the questions I am asking are justified.

Why did the hon member, as chief spokesman of that side of the House, use his time to say such things, when he—I have to assume this—had surely taken note of answers I had given on the occasions I have mentioned?

Has it become so difficult for the hon member for Brits to say anything good about White education? I have already told this House on a previous occasion that while the hon members of the Official Opposition pose outside this House as the guardians of White interests, own affairs and White education as an own affair are disparaged and belittled time and time again within this House.

Now I ask the hon member—he has been here only a short time—whether he does not not to dispense with the hatred and the spitefulness. [Interjections.] Would the hon member not prefer to put politics aside? Why does the hon member not rather try to use his time in this House—I believe he is capable of this—to occupy himself really meaningfully with positive and constructive criticism in respect of White education, which he strives to serve? [Interjections.] Would that not be the right thing to do? If he did so, I would like to listen to the hon member, but he is so overwhelmed by this hate syndrome and this denigration of the NP that they are all that matter. [Interjections.] I cannot understand it. I cannot understand why the hon member is so embittered. [Interjections.] [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, this is the first time since I came to this House that I have experienced anything like this. The hon the Minister has only now, after such a long time, devoted the whole of his turn to speak to replying to the speech made by the hon member for Brits on 16 May.

You are very stupid …

It can only mean two things. [Interjections.] Perhaps it is because the hon member made a brilliant speech. The second possibility is that the hon the Minister is in trouble with White education. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid is also on record as having stated that the hon the Minister of Education and Culture has done a great deal—much more than he has done for White education—to promote Black education.

You must open your ears …

During the celebrations of the NP’s 40th anniversary, the SABC saw fit to conduct an interview with the hon the State President.

It was a good one.

The hon member says it was a good one, but let us analyse one of its very important aspects. When the interviewer put a question regarding the reasons for the take-over of power by the NP in 1948, the hon the State President, in his reply, singled out three reasons. Firstly, he said the economic situation of the country at the time was not what it should have been. There was poverty and unemployment as a result, inter alia, of the large number of soldiers who had returned from war.

Secondly, the hon the State President said there was a relations problem between the various population groups, which had not been satisfactorily dealt with by the then government of the late General Smuts. At that time it was known as the race question. Apartheid was then offered as the solution to the problem and was supported by the majority of the general public.

The third major reason which the hon the State President mentioned was that the Afrikaner people specifically had not enjoyed real constitutional freedom or sovereignty, because the highest authority was vested in the British monarchy. It was, therefore, unacceptable to the Afrikaner’s ideal of freedom ideal and his struggle to achieve that freedom.

It is quite ironical that these are precisely the same three factors on which the present Government will founder. [Interjections.] Let us take them one by one in the same sequence.

We look firstly at the socio-economic circumstances of the major portion of our White population. Social pensioners receive R218 a month, and there are civil pensioners who only receive R300 to R600, or even R1 000 per month. I say they cannot lead a decent existence when they have other obligations to meet, apart from food and clothing which must be paid for, not to mention the widow of a civil pensioner who has to live on 50% of her late husband’s pension. These people are having a hard time. We know what we are talking about.

We must not be under any illusions about that. This does not apply to the older people only; let us look at the position of our young married couples who have to set up home. I read in The Daily News of 25 May:

It says further:

That tells the whole story, does it not. I shall leave that aspect at that.

Let us go on to the second reason—the relations problem. I want to make four statements on that. Firstly the NP is aiming at a totally multiracial Parliament. Secondly, this multiracial Parliament and Government means the destruction of White administration in the Republic of South Africa—-just as surely as it happened in Kenya. Thirdly, it is clear that the party which supports the old Hofmeyr policy of political multiracialism or partnership-government between the races, in one form or another, will lead South Africa to its destruction. Fourthly, the most dangerous aspect of all, however, is that party which is trying to create the impression that they stand for White supremacy and can preserve it.

These statements, of course, are completely true, or are there hon members who doe not agree with me? Of course it is true!

It is a distortion! It is loaded with your distorted propaganda.

I must tell the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council that these four statements are taken verbatim from the election manifesto of the NP which was issued on 18 October 1961. That is what the NP said about the opposition at that time.

That is where you are now—in 1961.

These are the NP’s own words.

You are in 1961!

Then it was all right. [Interjections.]

Order!

In practice our people are now being crowded out of their own residential areas by people of colour.

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

Oh, I have no time for questions!

Our people are being crowded out of their own residential areas, and recreational areas and places of entertainment by people of colour. Suburban train services have been opened up to other races here in the Western Cape, with the prospect of this being extended country-wide. There is integration in the Defence Force and in every other sphere of our society. This situation is much worse than it was before 1948.

Thirdly, we must look at what has happened to the freedom endeavours of the Afrikaners. What did the hon the State President say during the recent celebrations of the NP’s 40th anniversary? Just listen, and I am quoting from Rapport of 29 May:

What nonsense! What absolute nonsense! Can one credit that? How can one give different peoples the same measure of freedom in the same land area? That is foolishness! It just cannot happen. The following day Dr Mangosuthu Buthelezi, leader of the biggest Black nation, said the following, for example, at a day of prayer in Durban:

In other words, in such a situation of complete equality the Whites are sentenced to an eternal imprisonment in an open democracy.

The Government’s slack approach to the freedom and sovereignty of our people, this appeasement policy which tries to satisfy everybody, creates a climate in which someone like Dr Danie Craven, in the interests of foreign sports relations, does not see his way clear to allowing the South African flag to be displayed on the President’s team’s rugby jerseys. What times are we going through! Or does someone like Dr Craven think things will come right for the Rugby Board if Daan Nolte and Boetie Malan no longer serve on that board?

On what basis do you profess agreement on our part? [Interjections.]

Order!

The country’s flag, after all, is the symbol of South Africa. It is surely not the flag of the Government or of the NP. Besides I have heard that the NP is going to exchange its powderhorn for a chameleon!

I am therefore saying that if the NP had stood firm on the inalienable right of our people to remain free and sovereign, we would have heard less of this “pardon-me-for-living” attitude on the part of our people. We would have had far more positive patriotism, and we would have seen none of this stupidity which we are now encountering. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, it is a great pleasure to follow the hon member for Pietersburg. His referrence to 1961 once again confirms that he is the member of a party which has frozen the past. That is what they are building their future on. [Interjections.] They have not only frozen the past, but also all its mistakes, and in a warped way too. I should like to inform that hon member that at some time or other, when the sun begins to shine brightly, their foundations are going to melt.

List those mistakes, Tertius! [Interjections.]

It will be our pleasure to do so some other day. [Interjections.]

A little while ago I made the statement in this House that the CP’s policy could only succeed if they managed to achieve White majority occupation in South Africa. Furthermore I contended that they could not succeed because the demand for labour in White South Africa was too great, even on the farms. If it is true that White majority occupation cannot be achieved, the logical endresult of the CP’s policy is Black majority rule, because the CP has an “all or nothing” policy. The policy of the Official Opposition is an “all or nothing” policy. [Interjections.]

I had the opportunity to study a document which professed to have been published by people who had made an objective study of the present political situation. In this document these people describe the CP’s policy as follows, and I think it is an apposite description …

Who are they?

The hon members will hear in a moment. Please be patient.

They say—

Correct, not so? [Interjections.]

I think those hon members will in all honesty concede that it is an apposite description of CP policy, a concise one to be sure, but apposite nonetheless.

What do these researchers of the political scene have to say about this policy? They say:

What do they say is the present position? They say:

They go on to supply another reason for this state of affairs:

Then they speculate a little further and say …

Who are they?

Wait a minute. Stay calm.

They ask what will happen in the case of a CP take-over. They say:

In other words they sketch the very real possibility that in the event of a CP take-over there will be large scale unrest and punitive measures will be implemented by the outside world. What other scenario do they sketch? They say—

These people appreciate that which I have warned the hon members about is a possibility which might occur should the CP assume power in this country.

Who are these people? Their names appear on the document, but I am not sure whether these are their own words or whether this is a genuine document. The hon members can undoubtedly tell us. Indeed they ought to know. According to what appears on the document, it is published by the organisation Die Stigting: Afrikaner-Vryheid. The primary aim of the foundation is to promote the freedom of the Afrikaner people in the constitutional, economic and educational spheres. The founders, the people who participated in the establishment of the foundation, are Mr A J De Beer—I do not know whether the hon members know him—Dr W L Grant, Prof J J Henning—I understand he is a CP candidate in the municipal election in Pretoria—Dr C J Jooste—I do not know whether the hon members know him—Prof A D Pont, Dr C A Verwoerd and Prof C W H Boshof. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to ask the hon member whether this Afrikaner organisation is perhaps made up of the runaway Broederbonders from the CP. [Interjections.)

Mr Chairman, I should like to invite the hon members of the Official Opposition to study this document, because this group of people—if they are in fact the authors and I presume they are—have an alternative solution. They say we must take care: If the CP takes over and they collapse and give in to Black majority rule, the Afrikaner must be prepared to establish his own state. Those hon members can study the document. The authors are referring to an Afrikaner state (yolkstaat) detached from the RSA—a little island of bliss in which the Afrikaner will feel secure. [Interjections.]

It fascinates me that that party is being accused by thinkers from among its own number of not thinking. They are being accused of ignoring reality. That is indeed true. Hon members on this side of the House are inclined to call those hon members the boycott party. However that is not a true reflection. That party is the escapist party. [Interjections.] They fled as soon as there was mention of a joint debate. They resist such initiatives, because they do not see their way clear to presenting their case outside of the narrow little circle in which they raise Cain about all sorts of trivialities. They are even afraid to stand up for themselves in this House. Yesterday there was a stampede though the exits. [Interjections.] However I must say that it was worth while coming to Cape Town this year if only to see the hon member for Overvaal standing there with such a sheepish grin.

All alone!

Mr Chairman, it is a pity you missed it.

I should like to make a further statement. It is not only a party that takes to its heels …

You are putting Al Debbo to shame, Tertius!

Yes indeed, it is becoming difficult to compete with the hon member. I even have to imitate Al Debbo to compete with him. [Interjections.] I must say that the hon member for Overvaal reminded me more of Frederik Burgers yesterday.

It is not only a party that takes to its heels. It is a party that embraces a lie. It is a party whose propaganda mouthpieces—of which the Patriot ranks top of the list—embrace a lie. [Interjections.] We know what happened to their allegations concerning the hon member for Innesdal, but I want to turn to another matter.

A while ago the hon member for Pietersburg made a speech (Hansard 1988, col 4823) in which he referred to something the then Minister of the Budget and Welfare had said, namely that parity as regards pensions had to be achieved. The hon member for Pietersburg was evidently disturbed that such a thing had dared be said. This was followed by a remark from the Government benches: “So what?” This remark was made in connection with the achieving of parity. Let us now have some clarity on the matter. The hon member for Durban Central—he will admit it—then jumped to a completely wrong conclusion. He said that the “so what” had been a response to the explanation that pensioners received only R218 per month, and could not survive on this meagre amount. [Interjections.] That explanation in connection with the R218 per month came after the remark had been made. I think the hon member for Durban Central will be man enough to admit that he misrepresented what had been said in the House.

What does the Patriot publish in this regard? I want to tell the hon members that they knew very well what the truth was, because they avoided the original and correct account. They quoted the hon member for Durban Central because they knew that by so doing the false representation could receive wide publicity. [Interjections.] The hon member for Soutspansberg said to me just a few days ago that he challenged me to prove they were lies. This is a lie. The Patriot publicised a lie.

It is not a lie! It is the truth! [Interjections.]

I want to make the statement that we had to tolerate an abuse of Parliament yesterday in order to have an untrue statement placed on record. We all know that what the hon member for Innesdal said was the following: “A peaceful solution without the ANC is not possible.”

Do you agree with him?

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: the hon member says that we experienced an abuse of Parliament in this House yesterday. [Interjections.] It is quite patently a reflection on the Chair, because Parliament cannot be abused … [Interjections.] Abuse of Parliament for any purpose may not be allowed. That hon member said that Parliament was abused to legitimate an untruth. [Interjections.]

Order! What is being referred to is the use of the word “abuse”. Abuse can occur in many ways. For instance Parliament can be abused and action can be taken against such abuse, but despite the actions taken, matters have nevertheless been placed on record. Hence it is indeed possible to abuse Parliament in spite of the fact that subsequent action is taken against the offending hon member by the Chair. Therefore I cannot rule the remark of the hon member out of order. The hon member for Sundays River may proceed.

My time has almost expired. Yesterday the hon member made use of the opportunity to have it placed on record, not that the hon member for Innesdal maintains that a peaceful solution is not possible, but that a solution without the ANC is not possible.

And you agree?

I should like to know from the hon members of the CP whether they are going to negotiate a peaceful solution without the ANC?

Are you?

The only way is to capitulate to the ANC. That is the only peaceful solution possible without the ANC.

[Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, both the hon member for Sundays River and the hon member for Pietersburg engaged in interesting politicaLdebate. I would like to react just briefly to both of them.

There is no doubt that for a political party to have been in power since 1948 is an achievement. There is no question about it. It is an achievement from a party political point of view to have maintained power for that period of time. One must grant that to the NP.

However, when we start comparing the South Africa of today with the South Africa of 1948, we have to ask a few questions. Where does South Africa stand in the international scene? Where are we in relation to the threats which exist on our borders? Where are we now in relation to the attempt to isolate us in the world and where were we then? Where are we from an internal political point of view in regard to the demands and the aspirations of a large section of the community? With respect, it is those questions to which neither of these hon members has really addressed himself.

Particularly the hon member for Pietersburg who is a very pleasant individual, longs for 1948. I share that with him because I wish that General Smuts was in power today. The tragedy is that if General Smuts and Mr Jan Hofmeyr had been here today and could have lived in this age, the very ideas that they were trying to propagate in those days would have fallen on far more fertile ground in the White community.

Mr Chairman, will the hon member for Yeoville admit that the apartheid signs which were removed from the trains yesterday had been made by the UP before the NP came into office in 1948?

That is where the hon member is wrong and I shall tell hon members why. A lawsuit was fought in the 1950’s in order to ensure that there could not be such separation, because until the NP introduced the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act, the law was laid down in Rasool vs The Postmaster-General as long ago as 1937 when it was held that if there were separate facilities they had to be equal. [Interjections.] The Railways had to have a separate law, the Road Transportation Board had to have a law, O’Brien’s case had to be decided before that separation could in fact be enforced.

But you made the signs!

Hon members must not get me wrong. I do not pretend that there was no apartheid before 1948. I have never pretended that. Of course there was separation.

The NP perfected it!

However, the reality is that the formal entrenchment of many aspects of apartheid came after 1948.1 do not pretend that it is the case with all of them. For instance, the Mines and Works Act dates back to the 1920’s.

It goes back to 1911.

That is right. It dates back even further than that. However, the formal entrenchment of many aspects of apartheid came after 1948. What the NP is repealing now is what they themselves introduced. [Interjections.]

I want to deal with a major problem in relation to this. The hon member for Pietersburg used the following words: “Hoe kan jy dieselfde mate van vryheid in dieselfde grondgebied vir Blank en Swart hê?”

*The hon member must correct me if I quoted him wrongly. Did I quote him correctly?

Yes.

I thank the hon member. This is really a major problem because to me freedom means freedom. There cannot be two classes of freedom. It is impossible for that to be so. We have really to put a system into operation in South Africa in which there is freedom for all. Everybody, whether he is Black. White or any other colour, has to feel that he is free. The same words were also used by the hon member when he asked: “How can you have full equality in the same territorial area?”

That is precisely the debate that is needed in South Africa. I can debate with a person who is prepared to debate with me in regard to how one can bring about the fact that there will be complete equality for all without the oppression of any group or person in South Africa.

That is what is important—that we must debate that point. However, when in actual fact we are carrying on a debate where the one side says there ought not to be complete freedom for one group but only complete freedom for another group, that debate is quite impossible. For that reason I want to tell hon members that we can only carry on a debate in this House which is fruitful if we accept the fact that every person in South Africa is entitled to the same measure of freedom; that there will in actual fact be complete freedom in South Africa. The debate is simply how we can bring this about without it meaning the end of the any particular group or race in this country.

†That, Sir, is the real debate, and that is what we have to discuss. That is where the CP can play a role if it can actually prove that partition is a solution, that partition is possible, that partition is practical and that partition will actually be acceptable to the whole of the population in South Africa. Unless they can show that, they actually cannot debate it. That is the nature of the debate that should take place, and between the rest of us a debate is necessary in South Africa as to how in the same “grondgebied”, as the hon member puts it, we can actually ensure complete equality, non-discrimination and equal rights without anybody being subjugated or oppressed by anyone else. If we can do that, that is the real debate and that is what we should be talking about in regard to the politics of South Africa. That is why, when people speak contemptuously of the late Jannie Hofmeyr or of the late General Smuts, I do not speak of them contemptuously because I believe the problem with them, and maybe the problem with many of us, is that we were in the White political scene ahead of our time. When one is ahead of one’s time in the White political scene in South Africa, one cannot take an electorate with one, and that is unfortunately what has happened. It happened in 1948 and thereafter that one could not take the White electorate who had the power with one, on what was the correct road.

I want to come back to own affairs and to aspects of own affairs which really concern me from a financial point of view. I want to say that as we have now come to the end of this Budget debate, I somehow regret this whole Budget. I regard this Budget as being unfortunate in at least nine respects.

It is unfortunate because it does not give a square deal to the social pensioners for whom this administration is responsible. It does not give a square deal to them and therefore it is unfortunate in regard to its application.

Secondly, this Budget is unfortunate in regard to the hospital services because we have a crisis in the hospital services. It is not only in this administration; it is hospital services generally. We have not adequately addressed the crisis in the hospital services for which this administration is responsible.

Thirdly, I think this Budget is an unhappy one because it does not at this time, though I hope it will shortly do so, address adequately the unhappy situation in the teaching profession. That there is an unhappy situation, no one in this House would dare to in fact query. This Budget does not address it adequately.

The fourth point is that this Budget does not adequately address the question of the lack of financial control which exists in this administration. We have had long debates on it and we have an Auditor-General’s report on it. We have shown that in fact that lack of control is there, and this Budget does not adequately address that problem in order to deal with it.

The fifth matter which he does not deal with adequately is the shortage of staff. This can be seen in various sections of this administration, and I want to enlarge on that a little later. Despite the fact that some departments have had to accommodate personnel from bodies that have been abolished, we find that in almost every respect there is actually a shortage of staff, and this has very serious repercussions.

The sixth aspect in regard to which this Budget fails is the fact that, despite the years of promises and despite all the excuses, we have not yet been given the formula we need, and we continue to finance on an ad hoc basis. Not one of the explanations offered in this debate as to why it has failed to materialise has been convincing.

My seventh point is that I find that this Budget does not address adequately the problems relating to the actions of certain persons in the Public Service. This has been demonstrated, for example, in regard to the activities concerning housing subsidies, which actually highlight what should never be allowed to take place in the Public Service. To that extent an unfortunate situation is developing in the Public Service, in which other questions—those of control and staff, for instance—are all becoming relevant. It is unfortunate that things like this are allowed to happen in the Public Service of which we should be very proud.

The eighth matter I want to raise is that the problems relating to the transfer of functions have not been dealt with adequately. There are matters which have been dealt with, but which are ultra vires. There are matters which have not been resolved yet. There are still overlapping functions. In fact, the whole question of the transfer of functions in an adequate and smooth manner has not been dealt with finally, even after many years of own administration.

Lastly, there is an uncertainty, as I see it, in respect of the future in regard to service charges and levies. This uncertainty hangs over us like a sword of Damocles, without our being aware when, how and on whom it is going to drop. There are many people who are very concerned about how this will take place, and it is a matter which also needs to be dealt with.

One of the things which the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council has to accept is that we have supported the Government in its anti-inflation campaign. We have taken their part and supported them in dealing with the exploitation of the consumer. We have supported them on the question of helping to create jobs in order to achieve stability. We have advocated an inward industrialisation. We have tried to deal with the problem of being prisoners of the current account with regard to the balance of payments. In all of these ways we have tried to support them.

What we find difficult, however, is the fact that a situation is now developing in which I think it is necessary that we should clarify how we see the cutbacks in regard to State expenditure, and in particular how we see the Government’s share of the economy and their attitude towards the Public Service.

Firstly, we believe that where the private sector can do the job better and cheaper, it should be allowed to do so, and those functions should be removed from the Government’s share of the economy.

Secondly, where a Government role is essential, we will support the Government’s continuing to play that role in the economy and provide the necessary services.

Thirdly, where a Government role is socially or politically necessary, we also believe that it should play a part in those circumstances.

However, where there is a role for Government—there certainly is a role for Government in the economy; there is no question about that—we believe there should be adequate, satisfied, well-paid and sufficient staff. If the Government is to have a share of the economy, that share should be smaller, but it should also be more effective and more efficiently administered.

If, therefore, we look at the cutbacks in salaries in general and in the long term, they cannot, in fact, work effectively in the absence of co-operation from the private sector. The difficulty is that the private sector has a profit motive, and if they need a man and want to employ him, they will pay him whatever they have to in order to get him to work for them.

One cannot really obtain the private sector’s full co-operation in the same way it can be obtained by way of the power one has over the Public Service. One cannot do that unless one imposes a wage freeze, and one can never have a wage freeze without a price freeze. Furthermore, one can never have a wage and price freeze unless it is absolutely vital in the interests of the economy. Be that as it may, it is something one tries to avoid as long as possible.

One of the things we have to do is to be careful that we do not destroy the morale of our Public Service. A smaller public service—part of it being privatised—is an attractive proposition but the morale of the Public Service has to be kept up. That is where I believe the message is to be conveyed to the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council.

Mr Chairman, I listened carefully to the hon member for Yeoville, and without in any way reflecting on the Chair, I must say that the whole of the last portion of his speech would obviously have been more appropriate in a discussion of a general affairs budget. The Commission for Administration and teachers’ salary and service benefits fall directly under general Ministries, and discussion on these matters belongs primarily in that sphere. The fact that this budget also covers people in receipt of salaries is absolutely no reason for suspending the basic division of powers between the different departments. Insofar as it is relevant, I want to put the following to him.

†We have never said this was a happy Budget. When he says there are unhappy factors in this Budget, I agree with him. We derive no pleasure from not granting salary increases. As a matter of fact, the hon the State President and all of us involved on this side of the House have clearly set out that we are fully au fait with and that we fully realise the difficult situation in which employees of the State find themselves. We know inflation is eroding the basis of their income, and it was fully motivated why we felt forced to take unpopular steps to introduce an unhappy budget. The same applies in the sphere of social pensions.

*We derive no pleasure from making things difficult for people. We have the same degree of sympathy for them as those hon members do—and here I also address myself to the hon member for Pietersburg. Since the hon member for Yeoville gave us a lecture on the course the previous part of the debate should have taken, I can surely give him a brief lecture on the course this part of his speech should have taken.

Why did he not deal with the factual, compelling reasons which forced us to introduce such an unpopular and unhappy budget—in a certain sense of the word?

May I ask you a question?

No, I too have only a limited time to speak. I am now replying to the hon member. I want to tell him we share his sympathy with everybody who is suffering as a result of inflation. We are sorry it was not possible to grant them increases and afford them some relief. The reasons why it was impossible, however, are to be found in overriding factors beyond the control of this Government. We can nevertheless argue that in the right place and in the right debate.

The reason we introduced a restrictive budget was to tackle the basic causes of our economic problem and bring them under control. For that reason we should not use the pain and suffering of these people, which these sacrifices called for, to score political points off one another.

I want to say further that it is a known fact that specific problem areas in the public sector are being dealt with by way of occupational specific dispensations. An amount has been voted for this purpose, and we are at a delicate stage in deciding how these occupational specific dispensations should be implemented in relation to teachers and the other officials whose salaries are paid from this budget. As some of these problems are rooted in the difficulties encountered by the lower-paid workers, this will certainly have to be taken into account when finally deciding what still has to be done this year about occupational specific improvements.

The hon member also crossed swords with the hon member for Pietersburg and said everybody must be free. I want to address one last remark to him. While the hon member for Pietersburg, as I shall show, was basically incorrect in one respect, this hon member was mistaken in another. [Interjections.] He is right; everybody must be free with the borders of the same country. Everybody can be free. However, “everybody” does not just mean 20 million or more individuals! The reality of this country is that that “everybody” comprises a number of peoples … [Interjections.] … each with its own language and each even with its own nationalism.

I was speaking of groups.

The hon member spoke of groups, but he strikes a discordant note in that party when he talks of groups, because that party only pays lip-service to the existence of groups. He is sitting in a party whose policy is one man, one vote on one voters’ roll in each of the geographic units of their geographic federation. Surely he is not saying that the PFP wants to draw the boundaries of those geographic units on a discriminatory basis? If one wants to draw them on a strictly normal, logical, consistent basis, without taking existence of groups into account when doing so, one comes to the inextricable, inescapable conclusion that there will be minority groups in each of their geographic units. On the basis of one man, one vote on one voters’ roll, without the protection of residential areas and without the other forms of differentiation which this side propagates, they will be delivered into oppression.

That is why I say they pay lip-service to group security, and until that hon member or his party pull themselves together or dissociate themselves from lip-service, he will unfortunately continue to be associated with that flaw in their policy. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon member for Pietersburg quoted from a 1961 document and, if I understood him correctly, wanted to apply a description of the erstwhile opposition to this side of the House. That opposition did not stand for a strong, own power base such as the one we are discussing here. I am referring to the concept of own affairs, of self-determination and the fact that this House is the highest authority in regard to numerous fundamentally important matters—fundamentally important for the security, the safety and the maintenance of the identity of the White group represented here.

That group did not state clearly and plainly in its policy documents: Yes, we stand for the opportunity for everybody to participate fully in the political decision-making process as a group, but on the basis that no group shall dominate another group.

His propaganda today presented a distorted picture, but that is a typical example, a typical example of the CP’s way of constantly repeating over-simplified distortions of what the NP advocates. Their public relations advisers, who are now even members of their caucus, tell them that the ultimate truth is to be found in simply repeating something often enough for people to believe them.

Today, however, I appeal to their consciences. That would be a good system if that simple statement were the truth, but if those simple statements repeated so often are untrue, one’s conscience forbids one to continue with it.

I again charge that party in this House this afternoonas the hon member for Pietersburg proved with his statement—of being guilty of a style of propaganda which cannot hold up when confronted with the truth. On that point the hon member for Yeoville is right; they are conducting a false debate which is not based on the realities of this country. [Interjections.]

The hon member said it was impossible for more than one people to be free within the same country’s boundaries. That is not true. It is true in Belgium and it is true in Switzerland. I am not saying those models can work here, but he has made a statement which cannot hold up when confronted with the truth.

We say a way must be found, and we have indicated guidelines to indicate how that way can be found and in which direction it lies, specifically to ensure that more than one people can be free within the borders of a single country.

As his own leader admitted, the reason for that was that there would no longer be a pure White South Africa. Is that not true? Is he not confronted with the same challenge that I am, namely to find an answer? In their South Africa, if they succeed in their policy, there might perhaps be fewer Blacks than there would be in ours, but they will be there without a doubt. There will also be Coloureds and Indians. They either have to say that in terms of their policy those people will for all time be oppressed by the Whites—is that their policy? No—or in their South Africa they will have to find some way, if they come to power, of letting those people live freely with them within the country’s borders.

Not on that basis!

Those hon members have no answer to that and therefore have no answer to the problems of South Africa.

What is your answer?

Our answer has been spelt out plainly and clearly, and I shall come to it in the course of my speech.

Part of the answer, relevant to today’s debate, is to give each people and population group its own power base within which, by way of the “division of power”, each one will be equipped with specific powers and authority in respect of matters which are of fundamental importance to them and their survival as a group. That is a part of that solution. What is the CP doing with it? They are denigrating that aspect. They are fighting that policy tooth and nail. [Interjections.] If, for their part, they say we are not doing enough, they must at least say they find no problems with the philosophic aspects. Instead of denigrating and belittling it and trying to destroy it, in line with their own philosophy, they should support it and then hound us for not doing enough, because it is not being developed fast enough and because, in their view, the scope is inadequate. However, we get no co-operation from them in that regard.

No!

The reason is that those hon members are not interested in a solution to the problems of South Africa. They have only one aim now, and that is to break the NP. [Interjections.] They do not care what they split, break or trample on in the process. They have only one aim in mind, and that is to break the hon the State President as chief leader of the NP, and with him the other leaders on this side of the House. They do not even care if they commit character assassination in the process. At the moment they are not really concerning themselves with the problems of South Africa. [Interjections.] That is my indictment against them. All their attention is focused on the NP. The NP may disappear, but the problems of South Africa and the inherent difficulties of this country would not be changed one iota if we were to disappear from the scene; they would become worse. If we disappeared, the most important balanced component in White politics today would disappear, and radicalism would take over and push this country into a dark abyss.

The task of this Ministers’ Council, based on the disciplines entrusted to it by the Constitution, is to look after the interests of our voters, the Whites of the RS A, and to do so assiduously. That is not the only sphere in which the NP looks after the interests of its voters, the Whites. In the Cabinet, too, the NP’s role is to ensure in a balanced fashion that no group, including the Whites, is prejudiced, to ensure that the rightful claims of each group, including the Whites, are fairly dealt with and to ensure that each group, including the Whites, enjoys the same security.

The Ministers’ Council, however, has specific terms of reference in a specific sphere, a sphere which I do not have to define in today’s debate—all hon members are aware of their scope. Let me say at once that I think their scope must be broadened. I think their scope has already been extended, if one takes a slightly broader look at it. This concept of own affairs of the tricameral Parliament is not the only own affairs institution in South Africa. The governments of the self-governing states are, after all, also own affairs institutions.

The structuring of their power base is totally different. There are a diversity of models for own affairs. Those hon members are obsessed by this model which determines the mutual relations be†Ween Whites, Coloureds and Indians. The model, however, looks entirely different in regard to the Blacks, specifically the urban Blacks. If we want constructive debating, we must start talking to each other about these matters. I want to say today that it is a privilege for the Ministers’ council to serve our people’s interests. We guard White interests jealously, but with justice as our norm.

I want to address myself to the CP. I have already said that the theme of their propaganda is aimed at creating a false perception of this Government by constant repetition. On what basis can voters be told, and the impression created in the minds of those voters, that the CP speaks for the Whites, but that the NP does not care? They say the NP actually speaks for people of colour. They even say the NP is against the Whites; we want to sell them down the river. That is the basic aim of their propaganda. I see the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke is shaking is head.

You have all the media!

Yes, let him shake his head; that is their aim. Their aim is to present this distorted perception. I want to ask the hon member for Schweizer-Reneke if he cares more for his people than I do. Does he believe that?

No, I would not say that.

Why then does he accuse me of wanting to sell my people down the river? That is done constantly. We are tired of it. Those hon members are entitled to argue that our way of maintaining White interests is inferior to what they believe theirs to be. That is what the debate must be about, but the debate is not being conducted along those lines. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Pietersburg is making too many interjections. The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council may proceed.

They are not conducting this debate along those lines. They play politics ad hominem. I am not saying that they do not really have the interests of the Whites at heart …

Thanks for that!

The hon member should now “just return the favour, please.” [Interjections.] I want to argue with them about whether the course they are adopting is in the interests of the Whites, as they say. The basic question is how White interests must be ensured in present-day South Africa. Without casting doubt on their bona fides, I maintain that what the CP says and does will result in a major crisis and prejudice the Whites.

I want to give a few reasons. The hon member for Sundays River actually said enough, so that I need not expand on that. Firstly, a policy which cannot work, and which cannot work according to the spiritual allies of that party, is not in the interests of the Whites. A policy which we cannot afford—such as that party’s policy—is not in the interests of the Whites. Secondly, we are now engaged in a new dispensation. This tricameral Parliament was established democratically, and with the undeniably overwhelming majority support of the White electorate. This was reconfirmed on 6 May 1987 with more than a two-thirds majority. [Interjections.] Part of that is own affairs, on the principle of own power bases. The NP wants to establish and expand this concept in the interests of the Whites. What do those hon members do? They want to wreck it. From their point of view it cannot be in the interests of the Whites should even this part of the policy—which ought to suit them—succeed, and we cannot get any support from them. Thirdly, the vision of the future which the CP presents to Blacks, Coloureds and Indians in this country is fraught with drawbacks for those people. Their vision of the future calls for no sacrifices by the Whites—all the sacrifices have to come from the Coloureds, Blacks and Indians. [Interjections.] Let us assess who will have to move. Who will have to move to give effect to the CP’s partition? Will the people of Pietersburg have to move? They are encircled by Blacks. Will they give Pietersburg to the Blacks?

Our people moved from the Lebowa area!

Will they give Pietersburg to the Blacks? No, they want to hang on to Pietersburg. Will they give Louis Trichardt to the Blacks? No, they want to hang on to it. [Interjections.] We could go on like this. Will the CP give the Boland to the Coloureds?

You people are doing it now!

Who will have to make the sacrifices? The Coloureds will have to find their fatherland in the drought-stricken semi-desert areas. [Interjections.] That is the CP’s policy and the CP cannot sell them that policy. The CP’s policy will drive all reasonable leaders of colour, who are reasonable and join us in opposing the revolution, into the arms of the ANC. [Interjections.] That could never be in the interests of the Whites. If the revolution were to be reinforced and if the distinction between reasonableness and radicalism were to be removed, so that everybody merely ranged themselves, on grounds of colour, behind specific power bases in this struggle in South Africa between a free economy and socialism and between various philosophies, this would inevitably conflict with the interests of the Whites. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I do not care if the NP uses a crow or a “trapsuutjie” or a chameleon, but they will never again have the voters of South Africa behind them, or hoodwink them to such an extent that they accept their policy. [Interjections.]

You use a tortoise!

When I listened to the hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council this afternoon, in my mind’s eye I could picture how Jan Hofmeyr carried on in this House when the UP was in power. I could also imagine how the United Party carried on in this House when the old NP—when they really were the NP—put South Africa on the right road, when they still had a policy of apartheid. [Interjections.]

Order!

When the NP still put the interests of the Whites in White South Africa first, the United Party got just as excited as the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council did a moment ago. I think his late father must have felt then as I felt today listening to an Afrikaner who carried on so and wanted to bring the different people together … [Interjections] … in one independent state. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Order! No, the hon member for Brentwood is making too many interjections.

The hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council made quite a song and dance here about relocating people. Who has done that more often than the NP? Who relocates more people even today than the NP does? On the Witwatersrand 13 000 ha of land have been given to the Blacks. What about the Whites who live there? Are they to be relocated or are they going to remain there?

The hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council told the voters of Randfontein—very recently, not six months ago—if grey areas developed and the Whites were not happy to live amongst people of colour, they would be relocated. The Government would relocate them. [Interjections.] What the Whites have built up over the years the NP is prepared to take away from them in terms of their policy. [Interjections.]

Order! There are far too many interjections.

[Inaudible.]

Order! When I say too many interjections are being made, this also applies to the hon member for Benoni. The hon member for Carletonville may continue.

The boundaries of the Black states have already been drawn. How many thousands of Whites have been moved from those Black states which were planned and established by this NP? [Interjections.] All we say is that the Black states are already there, and in a nice way we are going to get the Blacks there, as the NP used to move them there in a nice way until they began to slacken. [Interjections. They laugh this afternoon and carry on about their own policy …

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

I do not intend answering any questions. I only have seven minutes and the hon member has already had his turn. [Interjections.]

When the NP still stood for the Whites in White South Africa, the Blacks were moved to the homelands, but when the NP slackened and felt that the time had arrived to implement the old UP policy, they started with their politics of surrender. Just as the NP forced the United Party out of this House, they are today in the process of taking over the policy of the PFP, because they know the Whites in White South Africa do not believe them. [Interjections.] The past has proved it and the future will give further proof of it. That is why they want to persuade the Coloureds and the Indians to postpone the election until 1992. Death is staring them in the face and they want to postpone it for two or three years. If they do not succeed, the next year the South African voters will settle accounts with this Government which is selling the voters down the river.

When one stands up in this House and speaks on behalf of the Whites in an own affairs or a general affairs debate, one is committing the greatest offence of all. One is then berated for being a racist. [Interjections.]

Order!

I say that today the NP does far more for the Blacks in South Africa than it does for the Whites. For that reason we say that each group must govern itself and provide for itself. [Interjections.]

With whose money?

Order! Hon members must give the hon member for Carletonville a chance to complete his speech. Hon members may differ with what the hon member is saying, but they are not permitted to do it so audibly.

Mr Chairman, the reason why they get so worked up is because I am treading on their toes. [Interjections.] They are too smallminded to admit they are wrong. The hon the Minister said our policy could not work.

You are talking nonsense!

Why should it not work? That is what the hon member’s face looks like! [Interjections.] Our policy does not work because we are not in power. The day we take over this country, we will show the world we will not be dictated to how South Africa and White South Africa should be governed.

Just listen to Jaap Marais!

The Government, which has gone slack … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for East London North may not make any more interjections.

Now you are quiet, Archi!

Mr Chairman, it is high time Archi was taken to task.

Order! There is no hon member of that name in this House.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is it permissible for the hon member for Carletonville to call another hon member of this House “Archi”, and what is he suggesting? He must apologise! [Interjections.] I think he is referring to Archi Gumede when he calls the hon member for East London North “Archi”. [Interjections.]

The hon member for George said that! [Interjections.]

Order! The remark is often made, and the Chair has already taken note of it. It comes mainly from the Official Opposition, and the Chair calls on them not to use nicknames when referring to hon members across the floor of the House.

Mr Chairman, may I address you on that point? I think what is good for the one is good for the other. I assumed that the hon member’s name was Archie when I came to this House. I ask you to rule, therefore, that in future nobody may be called by his Christian name.

Order! The hon member may address me later on this point, because his time has expired. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I must say, with respect to the speech of the hon member for Carletonville, that I think it was one of the most tragic speeches that I have yet heard in this Chamber.

Hear, hear!

It is sad from a point of view that it espouses such bitterness, and I do want to say that this kind of attitude will not extract the goodwill of all population groups which is so desperately needed in this country at the present time.

I want to associate myself with a comment made by the hon member for Yeoville, and I do so also bearing in mind the speech of the hon member for Carletonville. The one ingredient that this country is crying out for at the present time is an injection of confidence, confidence in the economy and confidence in the country’s ability to solve its political problems. It is a well-known fact that these two factors go hand in hand, for without the one the other cannot be attained.

It is for this reason that I wish to turn my attention once again to aspects of the present tricameral system of Parliament. I do so in the context that the direction in which the system is being guided by the Government does not conform to the original constitutional concept that was envisaged when the system was so hotly debated at the time of the referendum. This does not mean, however, that I have cause to regret my support for the yes-vote, and I want to make it clear that I remain firmly committed that that was the correct decision. However, I see a trend whereby we are gradually moving towards a situation where a danger exists that the country is becoming overgoverned, and I would remind this House that the best government is that which governs least.

One cannot get away from the fact that at the best of times the tricameral system is a complicated system, and for it to function efficiently requires, as a priority, a commitment on the part of the three Houses to ensure that they work within the confines of the Constitution and not against it. Furthermore, one must not lose sight of the fact that the inclusion of the non-homeland Blacks in the decision-making process of Government does offer the only real long-term solution to the future stability of this country.

While I accept the fact that own and general affairs form the backbone of the present system, I do feel that the concept of own affairs is being unduly accentuated and is leading to excessive duplication in the field of administration, resulting again in escalating costs of running the country. The concept of the devolution of power to the lowest level is admirable enough, but it will lose much of its impact and effectiveness if it is shrouded too heavily in the cloak of own affairs at that level. I accept the basic philosophy of own affairs, but it must not become an obsession which will impair and unnecessarily further complicate an already complicated system. The political movement within the present structures should tend away from own affairs wherever possible and more in the direction of general affairs; in other words, we should not be working towards an exclusive system of government, but rather towards a more cohesive system.

There are many areas where this could take place without affecting detrimentally the actual concept of own affairs. It is only when this takes place, Sir, that the costs of running the country will be brought to a more realistic level, and it will only be then that this excessive and escalating drain on the economy will be contained.

Mr Chairman, it is always a privilege to speak after someone of the calibre and stature of the hon member for Mooi River. It is always a privilege to speak after someone who looks after the interests of his voters in this House with such dignity.

However it is no privilege at all to listen to someone such as the hon member for Carletonville—someone who calls himself a fellow Afrikaner, but who arrogates to himself the exclusive right of putting his case with commitment. [Interjections.] He wants to be sole spokesman and does not accord the NP the same right to come to the defence of White interests and to present its case; he regards that as meaningless chatter. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Carletonville reminded me today of Charlie Chaplin in the film The Great Dictator. In that film he tried to create a caricature of the dictator Hitler. By his actions the hon member for Carletonville is of course trying to create a caricature of the Afrikaner in South Africa. I object to that.

He raised a further matter today in connection with which I should like to make him an offer. He us told how the NP was granting excessive benefits to the other race groups in this country; of how the NP cared more for members of other race groups than for Whites.

Surely that is true!

Very well, then I am under the impression that these benefits entail some advantage for which that hon member yearns. If he really wants them so badly, I should like to offer to assist him with his application to be reclassified. Surely he will then be able to enjoy all those privileges. [Interjections.]

You should have your head reclassified! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, over the past few years various schemes have come into existence to alleviate the plight of our farmers. Schemes have come into existence which are unique in the history of our farmers in South Africa. Many of these aid schemes …

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: is it permissible for the hon member for Ladybrand to say he ought to have himself reclassified? [Interjections.]

He did not say that! [Interjections.]

Order! That is not what the hon member said. The hon member for Ladybrand may proceed.

Thank you, Sir. Many of these aid schemes have come into existence in the past few years, during the most serious drought ever recorded in the history of South Africa. During this time our country not only experienced its most serious drought, but other disasters as well. One of the most serious disasters experienced by South Africa in recent years was of course the establishment of the CP in 1982. [Interjections.]

That is where the salvation of our people lies! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I grant every man and every …

Do not be so afraid! [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Bethal may not shout across the floor of the House that another hon member is afraid. The hon member must withdraw that.

Mr Chairman, please allow me to explain.

Order! It is not necessary to explain anything. The hon member must simply withdraw that statement.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: May I explain what I meant?

Order! No, the hon member cannot address me on this matter on a point of order. I have given my ruling. The hon member must withdraw the word “afraid” in regard to the hon member for Ladybrand.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Are you not going to give me an opportunity to explain? [Interjections.]

Order! No, there is nothing to explain. The hon member for Ladybrand may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I do not begrudge any individual or any party the right to differ with me. However I object when people undermine the interests of the country on behalf of their own sake. [Interjections.] I do begrudge a person an existence in politics when his message consists solely of gossip, mischiefmongering and destructive criticism. In my opinion it is reprehensible to play on the emotions of farmers who are in financial straits simply to canvass a few votes among them.

The CP’s contribution to our agriculture takes the form of telling the farmers from one platform to another—last year they did this in my constituency as well—that they will write off their debts. Of course they do not tell the farmers that they will have to raise their taxes in order to write off their debts. Neither do they tell the farmers how they are going to do this. They do not tell the farmers how they are going to do this in an equitable way. It makes no difference to them how much damage they do to the pride and self-respect of our farmers in South Africa; as long as they can chalk up one or two votes. [Interjections.]

This year of crisis in agriculture gave rise to a better understanding and better co-operation between the State and the SA Agricultural Union. All the aid schemes in South Africa are established in co-operation with the SA Agricultural Union and the various industry organisations. Through this close co-operation the schemes being established are improving all the time. No scheme is established without this cooperation. The R400 million scheme is a case in point.

In this House today I should like to pay tribute to all our farmers in South Africa who have made contributions and continue to make contributions to organised agriculture in the interests of the farmer of South Africa. For more than 80 years there have been farmers who have provided free services to their fellow farmers, and I think the time is ripe for us in this House to express our thanks to them.

This side of the House is not only thankful, but also proud of the leaders in agriculture who stand for the interests of their fellow farmers. This brings to mind what the hon the Deputy Minister of Agriculture said here concerning the matter of an honoured leader who is a CP supporter. In this case once again the CP did not wait to honour him for what he had done, but instead exposed all his problems in the Press so that the CP could chalk up a few more votes.

What does the CP have to say about our leaders in agriculture? They say that the leaders in the farming community worked hand in glove with the Government to devise the scheme in such a way that it had to fail. That is surely an indictment of the leaders of organised agriculture in South Africa. [Interjections.] Therefore they are saying by implication that the leaders of agriculture are conspiring with the Government against the farmers. We honour the leaders of the farming community for their services and their sacrifices, but the CP belittles those services that are being rendered for South Africa. [Interjections.]

The president of the SA Agricultural Union says the R400 million scheme has not failed, but the hon member for Lichtenburg maintains it was designed to fail and is a failure. [Interjections.] While we are jointly making plans to serve agriculture, the CP is gossiping with our farmers in order to gain votes. [Interjections.] Our leaders in the farming community are being brushed aside by the CP.

The CP claims our schemes for the farmers are weak. Times are said to be hard in the constituency of the hon member for Lichtenburg too—and for that matter in the whole of the Western Transvaal—but I understand that R32 000 was collected by a rural branch of the CP in this region. [Interjections.] Are times hard, or is the scheme so effective and the assistance so readily available to the farmers that they have the ready cash to donate such a substantial amount to the CP? [Interjections.]

How much did you get?

I am merely asking. [Interjections.]

After the establishment of the R400 million scheme, the input subsidy scheme was announced. I do not want to discuss the aim of this scheme, but I should like to make just one request for full co-operation from the SA Agricultural Union, Nampo and so on in the development and establishment of this scheme. We should like to request the hon the Minister to make the application of this scheme as wide as possible. This will mean that this scheme should be orientated towards the individual.

Today we should like to call upon every organisation, the SA Agricultural Union, the agricultural credit committees, our co-operatives and everyone involved in these bodies, and each member of the public who has the interests of our rural communities and our farmers at heart, to assist in the identification of these individuals.

Mr Chairman, may I thank hon members wholeheartedly for their contributions in this debate? I should like particularly to thank the hon members on this side, namely the hon members for Fauresmith, Klip River, Sundays River and Ladybrand as well as the hon member for Mooi River, who passed some nice remarks. I should also like to thank hon members opposite and my hon colleagues for their contributions.

At the outset I should just like to inform hon members and report progress in regard to an important development in this administration. Its purpose is to promote the concept of unity of the Administration: House of Assembly, and it is in regard to the new building that is being planned in Pretoria. We want to make the Administration: House of Assembly more visible in this way. Last year the Ministers’ Council agreed in principle to the erection of a suitable and functional building complex for the Ministers and the administration with the necessary facilities for staff.

Another important consideration was that the annual expenditure on rentals in respect of the leasing of accommodation for the various departments and the administration could be reduced if the various departments were situated in their own building. It may interest hon members to know the rentals exceeded R9 million for the financial year 1987-88, and this escalates at about 8% per annum.

The building is being planned in Pretoria on land already owned by the department. It is the sports ground next to the old Normal College. There is already an existing building on the land which will be integrated into the complex. The building was considered against the background of a Unisa report that was requested in regard to proposed guidelines for State buildings bearing in mind the privatisation policy of the Government.

The planned complex was discussed in depth with a large life assurer with a great deal of experience of State lessees in order to determine guidelines and possible rental structures if the private sector provided the accommodation.

After consultation with the Institute of Architects on 8 July 1987 in conformity with the decision of the Ministers’ Council, a written invitation was extended to nine architectural firms which in the opinion of the department were among the best in Pretoria and which would be able to undertake and complete a project of this size, requesting them to submit draft proposals for a building complex to accommodate all the head offices of the departments in the administration, together with a curriculum vitae of their firms and an indication of the projects which they had previously undertaken.

Applications were received, analysed and considered. Because it is a large project, it was decided to combine two of the firms which submitted the most acceptable proposals.

Planning is already in an advanced stage and the building is being judged, inter alia, against the following criteria: The building must be functional because we are not building monuments; the various departments have each to be accommodated in its own wing or section; the building must be so designed that it can be erected in stages; the design must lend itself to a realistic cost estimate; and the building must reflect South African culture and give recognition to the purpose for which it will be erected, that is to say, the head office of the Administration: House of Assembly.

Sketch plans have already been drawn up, a model has been built, and we are now in consultation with the Treasury to obtain the approval of the Department of Finance to take the matter further. This is of course the Exchequer and Audit Committee for Building Norms and Standards, which holds good for all State buildings.

I am convinced that the erection of an own building for the Administration: House of Assembly is an important step in the further establishment and effective administration and functioning of the department. It has been my experience, even in the few weeks that I have served in this administration, that it is not possible to administer a department properly when it is accommodated in various buildings throughout the city.

But the Ministers are in various buildings!

It is just not possible. It places a tremendous burden on the management and I think that this is a good development for the administration from that point of view as well.

I want to refer to a matter that was raised here by the hon member for Barberton in regard to pensioners. The hon member for Pietersburg also mentioned it. If I may put it so, I think there was more that just a little politics involved in the speeches of the hon members in regard to the miserable circumstances in which many of these people find themselves.

I know what I am talking about. I have many such people in my constituency. I have already launched a number of projects with these people. Virtually every week I have a clinic in my constituency for those people. I have an office that is open daily, and I have a telephone answering machine which is in operation day and night to record calls.

There are many day hospitals, service centres and old-age homes in my constituency, and so I think I have a good idea of what these people need. I do not think it helps at all for hon members to exploit the misery of these people in the way in which they do. Social pensioners are usually people who are compelled by circumstances to be dependent upon the State for their livelihood. Sometimes it is not their fault but then again sometimes it is. The fact remains, however, that the social pension was never intended to provide for all the requirements of the recipient. It is merely intended to supplement the recipient’s own funds, and he has to try to provide for himself as far as possible.

There are also other supplementary forms of assistance which the State and the private sector make available to these people. I may just inform hon members that an increase of R2 per month in the social pension for Whites costs the Exchequer R5 million per annum. When we talk about the Exchequer, we must realise that it is hon members and myself—the taxpayers—who are involved. An increase of R2 per month in the social pension for all races costs the taxpayer or the Exchequer R31,2 million per annum. We already have 1,3 million social pensioners of all race groups in the country, including the self-governing areas, who this year alone will receive R2,5 billion from the Exchequer. This serves to give one some idea of the scope of our operation.

When one looks at the vast proportion which the social pension scheme has already assumed and we consider the fact that 50% of the population of this country is below the age of 16 we can see the enormous wave that is on its way towards us.

We can realise then why the Government cannot therefore ever bind itself to a policy of the linking of social pensions to the consumer price index. The Exchequer simply cannot afford such a thing. The amounts which are disbursed in social pensions will of necessity not be able to keep pace with the increase in the consumer price index.

†Due to the fact that the social pension scheme is not intended to make the pensioners fully independent financially, the pensioner’s family or the community also has a duty to care for the elderly and other underprivileged people. I wish to pay tribute today to the many thousands of private organisations, people of service organisations who play such an important role in maintaining a quality of life for these people. In my own constituency the Lions, the Rotarians and many others, including the churches such as the Dutch Reformed Church and many others, come to the service centres and take people out for drives and help them in a variety of ways. One is truly most grateful for those millions of acts of kindness that take place unnoticed across our country all the time, across the racial barriers and across the lines of income and class. One is very grateful for the work of these service organisations.

It must be borne in mind that old age pensions are not the only assistance given to the aged. Subsidies are paid to the managements of 411 old-age homes caring for the aged, amounting to R121,7 million in the current financial year. The department also subsidises 100 service centres, which costs a further R8,8 million in the current financial year. At the service centres the aged can get hot meals for a daily fee. Many centres have chiropodists, and the elderly people can have their hair done. Many of these places have vertical baths where people who cannot bath in traditional baths can bath. They have all kinds of specialist services available to them. They are also very often located near day hospitals which these people have to visit anyway.

At present 50 000 subeconomic elderly people are cared for in subsidised departmental old-age homes, or make use of the service centres. These people also receive social pensions, and therefore receive Government assistance from two sources. Private sources also contribute towards helping these people. The Department of Local Government, Housing and Work also gives assistance by way of charging welfare organisations low rates of interest in order to erect old-age homes, housing schemes and service centres. There are also medical services and hospitalisation which are available to these people at nominal fees. The Departments of Posts and Telecommunications and Transport also make concessions to the aged, for instance in the case of television licences, and rail and air tickets. One can go on in this way. There are a great many services and benefits for the old people. We are delighted about it and we shall always endeavour to improve their lot as best we can and to be as generous as is possibly affordable within the budget of this administration.

* As at 31 December 1987 there were 9 237 more people receiving social pensions than as at 31 December 1984. Therefore, during the period 1984 to 1987, there was a growth of 4,5% in the number of people receiving social pensions. When we look at the increase in expenditure, we see that in 1985-86, the expenditure was R455,8 million, and in 1987-88, R552 million, that is to say, an increase of 21% over the same period.

As far as the subsidising of White old-age homes is concerned—I do not want to mention all the figures again—there was an increase of 87% in expenditure over the period of four financial years. There was therefore a large increase in the subsidising of White old-age homes and the payment of social pensions in comparison with the numerical growth of those groups.

+The hon member for Pinetown came along with his old refrain as far as teachers are concerned. I just want to say to him that I have answered them as best I can. I know it is an unsatisfactory situation; I know it is difficult; I know it is an emotionally-laden situation; I know it is his singleminded interest; I know it is his discipline. I must admit that nobody can argue that he does not energetically canvas the needs of these people. For that I respect him. However, I ask him to be patient. We share every concern he has. As a member of this administration, I have been amazed at the tremendous amount of energy and dedication, commitment and concern that is shown for the lot of our teachers in this country. [Interjections.] We have to do what is possible.

The hon member started making politics about my colleague the hon the Minister of Information, Broadcasting Services and the Film Industry and the McCann report.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, he did. He asked why the hon the Minister did not deal with it under his Vote. [Interjections.] I do not know whether he informed the hon the Minister that he was going to address him or not. [Interjections.] He did not. Then I must protect the Minister in his absence.

My colleague the hon the Minister of Information, Broadcasting Services and the Film Industry intended to hold a press conference. According to his press release, he intended to hold a press conference next week at which he would have given the press full particulars of the campaign. The funds were only approved by the Cabinet on 25 May 1988, and I know from the Ministry of Finance …

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

No, I am not taking any questions now. Possibly later, if I have the time.

The Government never makes announcements on its proposed plans until such time as it has the funds available for them. [Interjections.] The funds were not reflected in the bureau’s budget for 1988-89, and it was not possible to make provision for the campaign in the 1988-89 Budget, because the decision to proceed with the project was made after the Budget had been prepared.

I only want to say this about the whole local government issue that was also discussed very well by the hon member for Fauresmith. I think we all believe in liberty; I take it that all of us in this House believe in the expansion of democratic rights in our country. I hope we do. [Interjections.] We all have a responsibility to see to it that the incremental steps as we go along, the increasing democratisation of our country, the new local government institutions which are formed, are supported, that they grow, that they succeed, that they go from strength to strength and that we have a rising and expanding democracy in our country. [Interjections.] If we are going to try always to denigrate everything the Government does and to try to make it impossible for these new embryonic democratic institutions to take root and grow, then South Africa, in the words of Dugmore, will die where it stands.

I think that we have a responsibility to do that and I am delighted that my hon colleague will try to use the Department of Information to make that possible.

I am not going to repeat all the arguments that have been advanced here this afternoon but I want to deal with perhaps one or two of them. The hon member for Yeoville—I must put this on record—complained about the lack of supervision, training, financial controls and so forth. I think we canvassed that very widely in the previous debate, but I would like to put on record that an in-service financial training programme is being carried out at the moment to remedy the problems which he alluded to and to rectify that which is not up to standard. We are actively seeking to find the staff, if we can, or to find other ways and means to overcome the problem. We will do our best in that regard. We are also appointing private consultants to help deal with the problems raised by the Auditor-General. I, myself, have been involved in some talks over the past few days.

May I ask you a little question?

No, not now, you can ask it later. The development of the financial systems is at present being done by private consultants contracted by the Department of Finance from the Treasury.

The hon member again spoke about the report of the Auditor-General. I would like to say to him, that as far as the housing subsidy is concerned, the problems largely arose … I am talking about the files with which our administration are concerned. These are the only ones that I know about and for which I am responsible.

Three and a half thousand?

No, two and a half thousand. As far as we are concerned, we have been through every file. Secondly, I want to say to the hon member that the mistakes we have been able to find, have been due to a wrong interpretation of the formula. I have told the hon member that the formula is now being simplified by the Commission for Administration and the Association of Building Societies. I want to tell that hon member that there is no way that in this ministry there will be any condonation of abuse of public money. I want to tell this hon member that I have taken steps to see that if it happens we will root it out root and branch. I want to give the hon member that assurance.

I want to tell him that as far as I can make out, to date all the instructions and the procedures of the Auditor-General have been followed; not in my time—I take no credit for it—but since 1 April last year in the time of my predecessor.

The hon member says that he regrets the own affairs private budget, and he gives nine points of objection. I do not intend to answer them all, except to say that that hon member must know as I know that the solution for South Africa does not lie in looking to spend more money in this or that area. Of course there are areas we will have to look at from the nature of things, but the challenge to South Africa is to become a wealthproducing country. If we think we are going to solve South Africa’s problems by reallocating the resources that are currently there, we are going to lose.

But what about the people who earn R166 per month?

Let me tell the hon member that I do not like the idea of people earning R166 per month but these are unskilled labourers in remote areas who often are doing some kind of part-time or piecework. That is so, I have checked on it. However, I want to tell the hon member that I would rather see people like that employed than perhaps mechanising and then having half the staff at twice the salary. I think we must be careful that we do not set such high basic standards that will make it impossible to employ people. We must not be simplistic about the way in which we approach that particular issue.

[Inaudible.]

The hon member then goes on about what the private sector should do—it sounded rather like mother-love. I really want to say to the hon member that we agree on this matter.

Don’t you love your mother?

I love my mother dearly. What is more, I think the hon member and I agree on most of these things.

He and other hon members have attacked the tricameral Parliament in this debate as they have in many other debates. They and hon members of the CP alluded to the mercurial party-political happenings in the House of Delegates and to the fluid situation which prevails there. They also alluded to the altercation which existed between the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council in the House of Representatives and the hon the State President and then stated that that somehow showed the faults of the tricameral system and indicated how the system was failing.

In my view, the very opposite is true. For me the very fluid nature, as well as the particular culture which exists in the Indian Chamber, underlines the importance of having the tricameral Parliament in the first place, because very obviously there is a different political culture.

You are in conflict with the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning!

No, I am not in conflict with the hon the Minister.

Everybody is in conflict with the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning!

I am arguing that in some respects it illustrates a different political culture and a different way of operating. As long as that which takes place is within the rules, it is a credit to those who constructed the rules that this kind of fluidity can take place and that this response to the particular political culture of that group is possible. It is also an attribute that a Cabinet Minister can resign under the circumstances in which he did without wrecking the system. In my opinion it is once again a credit to the resilience of the system itself.

I am not arguing that the system is perfect. We have never argued that we are locked into a dynamic situation that is not going to change incrementally as we improve the situation.

The hon member for Mooi River said something very important today, and I shall return to what he said. I first want to deal with a more political issue and that is the place of the CP on the South African scene. The CP says that we on this side of the House have not done enough for Whites, particularly in this administration, whereas the PFP points to the failures of the tricameral system. The hon members for Pinetown, and Bryanston particularly, spoke about the failings of the system but there is an old axiom which says that the more one devolves, the more one must coordinate. As the Government has been devolving powers away from the centre over the years to respond to the particular democratic, geo-political and socio-economic realities in our country, so imperative needs for co-ordinating structures to escape from the problems that we have had in South Africa have arisen. The concept of own affairs does not negate the reality that we need to find co-operative structures; in fact, it confirms it. We desperately need alternative structures that will respond to the real community demands of our people, including White people.

Those institutions that we create must be strong and secure—this is what brings me to the hon member for Mooi River: We must unlock the necessary confidence in our people. Confidence, particularly among the White people of South Africa but also among all the other groups in South Africa, is a absolute prerequisite for community growth, interracial harmony and co-operation. Without confidence this country will not make progress and it is absolutely vital that the institutions we build must give our people the sense of confidence that they can move out and grow and that this country can grow economically and constitutionally.

To find the solutions to our problems will definitely mean that we shall have to escape from racism and not move towards it and escape from the policies advocated by the hon members of the CP.

The hon member for Witbank made the unbelievable statement that if the CP came into power there would be more confidence in South Africa. According to him the investors would come back because there would be stability and they would know where they stood. These hon members say that they are going to bring stability! [Interjections.]

I want to tell that hon member to bring me a chapter of a chamber of commerce, or a chamber of industries, or a chamber of mines, or an Afrikaanse handelsinstituut or any other organised body of opinion in South Africa that will tell us that a swing to the right, let alone a CP Government is going to restore confidence in the South African economy. The mind boggles! It is the most unbelievable statement I have heard.

Strangely enough that happened in 1948! [Interjections.]

That hon member reminds me of the old song of Max Bygraves—“I am going backwards to Christmas”—but they cannot go backwards to Christmas. I thought that party was back in 1971, but I am being told this afternoon that they are back in 1961. They are therefore going backwards rapidly; in the past few days they have made a great leap, not a great leap forward, but a great leap back. [Interjections.] I want to say to those hon members that they have reduced the debate in this Parliament, which used to be a great national debate, to a cultural feud. It is only from hon members of the Government and occasionally from the few hon members of the PFP that one hears any kind of constructive debate. We come to this Parliament to debate the great issues of our nation, but what happens? The debate deteriorates into a cultural feud which adds nothing to the sum total of human knowledge and will not bring this country one inch closer to any of the solutions that we need.

You are not convincing anyone!

I want to deal with the myth that the CP is a safe alternative to the NP. There was no alternative before, but now one can vote for the CP because now one can vote for an alternative to the Government that will keep South Africa safe! That is the biggest myth and the biggest lie that has ever been propagated in South Africa. [Interjections.] Those gentlemen are not a conservative party. They do not understand the whole tradition of conservatism. They do not understand what conservatism is all about. All the great reforms, also in this country, took place largely under conservative administrations. Conservative administrations have not tried to reach back; conservative administrations have always been forward looking. Here I can refer to the great reform Bills of the last century—the great law reform, the great prison reform and many of the other great reforms. They have come under conservative administrations, Mr Chairman, and not from confrontation parties. That is the more appropriate name for that party—it is the Confrontation Party, and not the Conservative Party. [Interjections.]

Let me tell hon members why I say that party is the Confrontation Party. Look at the recipe they propose—keep the Blacks in check! I know of all these little house meetings of the CP, of all those little old ladies sitting there and they are all terrified. Then the CP members stand up and say in a “kragdadige” manner: “Ek is ’n sterk ou. Ek vat nie nonsens van hierdie Swartmense nie. Man, dêmmit, ons sal die ding regruk.” [Interjections.] That is the type of nonsense they propagate, Mr Chairman! [Interjections.]

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

They are going to kick the Coloureds and the Indians out of Parliament. That is right!—they will clean up Parliament as well! They will kick the Indians out of the Orange Free State. They will clean up the Black spots. They will chuck out the 10 million Blacks in the urban areas, and that is also going to be a big contribution to the economy! [Interjections.] They are going to tell the world to go to blazes. That is another way in which they win friends and influence people! That they will attract investment is the biggest lie that ever was. If thinking South Africans could ever be so wrongminded as to elect that administration, it would be an absolute disaster for this economy. [Interjections.] Let me tell hon members why, and I will prove it. Those hon members spawned the AWB, and they probably formed them. They are either a product of the AWB or the AWB is a product of that party.

You built the ANC!

Let me say I have the primary responsibility in respect of matters relating to disinvestment and sanctions. Hon members know that. The last three years I have virtually lived from day to day with every single problem we have had in that sphere. Do hon members realise what image is projected of South Africa by that histrionic group of men with their broken Swastikas, the followers of that mad Eugene Terre’Blanche, what reaction it provokes from people watching their arrogant, theatrical pomposity on their television screens in England, throughout Europe and America, let alone in South Africa? We must not forget that the memory is still vividly alive in Europe of the holocaust of World War II which claimed the lives of many millions—a war caused by exactly the same type of government which Eugene Terre’ Blanche and his AWB followers are advocating at the moment.

I do not want to smear the CP. I can tell them, however, why their position is what it is and what remedies they could apply should they want to get rid of their current image.

In America they have the John Birch Society and the Ku Klux Klan. In England they have the British National Socialists. In other parts of the world there are also numerous lunatic-fringe groups. In America, Ronald Reagan does not share the same platform with the leader of the Ku Klux Klan. In Great Britain, Mrs Thatcher or the leader of the opposition does not ask Colin Jordan or the British National Party or the local Moseleyites to take part in the same rally with them. In West Germany, Mr Franz Josef Strauss does not invite the local branch of the Neo-Nazis to his party’s rallies. There is not a single conservative politician in Europe who will be seen within a mile of any of those people. They repudiate them absolutely. In South Africa, however, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition in this House plays footsie-footsie with them and launders them. He will not condemn them. After all, he cannot make enemies of his friends. [Interjections.] They believe in some of the very same things. What should be regarded as a lunatic-fringe group, which every sensible South African should condemn, that hon Leader of the Official Opposition elevates to the level of a partner of the Official Opposition. [Interjections.]

And some of them even sit in Parliament! [Interjections.]

The CP claims to be an alternative government for this country. Nevertheless, they have four or five AWB members sitting in those benches. [Interjections.] What does that mean? It means the world sees the CP as a vehicle for the bringing into Government of people who are absolutely anathema to the Russians, the Americans, the Europeans and, let me say, English and Afrikaans-speaking South Africans. [Interjections.]

The remedy is easy, Sir. All the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition needs to do is unequivocally to condemn those people and to tell South Africa and the world he considers them completely beyond the pale.

Why do you not condemn Albert Nothnagel?

Why does the CP not condemn the Ku Klux Klan?

Mr Chairman, I want to make it clear that there is nothing personal in what I am saying here. I happen to like the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. I also happen to like the hon member for Randburg. I like them as people. [Interjections.] The hon members of the CP, however, by laundering the AWB, are hurting this country very badly. I believe the image of this country has been polluted more than enough without it being necessary to be aggravated by that crowd. The members of the NDM, on the other hand, travel to West Germany. What is in the armoury of the hon member for Randburg when he travels to West Germany? All he has there is the fact that he is an Afrikaner and a former Nationalist. That is what has to comprise his credibility. If he had been William Malander of Johannesburg North nobody would have taken any notice of him. But now he has this alleged credibility which he derives from his former links with the NP and his erstwhile status within this party, and armed with that he travels to West Germany.

What does he do there? He effectively launders the ANC, who are nothing but a lot of bloodthirsty murderers who are not interested in allowing the light of democracy to shine brightly in South Africa. They want to extinguish the light of democracy in this country. Nevertheless, the hon member for Randburg becomes the useful idiot serving those people who are the enemies of democracy. They are not interested in powersharing. They want to usurp power. That is why I say I believe the hon member for Randburg is naive.

The fact is that he is using his former NP status as a detergent to launder the ANC, and I find that offensive. [Interjections.] Even as we sit here, the flower of our youth is being called up to stand against these forces of gloom that are packing up against our country.

The closer one gets to the NP, the more credible one becomes. [Interjections.] I remember Van Zyl Slabbert, who used to be in this House. Why did he gain? He gained support because he was an Afrikaner and had been a professor at the University of Stellenbosch. If his name had been Fred von Slaboviski and he had come from Wits, nobody would have listened to him. [Interjections.]

So you are not a token Englishman!

No, I am not a token Englishman. Let me tell my hon friend that I have been through every formation of this party. I was an MPC. I fought every election, and I was not given a safe seat. [Interjections.] I went to an opposition seat which had a strong opposition majority, and I fought that seat with my own money and my own organisation and delivered it to this party. I won it and have increased my majority every time since! I am no token Englishman. [Interjections.] The Worrallites are the same. They have tried to cannibalise the NP. They sail as close to the NP wind as their former PFP backers will allow. The Worrallite cries that he is a verligte, that he is just a more effective and more verligte version of the NP. What he really wants to do is take the NP and recreate it in Worrall’s image. South Africa does not have time for that. The reforms that have to be brought about in this country are urgent, and we have no time to wait for Dr Worrall to recreate the NP in his own image. [Interjections.]

I blame the CP for laundering the AWB, and the PFP—I have left them out up till now—are not blameless either. I blame them for a lack of conviction. [Interjections.] The hon members sitting there created the Malanites. They know that the hon member for Randburg would never have come to this Parliament after the last election without Prog support. Worrall would never have put up a good showing if his whole organisation had not been run by the PFP. [Interjections.] The PFP know that. What did they do? [Interjections.] This is absolutely true. The PFP could have stopped the hon member for Randburg at any time. All they had to do was to tell their supporters to oppose him. He would have lost hopelessly, because he came in on the back of Prog support. [Interjections.]

What we need in South Africa is reconciliation among South Africans. We need to empty this Parliament of reactionaries. We need to find common ground among all South Africans. We know what has separated us as South Africans. What all South Africans need to do is to find that which unites us—there is so much—and then to structure those things that bind us. Let me ask hon members this. If they were to hurt or damage the NP, what other instrument would we have in the hands of South Africa with which to accomplish this great task?

I am not going to reply to anybody else. I would like to end this debate with some words of John Wesley’s which I saw in The Argus today. I would like to make these words the motto of this Ministry, I am a great admirer of John Wesley and of his hymns. John Wesley said:

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I am going to try to be serious, but I am so happy about yesterday’s results that it is difficult to contain myself. It is a pity that our Official Opposition is not here to share our joy. I want to place it on record, however, that in my opinion the Official Opposition’s only aim in this House is to waste this party’s time and to waste money. Surely that is not politics. After all, we are here to take care of the interests of our people. If their only purpose was to conduct politics outside, surely they should have stayed there. One expects responsible representatives to sit in their benches and to put their people’s case. Why do they not do so? Is it because they are not competent to do so, or because they have not received a mandate from the people? [Interjections.] It looks as though they are ashamed of sitting here in the House and putting the people’s case.

I want to tell them that more by-elections will follow, and that they must stop wasting our time, because those who are in the way of the LP will simply be pulverised. [Interjections.] I suppose I should get to the Budget now.

Order! The hon member is well able to put his case. If other hon members, including the hon member for Tafelberg, want to say something, they must have their names put on the speakers’ list.

I think it would be wrong of me to stop there, because I must mention the number of voters who voted yesterday. [Interjections.] The message from outside is very clear that we must proceed. [Interjections.] The large number of voters who voted for the LP gave us a clear message, viz: Here is your mandate. You are doing good work—carry on!

Sir, I want to assure you that we can only do better. The more we travel through the country, the more aware we become of people’s positive reaction to us.

†The people outside are overjoyed because of what is happening.

Yes.

I want to say, however, that they are critical of the slow pace of reform. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon the Minister must not keep on saying “yes”. The hon member for Toekomsrus must be given an opportunity to continue his speech. If the hon the Minister wants to take part in the debate, he must do so via the correct channels. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister must please not argue. The hon member for Toekomsrus may proceed.

Mr Chairman, what has come forward very clearly in these by-elections? Hon members are aware of the fact that Eersterus is the biggest constituency in the country and it has an assembly of voters from all walks of life. It was interesting to listen to their reactions and it was good to have public meetings where one could meet the ordinary voter. It was good to be able to tell them what is happening. However, people are concerned about the direction in which we are going and they would like to know what is the final objective. This is why I passionately plead with those in the executive to begin to spell out to us what their ultimate objective is.

‘Sir, I know it is difficult to get there. I also know it is difficult to describe the direction we are taking in detail. It is not that difficult, however, to say, “This is what we intend for the future of South Africa.”

I now come to the Supplementary Estimates, and I want to emphasise the Foreign Affairs Vote in particular.

†If there is one department that has my sympathy, it is the Department of Foreign Affairs. This department is trying its utmost to paint a picture of the direction in which we are going.

‘When one has so little to hold on to, it is very difficult to explain the true situation to people.

†Therefore I am asking the hon the Minister to use his position in the Cabinet so that we can reach a model that will suit South Africa in the first instance, and which will also satisfy the outside world. I said this the other day, and I want to repeat today that South Africa is not an island.

*We cannot live in isolation. We form part of the larger world outside.

†While we are being subjected to all sorts of intimidation, are we not responsible for some forms of intimidation ourselves? If we are painted as the polecats of world society, are we not making a positive contribution towards creating that kind of image? Sir, I know we are not. I know that the Western World in particular does not know what is happening in this country. Therefore, I should like to make an appeal to the hon the Deputy Minister. If we invite people at great expense to visit this country—this morning I listened to a professor from Canada on the early news broadcast—we must make sure that those people are first of all acceptable in their own societies. I am concerned about the kind of people that we attract. It is useless to bring a person to this country merely because he holds favourable views with regard to South Africa or because he has some kind of status in the form of degrees or certain honorary positions. What we need, is that more “grassroots” people should come to this country so that they can see for themselves.

It is also important not to confine people to a certain group when we are sending them overseas. There are hon members in this Chamber who are quite capable of selling this country to the outside world.

The greater majority of hon members here can dynamically convey a message—in their simple form—of what is happening, but they are constantly being overlooked. We are wasting State money by sending people who are outside the system to go and sell something which they themselves do not believe in.

“While my party and I are very definite in saying that what we have now is a Constitution which we do not find totally acceptable, we do realise that it is a point of departure. That is why we are sitting here. Because hon members here are convinced about that which they are involved in, I believe that we can spell out that message much more clearly outside the House.

†You see, Sir, it is important that the outside world gets our message. They should be made to understand that boycotts and sanctions against South Africa affect only the underprivileged, those who are oppressed. It is the oppressed people who are being affected by boycotts that are supposed to be assisting those people. That is the message that hon members here would like to convey to the outside world; and they would be willing and quite able to do so.

“Once again, Sir, with all due respect to the hon the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs who is sitting here, I say that when the department selects people, they always select the wrong people. I do not know what criterion is used to select people as representatives who are competent to convey South Africa’s message abroad.

†The decision we took at Eshowe was absolutely clear. We said that we did not accept the tricameral system as the alpha and the omega, but we acknowledged that it had given us the opportunity to participate and to perpetuate the LP policy of negotiating for a better South Africa—a South Africa that we would, in the end, be proud of. We wanted a South Africa that would provide for all its citizens and in which all the citizens would be represented in a unitary parliament. On that we were absolutely clear, and events have proved us correct.

Sir, you yourself stood for election and you know the kind of intimidation to which voters were subjected. You know, too, about the kind of intimidation candidates who stood for election to this House and the House of Delegates had to endure. Yet all the candidates had the courage of their convictions to go to the people and to say that participation in the tricameral system was the beginning and not necessarily the end. What has happened since? One can see how that message has been carried further. Hon members know what happened in the by-elections in the Northern Transvaal: More people voted in a by-election than in a general election which is not normally the pattern. The same goes for Ceres, where the percentage poll doubled. I am proud to say that over 8 000 people voted in Eersterus and that my party enjoys a majority of 3 000. Now I want to say to the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House of Assembly that he should stop misconstruing figures. It is a fact that the LP is the Official Opposition in Parliament per se.

Hear, hear!

While he can claim that the CP is the opposition in that Chamber, he should not use that excuse for boycotting. If he is afraid to enter into open debate with hon members from this Chamber, he should say so; but he should not misinterpret figures, or use figures to create an impression that is not entirely true.

‘Sir, I said this on Tuesday, and I say again today that we must hold an election. The people are waiting for us. They will welcome us with open arms. We are not afraid of an election. Our term is coming to an end.

†We want to hold an election. It is only when one goes back to the people to get a mandate that one can come back refreshed, as I am refreshed today.

*I want to conclude with the following few words. I do not want to use Parliament as a platform for an election campaign. I want to congratulate the hon the Deputy Minister and request at the same time that they listen to us. I should like the hon the Deputy Minister to take a cricket team overseas, but the team that should actually be taken overseas is sitting in this House today. I do not know how hon members in the other Houses would fare, but nevertheless I wish them the best of luck. I hope that things will work out for them. I do not know, however, whether we shall have the same situation next week. Furthermore I have no problem in supporting the Supplementary Estimates.

Mr Chairman, it is a pleasure to speak after the hon member for Toekomsrus. In the beginning I could not quite make out what it was all about. Initially I thought the hon member was talking about the recent rugby match between WP and Transvaal. I should like to avail myself of the opportunity to congratulate the hon member and his colleagues on an excellent performance during the past 24 hours. They can justifiably be proud of it. I am sure it is in the interests of their party.

We shall show you how.

Sir, with reference to that point, I want to say the following, viz that in 1984, during the general election for the House of Representatives, there was a great deal of criticism about the number of votes. The hon member for Toekomsrus is quite correct. Every time there is an election or a by-election, there is an increase in the number of votes. This proves that we are on the right course and that more and more people want to become involved. I want to congratulate hon members most sincerely. The hon member said the LP was the Official Opposition in Parliament. I cannot comment on that, except to say that as long as the Official Opposition is positive, loyal and patriotic towards this country and all its people, they can definitely make a positive contribution.

I have something of a problem. With reference to the Supplementary Estimates, my hon colleague covered a wide field, whereas I actually want to restrict myself to the specific item that is called a Supplementary Estimate in our Budget. Nevertheless I want to comment on one or two matters to which the hon member referred. During the discussion of my Vote, I said there could be no doubt that the best way of telling South Africa’s story abroad was to send some of our people overseas or to bring opinion-makers from overseas to South Africa. Perhaps the hon member for Toekomsrus was correct in saying that we should be careful not to bring people here only because they have made positive noises in respect of South Africa overseas. I often have to deal with this kind of thing. I regard it as a challenge, and I know that the same challenges often end up on hon members’ desks. I regard it as a challenge, when a hypercritical, subjective person visits me, to ensure that when he leaves my office an hour or so later, he knows more about South Africa and has a more positive attitude towards the country. I want to thank hon members for the assistance they grant in the interest of South Africa in this connection. We must get people here—quite rightly, as the hon member said—who have achieved status and a place in their own country, and not only because they react positively towards South Africa. We have excellent examples of the most wonderful people from South Africa who go abroad to convey our message there. I want to thank hon members for that.

I want to make brief mention of the specific point concerning Foreign Affairs in the Supplementary Estimates. There is an increase of R20 430 000.

This increase is the result of an additional allocation under Programme 3, in respect of budgetary assistance which is being made available to the TBVC countries for the payment of the one-time bonus of R60 to social pensioners. This payment is taking place in correspondence with the proposal made by the hon the Minister of Finance during his Budget Speech on 16 March 1988. It is customary, when increases are announced, such as the announcement in respect of pensions by the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare recently, or when salary increases are announced, to make the same adjustments in the TBVC states.

There are almost 340 000 pensioners in the TBVC states. In order to place this on record, I mention merely that the figures in the respective states are more or less as follows: Transkei, 164 000; Bophuthatswana, 84 000; Venda, 35 000; and Ciskei, 57 000. The allocation of R20,43 million is being distributed as follows: Transkei, R9,836 million; Bophuthatswana, R5,064 million; Venda, R2,080 million; and Ciskei, R3.450 million. That is the explanation for the increase in the Supplementary Estimates in respect of the Foreign Affairs Vote.

As a last thought I want to say, in reaction to what the hon member for Toekomsrus said, that all of us in all three Houses, as well as everyone in the country, must co-operate in building a new, happy South Africa for all its people. I thank the hon member for Toekomsrus in particular for his contribution in this connection.

Debate concluded.

Votes in Schedule 1 and Schedules 1 to 5 agreed to.

Mr Chairman, on 16 February this House took the decision to form a committee to investigate the alleged bribery. The committee was established as a result of allegations which had been made in the House of Assembly by the hon member for Lichtenburg.

The committee met on five occasions. On 15 March, having considered verbal and written evidence, the committee came to the conclusion that no identification could be made with certainty of any individual who had been involved in actual bribery. The report of that committee was tabled in Parliament. Every hon member of Parliament is in possession of a copy of the report.

Having served in that committee, I want to place on record that a thorough job was done. I am proud to have been associated with that committee. I also want to place on record our appreciation for the work done by the officials and in particular for the chairman’s guidance in this matter.

Debate concluded.

Mr Chairman, at the very outset I should like to make a brief announcement.

The necessity for sustained economic growth in order to ensure essential employment opportunities for the country’s increasing population surely cannot be emphasised sufficiently. In this respect the industrial sector can play a decisive role. The Government is aware of the necessity for industrial growth to take place, in particular, by means of continued import replacement and exports and, I may add, inward industrialisation.

The Board of Trade and Industry recently submitted a report to me in which a policy and strategy for the development and structural adjustment of industry in the RSA was addressed. The board has identified various bottlenecks in respect of continued industrial growth and has stressed in particular the need for export promotion as part of a structural adjustment programme in order to make industries in the Republic more competitive in both the local and world markets.

The Government has received serious representations to the effect that the existing export incentive measures should be retained for a further year after the change-over date which has already been announced, as exporters are already negotiating commitments in respect of exports for the following year and as details of the new measures are not yet known. Furthermore, the Government has seriously considered the representations and has decided that the changeover should take place on a most orderly basis.

On a previous occasion I already announced that the A and B export incentive schemes were to be retained provisionally. I now confirm that the C and D schemes will also remain in existence until a date of which ample notice will be given in advance. Notice will be given in due course of the phasing out of the existing A and B schemes and the manner in which any new schemes will be implemented. It may be accepted, however, that the existing A, B, C and D schemes will still apply for the full 1989-90 financial year.

In order to enable the Government to plan thoroughly in respect of future schemes and their phasing in, it is still expected of exporters to register or, in the case of exporters that are registered at present, to re-register. Registrations are to be finalised before the end of October 1988 and applications for registration or re-registration may be submitted to the Department of Trade and Industry from 1 September 1988.

Mr Chairman, the gold …

Speak Afrikaans, Sir!

Yes, I can. I am bilingual.

†The gold and platinum industries play a very important role in the economy of South Africa, both as earners of foreign currency and for the creation of job opportunities. During 1987 gold production in South Africa amounted to approximately 600 tons which earned R17 493 million in foreign capital. This represented about 73% of the total income from mineral exports and 41% of the Republic’s total export earnings. The Republic of South Africa possesses 48% of the world’s total gold reserves and during 1986, 39% of the world’s gold was produced in South Africa. In 1987 some 550 850 people were employed by the gold mining industry. A total amount of R4 802 million was earned by these employees in salaries and wages. During 1987 the gold mining industry further contributed R2 912 million to the exchequer in the form of tax and revenue from mining lease contracts. The industry is also an important consumer of goods and services. It is anticipated that gold production will increase to a level of 660 tons in 1992 and that this level will be maintained for several years before the total production will decline at the end of the century.

The platinum group of metals are platinum, palladium, rhodium, iridium and osmium, of which platinum plays by far the most important role in the South African mineral industry. The Republic of South Africa possesses about 80% of the world’s platinum reserves and in 1987 South Africa’s PGM production accounted for about 42% of world production. Please note that these figures do not include Bophuthatswana reserves and/or production. During 1987, 31 592 people were employed by the platinum industry. An amount of about R391 million was paid out in the form of salaries and wages. It is expected that the world demand for platinum will grow by 3,5% per annum and the RSA has the potential to meet the growing demand.

One of the main uses of platinum is as a catalyst in the exhaust systems of motor vehicles. A rapidly growing demand in this field, especially from Europe, is anticipated. The demand for platinum for use in jewellery, especially in the Far East, is good and it is expected that this will last. It is expected that the demand for platinum for investment purposes will probably increase at a steady rate, and regarding the industrial demand, the potential demand for the metals used in oxidation cells remains high.

Several new platinum mines are envisaged and extension to the existing mines will most probably take place. Prospecting for further reserves continues unabated. It is possible that platinum production in South Africa will increase by as much as 35% by 1991. Platinum is regarded as a strategic mineral which the Western world cannot obtain in sufficient quantities from any source other than South Africa.

Mr Chairman, I would like to compliment the hon the Minister, the new director-general appointed in the place of Mr Stef Naudé and all those who are responsible for compiling this annual report which gives an indepth look into the working of the department of trade and industry.

It is already well known that the South African economy grew at a real rate of approximately 2,5% in 1987, which is appreciably better than the growth rate of 1% in 1986. The accelerated rate of development occurred in various sectors of the economy and is expanding to more and more sectors.

A number of laws were amended during 1987. The Council for Small Businesses was established on 25 November 1986 to succeed the Council for the Promotion of Small Business, with the assignment to advise the Government on policy matters regarding small business development.

Small businesses must emerge from their hiding places and be recognised as being a major contribution to South Africa’s economic growth. I believe one in every five South African households operates a home business of some sort. The home businesses industry is being stifled by the Government and municipalities which confuse and intimidate prospective entrepreneurs. The entrepreneurs who do not know whether they are legal or illegal are vulnerable. The home business of the informal sector of today may well become the corporation of the formal sector of tomorrow.

The municipal regulations in some areas stipulate that only one person may be involved in a home business. This makes husband-and-wife partnerships illegal. I hereby suggest that up to three or four people be allowed in a home business. I am not saying that it is right to give people businesses, but one should allow them to work on a consent basis and within certain parameters. It is the home businesses and the small businesses which are creating jobs for the many new entrants into the marketplace. My advice to those starting their own businesses is not to evade the law, but to start out and get going. There is a need to define what a home business is.

Mr Chairman, I would like to take up a point that was made by the hon member for Central Rand. The trouble with this country is that we have pleas from the highest authorities that small businesses and deregulation be allowed. However, local authorities with their sets of bye-laws appear to be superseding ordinances and Acts of Parliament. They are stifling growth.

Listen to what the hon member said. Only one person may be involved in a small business. When a husband and wife form a partnership, it becomes illegal. This is absolutely absurd. One cannot get any worse. I think the time has come for the department to get into closer contact with the authorities at local level. They should be educated, because they always want to throw the book at people. If that continues, all our discussions will remain pie in the sky.

I want to come back to the Vote. An amount of R1 196 million has been voted. I think this is an amount well voted, especially if one looks at all the stalwarts that are promoting the absolute livewire of this country. If a country does not export, it cannot survive. Exports are one of the most important aspects of any economy. They generate foreign currencies, uphold currency value and improve the balance of payment.

I now come to the report. Here the whole picture is presented. I wish to read from page 31, and I quote:

I think that speaks volumes. This department handles a host of economic activities that are interrelated. It hands out grants-in-aid to the South African Tourism Board to stimulate tourism. It also has to prop up export promotion. During the last financial year an amount of approximately R607 million was spent on this. The department hands out subsidies to exporters.

It is interesting to note that during the past financial year export permits increased by 48%. This is most encouraging, and just goes to show that many industrialists are becoming very enthusiastic about exporting. However, there is another aspect that is worrying me, and that is the exchange rate. We hear that tourism is going to be propped up to the tune of approximately R39 million. As it stands, any person who comes here with a dollar, will get almost R3 for it. If they cannot do well with that, I think something must be wrong somewhere.

That being so, there is another aspect that is worrying me. I think we received a very reasonable reply from the Director-General. The promotion of export is costing this country a lot of money. Here, too, we are looking at a favourable exchange rate. With the present exchange rate we cannot compete with export prices of foreign countries. I think we are going to be in trouble when the rand improves.

The hon the Minister mentioned something that was very interesting. He said there was a report on this table and that we would be hearing more about it very soon. I believe that will be the White Paper on Trade and Industry. Maybe that will give us more insight, and we shall adjust accordingly. The important fact is that export and trade are most important aspects of the growth of our economy.

Mr Chairman, in the very limited time that we have at our disposal in this particular debate we would like to take this opportunity to place on record our appreciation to the hon the Minister, his two hon Deputy Ministers and all the officials of that department for the very kind co-operation that we receive from each and every one of them—we appreciate that. Officials of that department have always been available to us whenever we have had queries. They have been very accessible to us and, as I have said, we appreciate that.

I would like to raise two issues this afternoon. The first issue concerns the question of the synthetic fuel ethanol. The hon the Minister is on record as having said that the Government is studying a report that has been prepared by specialists in that regard. As I understand the hon the Minister, some accommodation has been made between two opposing factions in the whole issue of the ethanol industry. I am of course referring to the sugar industry on the one hand and the oil industry on the other. What I would like to ask the hon the Minister and the hon the Deputy Ministers is whether any progress in that regard has been made, particularly in regard to the possible establishment of an ethanol plant in Richards Bay. I believe there was a fair amount of speculation and I would like to take the opportunity of asking the hon the Deputy Minister if he would care to respond to that.

The second issue that I would like to raise here this afternoon concerns the Mossel Bay gas project. As all hon members in this House will recall, there was a fairly in-depth article in the Financial Mail of 27 May. The point that was made in the article was simply whether or not the latest oil finds off the Cape coast, particularly near Mossel Bay, coupled to the technical capabilities of exploiting such scattered resources, made such extra exploration viable or not. All of us in this House supported the hon the Minister fully in regard to all the statements that he made in this House and outside it for the establishment of that industry there. In view of what has been published in the Financial Mail I would like to ask the hon the Minister whether he will respond to that as well.

Mr Chairman, firstly I would like to welcome the hon the Minister and his department this afternoon. I would also like to compliment the department on providing an annual report which is not only comprehensive but also very informative.

Vote No 19 “Trade and Industry” is a vital one because it is one of the pillars on which South Africa stands. It encompasses many issues such as deregulation, labour, small businesses, CBD areas and extended encouragement to the informal sector. I think it certainly embraces all these different areas. They all fall under one umbrella but are divided into different components. Ultimately, however, it is like all the rivers of South Africa flowing into the sea. We are really talking about a very important aspect of South Africa.

I want to quote from the journal The Developer of April-July of this year. On page 6 it is stated:

It continues:

These figures definitely have relevance to our discussion today. Will we be able to create job opportunities for South Africa’s growing population? Other speakers said that we would have enough raw material resources in the years to come, but will we have the necessary expertise to utilise these resources? This will be a great challenge to us in the future.

In an interview in the same magazine the following is stated:

These are very wise words and it is very important that we do not direct ourselves into a wasteland and into difficulties where nothing can be achieved.

There are many interesting things to read in this very comprehensive report. There are something like 15 or 20 administrations that fall under the directorship which is under different administrations. We know that this is a very complicated department, but I nevertheless want to make an appeal with regard to certain matters in the very restricted time that is available to us.

Since we came to this House we have been serving on standing committees on Trade and Industry and other departments. We have been looking into legislation and amending legislation and making provision for our advancement as time goes on. I want to mention here that we have in all sincerity and earnestness been bringing legislation and other things up to date in order to meet the challenges that arise from time to time. I do hope that this will continue although one can say that we are taking two steps forward and one step backwards, but we are going through a very difficult time.

I am also pleased that the hon the Minister, with the Department of Manpower and Training, is looking at the training of our workers in a very broad way. Here I want to say that it is important that we should direct the workforce to the technical area because for too long we have been looking at what we might call the professional side and there is not enough room for our people to expand into that area. I hope that the technical know-how in the different fields will come to the forefront. Here again I am thinking of the CSIR which is also part and parcel of this exercise. I am also of the view that the powers that have been given to them to carry out research and other things are certainly most welcome in this country. I hope the hon the Minister will continue with this.

I do not know whether this is the right Vote under which to say this, but I heard over the air this morning while we were travelling that we are not expecting an increase in the price of petrol this year. If that is the case it will certainly give us relief, because if the price of petrol goes up then every little thing goes up. It is an excuse which everybody uses. Whether it affects them or not, they say the price of petrol has gone up and so everything else has to go up. I think if the present price can be maintained it will be very much appreciated at this time in South Africa.

Mr Chairman, the work of the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs is ably amplified in this report. I am pleased that there has been a tremendous growth rate over the past years as far as the mineral products of South Africa is concerned.

Every mineral product has shown an increase in output and value and this appears on page 5 of the report. This is very good indeed for the general wealth of South Africa. This measure of growth is largely dependent on how we regulate our industry together with our labour force. It is therefore imperative that we introduce sound legislation for good quality control for mining operations to function effectively. Labour control is also a very important factor. The labour force in South Africa has to be protected to produce the type of results that the mining industry produced in 1987.

I was reading a newsletter issued by the Chamber of Mines recently and it was heartening to note that history was made in the mining industry by the repeal of the definition of “scheduled person” in the Mines and Works Act. This has been a very encouraging aspect in the mining industry and I think that the repeal of this schedule has brought a great amount of joy to all those who work in the mining industry. It is also very encouraging that the management themselves have taken the initiative in persuading the staff association to compromise and to allow the repeal of this schedule.

However, in addition to this, I think the department also played an important role by introducing legislation during the second session of last year to repeal this schedule. However, as to whether or not this Act has been promulgated, I do not think it has been promulgated as yet because the regulations are still in our possession. I just want to make an appeal to the hon the Minister in this regard because there has been a long delay in promulgating this Act, although I am given to understand that the regulations have met with the approval of many of those it concerns in the industry. It is now in the final stages and my appeal is that I should like to see this Act go through as quickly as possible so that those who are on the waiting list will enjoy some measure of relief.

This positive step which has been taken by the mining industry, together with the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs, is a step in the right direction. We have other Government departments where there are certain restrictions of the same nature, which hinder a person of colour from partaking of job opportunities, and I appeal to other Ministries to also come forward with some measure of relief.

I also appeal to other industrial concerns to think in this positive direction because what we are looking for and headed towards in South Africa is a solution that will bring peace and prosperity. I want to say that in this present time and climate, when we are talking in terms of reform, the paying of attention to this particular aspect should begin at home, that is to say in Government departments and wherever the Government itself is involved in so far as employment is concerned.

I now want to come back to the annual report. On page 75 I note that as from 1 January 1989, 98-octane fuel will be reduced to 97 octane, and I want to ask the hon the Minister whether this will, in fact, affect the motor industry and the motorists themselves, because most motor cars are designed to run on high-octane fuel. One does feel the effect of the lower octane fuel when one travels from the coast up to the Transvaal area. There is a certain amount of deficiency in the effectiveness of motoring. I should therefore like to know whether this is going to have any effect and if so, I should like to know to what extent it will affect the South African motorist, particularly in view of the reduction in the octane rating.

On the same page of the report, I note that there has been a 7,8% increase in the demand for petrol from 1986 to 1987. During the same period there was a decrease in the demand for diesel, and I would like to know what the reason is for the decrease in respect of diesel, which is in great demand at the moment. I am just beginning to wonder whether it is actually the price of diesel, which has risen to an exorbitant rate at the moment, that is possibly causing people even to reduce production in the farming industry, because diesel is used very extensively in farming and other allied industries. The high price that is being charged for diesel may also have had a certain effect in regard to the fact that our farm produce has escalated in cost.

I want to appeal to the hon the Minister to look at the various aspects affecting the decrease in the demand for diesel. If it is in fact the price that is causing a decline in the demand, then some measure of relief must be accorded to those who are dependent on the supply of diesel for their activities.

With these words I should like to compliment the department as well as the head of the department who, during the year under review, has had a tremendous task in putting forward various legislation, all in the interests of good labour relations. We have had one Bill that has been before the House and has now come back to the standing committee, and I think that the department heads have played a very important role in bringing about this good understanding between industries and the labour force.

Mr Chairman, I was very pleased with the preamble to the debate this afternoon by my colleague the hon the Minister, and I certainly agree with him—as, I am sure, do all hon members—regarding the statement that the economic stability and growth of this country are very important. The competitive nature of our industry in relation to prices must always be uppermost in our minds, and industrial incentives should be continued for as long as this is necessary.

I want to touch on the economic growth of this country and I want to make the point that if we need to retain and improve on our economic growth, which at this juncture is approximately in the region of 2,5% per annum, we really need to address the issue of uplifting our economic growth. Here the Ministry of Trade and Industry and of Mineral and Energy Affairs has an important role to play and therefore I want to pay tribute this afternoon to the Ministry and to the officials of the Ministry for their alertness and vigilance in relation to their interest in the Republic of South Africa. I want to say that their open-door policy certainly helps industrialists and entrepreneurs.

I particularly want to refer to the Chairman of the Board of Trade and Industries, Dr L P McCrystal, who has been very co-operative with the industrialists and entrepreneurs of colour in this country by addressing the conventions and meetings of these entrepreneurs. In doing so he has propounded the importance of the local industries vis-á-vis exports and imports.

I share the concern of the industry that we should be more self-reliant in relation to our country by improving the productivity of our products in this country. We need to launch a strong export drive. This is the only way to keep our prices as low as possible, and therefore productivity has to play an important role.

I also wish to refer to the hon member who said that the value of our rand against the dollar was perhaps a mitigating factor. I am very positive on this issue: On the one hand, if there is a low rand value then certainly that deters importers from importing goods which can be produced locally, while on the other hand it encourages export because the receiving countries would benefit by our low prices. I therefore think that in relation to this matter of dollar exchange value and so on we are, in my opinion, and in that of many economists, on the right wave-length.

Also important to trade and industry is the creation of job opportunities. As I have said in another debate, at the end of each year there are going to be perhaps a million more workseekers on the market. We need to concentrate our energies towards the establishment of further industries to accommodate those potential workers. This need not necessarily be highly technically skilled work, because there is room for both the unskilled and the skilled worker. Therefore the industrial and the decentralisation incentives which apply in this country are to the benefit of the industrialists.

I want to make the point that the economists in this country will have to contend with a growing trade union movement. Industries are going to be affected by the high demands that will be made on them by these trade unions. The present experience is that one trade union is vying for credibility in opposition to the other trade unions. In the process demands are going to be made on employers to recognise them or perhaps to deliver the goods to trade unions. That will certainly add to our problems by putting our products on a higher cost level than they would have been under normal circumstances.

This situation is highly interrelated with the labour laws of this country and the growth of our economy. I also want to make the point that the onslaught of boycotts and sanctions against South Africa will be on the increase. Such activities from across our borders will influence the South African industries and economists. Furthermore, the November elections in the United States, which will also be fought on the South African situation, will cause harm to our industries to a certain extent because there will be demands for sanctions and boycotts. We need to be very careful in relation to our image outside South Africa. I believe there is need for proper propagation and information to the outside world that the South Africa economy has no impediments in relation to colour.

I would like to come back to a matter that I raised with the hon the Minister a little while ago. As a result of the inheritance of restrictions on the usage of land, particularly that land which was Crown land in Natal and which was held in large acreages, title deeds prohibit the desire of the small businessman to follow his own initiative. I would like to quote the instance of a particular panelbeater who employs a dozen or more people. He could not extend his activities simply because the first title holder of a specific piece of ground had stipulated in this title deed that the property was to be used for no other activity than residential use. Here we have 15 to 20 acres of prime industrial land which is going to waste. While I mention this I know that this is a matter of deregulation etc, but these are the sort of impediments that our industrialists have to face.

In conclusion I would like to say that every section in this Ministry needs to be congratulated on its abiding interest in the growth of the economy of this country.

Mr Chairman, South Africa is a country with a First World and a Third World economy. Nevertheless, it is the most powerful economy in Africa and we can and we should build our entire economy into a First World economy. Then we shall be in a position similar to that of Canada and Australia, where the vast majority enjoy a higher standard of living. With such an economy, where most citizens are welloff, we need not fear each other politically, but we can then easily work out power-sharing schemes.

However, to succeed, it becomes necessary to give our people maximum training and education as a means to achieve this. In the first instance, we need one single integrated education system, where there is no difference in the per capita allocation of school funds. Tecknikons must be increased, but on a non-racial basis, so as to train our children, Black or White, to meet the needs of a new technological age. The Japanese, who are in the forefront of the world in technology, have proved that the greatest asset to a country’s economy is its people, but they must be trained people. Let us invest rationally in our education to improve our economy.

Turning to the Mossel Bay project, we appreciate the Government’s involvement in this project. I believe that if this project gets off the ground, it will definitely help to some extent as far as the employment situation in South Africa is concerned. We appreciate the Government’s involvement in this project.

Regarding the question of diamond polishing and cutting, we have noticed that this employment is not offered in South Africa, but that it is done overseas. We would appreciate it if some arrangement could be made in this regard. If some industries could be set up in South Africa where this activity could take place, we would welcome this.

Turning to the Alexander Bay project, I notice in the report also that job reservation is steadily being done away with. A number of positions which were previously held by Whites are now being held by Coloureds. I think here we must also compliment the department on its efforts in this direction.

Mr Chairman, I want to start my contribution to this debate by making a short statement regarding the motor industry, which is very much in the news at the moment, since we spoke about this matter in the House of Representatives on 1 June 1988.

On 1 June 1988 I announced in the House of Representatives that Phase VI of the development of the motor industry would be value-based and that there would therefore be a shift away from the present scheme based on mass. The Government is thoroughly aware of the importance of the motor industry and wishes to take care that a dynamic and viable industry is maintained. Export by the industry is regarded as of great importance to accomplish longer production runs with concomitant productivity improvement and cost savings.

In order to promote exports a scheme was introduced in 1986 according to which rebates on excise duty could also be earned in respect of exports. The purpose of this measure was to encourage the industry as a whole, ie component manufacturers and motor assemblers, to enter the export market to a greater extent. This scheme, which is based on the mass of vehicle parts exported, is very successful and exports have increased from approximately R30 million in 1985 to almost R200 million in 1987.

In order to provide for additional assistance in respect of exports of products of higher value and as a first step towards a value-based system, it was decided to replace the current scheme with a similar one, but based on the value of the components and vehicles exported. Details of the new scheme will be published shortly in the Gazette.

This newscheme should enable the motor industry to continue its successful efforts to increase exports but should be regarded as an interim measure pending the conclusion by the Board of Trade and Industry of its investigation into the Phase VI development scheme for the motor industry. The board is investigating a scheme which will be value-based, and will address local market development as well as exports.

I wish to thank hon members for their contributions. I also wish to refer to some of the remarks made by hon members in this debate. I firstly want to refer to the compliment that the hon the Minister of the Budget paid Dr McCrystal, Chairman of the Board of Trade and Industry. We support his sentiments. I also want to thank the Board of Trade and Industry for the work they have done during the past year. Since the appointment of Dr McCrystal, he has taken pains to draw the industry closer to Government. He and other board members have paid many visits to industry. The sentiments expressed by the hon the Minister of the Budget are shared by many people in South Africa.

Since the Van der Horst Committee in 1984, many changes have been brought about in the Board of Trade and Industry. Firstly, personnel was increased. As a result, the work that was done was enhanced. Investigations are completed in a shorter space of time. I also want to refer to several investigations that are being done by this board at the moment. In his opening statement the hon the Minister referred to the voluminous report on the restructuring of industry and the promotion of exports. I also want to refer to other investigations that are being done by the Board of Trade and Industry.

Firstly, an investigation is being done into the motor industry, a very important industry. This industry, according to expectations, will be importing components and tooling to the value of some R3,3 billion during the present financial year. They will only be exporting motor components to the value of some R250 million. This industry therefore makes a negative contribution to the balance of payment to the tune of R3 billion. We have to address that. That is part of the brief of the Board of Trade and Industry. It is a very wide investigation. It took a long time to establish all the facts, but they are drawing nearer to the end. I hope that the Board of Trade and Industry will in the near future give me a package to discuss with the industry. Also important in Natal and the Cape province is the textile and clothing industry. The board has been doing investigations into this industry. I expect a report from the board very soon.

*The Board of Trade and Industry is also working on several other projects. In conjunction with the Department of Trade and Industry, the board is also undertaking an investigation into the footwear industry. The Department of Trade and Industry is undertaking investigations into the electronics industry, in conjunction with the IDC. In conjunction with the IDC, we are undertaking an extensive study of the development potential of cotton in South Africa. The Department of Trade and Industry, the Department of Agriculture and the Cotton Board are assisting us with this pipeline and development study. We expect to have the report by the end of August.

Hon members referred to the jewelry industry. We have already received the report on that, and the hon the Minister is going to make very important announcements in regard to this industry in the near future.

†We are looking at the chemical industry. We think that the development potential of the chemical industry is evident. In 1985 the chemical industry imported goods to the value of R3 billion and exported only R1 billion. There is therefore a huge deficit, a negative contribution to the balance of payments. We want to develop a national development plan for the chemical industry.

Quite a few hon members referred to economic growth. Economic growth is of prime importance to us. This Ministry will co-operate with any individual or institution that is involved in enterprises that could promote economic development in this country. We are, for example, working closely with the Ministry of Agriculture.

The industrial development strategy in this country stands on three pillars: Export promotion, import replacement and the development of the internal market. With reference to exports, I just want to make a few remarks. Export is trade and trade is conducted by the private sector.

The background against which we have to operate in the international markets is characterised today by sanctions, boycotts, dumping, disruptive competition, quotas, subsidies and the contravention of the GATT rules by the powerful countries. Against this background we have lost markets but our private sector—I may add that we assisted them—has been very successful in developing new markets. We are working towards the day when sanctions will be something of the past. When that happens, there will be a real economic boom in this country because we will have conquered new markets. New worlds are opening up to us today but the traditional markets will then also be regained.

Hon members referred to the importance of the growth rate and I want to emphasise the importance of growth.

*We are told that economic growth can occur at a maximum of 2,3% in this country, but this is in complete conflict with the viewpoint of this Ministry. Our department and the Board of Trade and Industry believe that one must set one’s sights on what one wants to achieve.

†We have to aim at the target of a growth rate of 5%. We have to see what stands in the way of economic development at that rate.

‘We believe that the manufacturing industry has tremendous growth potential. I would say that it is at least 10% per annum in real terms. We must see what can possibly be done to realise this. Hon members referred to several examples in which our Ministry and the Department of Trade and Industry were involved. The responsibilities that have been delegated to me, comprise the sphere of the Department of Trade and Industry. I should just like to mention a few points in this regard.

Firstly, we are in the process of revising all legislation. Hon members referred to that. We want to see whether our Statute Book is modern and whether it supports the economic ideals of our Ministry and the country. We looked for example at legislation concerning intellectual property and goods. Earlier this year we effected a very important amendment in respect of copyright. The reaction that I received from the manufacturing industry all over the country was a shout of joy.

New investments are being made. New products are being manufactured and imports are being replaced. Yesterday evening industrialists again told me that they could now not only supply the whole local market in regard to certain products but that they could also export as a result of a short piece of legislation comprising only half a page. We have also established that there are other provisions in these Acts, eg the Legislation in respect of patents, that are in direct conflict with the interests of the country at the moment, †I want to thank the hon members who serve on the standing committee for supporting us in this matter. This year we have so far succeeded in receiving the unanimous support of all members irrespective of party affiliation in Parliament for all the Bills that have been put before the three Houses of Parliament. I particularly wish to thank hon members for the support given to the legislation pertaining to intellectual property. Next week a Bill dealing with the Patents Act will be brought before the House. This is also important.

I could carry on for quite a long time, but my colleagues also have to participate in this debate and I do not want to steal their time. I just want to thank hon members once again for their contributions and for supporting this Vote thus far.

Mr Chairman, I have found this debate very interesting. I think the hon member for North Western Transvaal kicked off the debate with a reference to my particular portfolio, ie Mineral and Energy Affairs. He referred to our annual report which states the production of various minerals and the revenue earned from it during the past year. He is correct when he says that in value terms we earned more foreign exchange than in the previous year. He is also correct to some extent when he says that our mineral production has actually increased. This is true in some respects and although I do not have the figures before me, I studied them a few days ago and I know that this does apply to some of our minerals. However, there are others to which this does not apply, but we earned more money because the price we were getting was perhaps slightly higher than previously. Also, the foreign exchange rate, where the value of the rand has declined, certainly helped us. He is absolutely correct when he says that our mineral production is one of the cornerstones of the South African economy and as such it has to be correctly managed and legislated for.

The hon member also raised the question of the potential for platinum usage around the world. It is true that South Africa has about 80% of the world’s known platinum reserves, but I would like to suggest that we actually have bigger reserves than that. I would go so far as to say that, if one takes into consideration some of the newer areas that have been prospected, we most probably have about 98% of the world’s potential supply of platinum. Of course, the use of platinum in industry has increased. As the hon member mentioned, it is used as a catalyst in automobile exhaust systems.

There is another area which perhaps needs a lot more research and that is the future of the platinum fuel cell. I attended a conference earlier this year on the subject of platinum and I was most intrigued by the possibility that sometime in the future a large proportion of the world’s electricity supplies could come from platinum fuel cells. Work is being done on this and I have been told that there are plants which have been set up that are at present generating enough electricity for a town of 5 000 people. This gives one some indication of the future of this particular metal. If the research workers can succeed in producing a truly economically viable platinum-based power-station, then with South Africa’s large percentage of the world’s reserves of platinum, one can imagine that in the future platinum could perhaps be to South Africa what gold has been in the past.

The hon member also mentioned the cost of production on the gold mines. I think he has raised a very important point here. What has been happening in recent times is that with the reforming of our labour legislation, unions have been formed, and the strongest union in terms of the number of members is probably the National Union of Mineworkers. As hon members know, there was a large strike last year when the union confronted the mining companies. Fortunately, that was settled in the correct manner and I am happy to say that it was settled without the Government becoming involved at all. The law was there. The union and management followed the conditions laid down in the Act and in due course the matter was resolved.

However, whilst we in Government agree that there should be labour unions and that it is essential that we have a proper Labour Act to govern the relationships between management and workers, at the same time we cannot lose sight of the problem we are facing with regard to rising costs because we could, in time, price ourselves out of the world market. We must therefore ask ourselves where we would stand if we found that our mineral products were being outpriced on the world market. Therefore there is a need for more effort to be put into researching ways and means whereby we can increase the productivity of our workers.

A great deal has been said here today. The hon the Minister of the Budget spoke about trade unions, and he said—I hope I shall quote him correctly—that employers would have to meet the needs of the union members. I agree with the hon the Minister.

He also mentioned, as did a number of other hon members, that there should not be any impediments in the way of people of colour. I would have thought that by now, any hon member in this Parliament who had observed, and not only observed but studied what this Government had done in recent times to remove the impediments in the way of people of colour, especially in the work-place—and I make this suggestion in a spirit of goodwill and in the spirit of what is best for South Africa—would perhaps have acknowledged what had been done. Perhaps we should acknowledge what has been done and use the provisions which we do have on our Statute Book today rather to work towards increasing the productivity of our workers, because it is only through the increased productivity of the man on the bench and the miner down the mine that his earning capacity will increase, and as his earning capacity in real terms increases, his buying power will increase and in so doing he will become a more affluent person. I think that if there is a challenge facing our economy today, it is to increase productivity at every level of activity, whether it is—I was going to say whether it is on the mines or on the farms or in the workshops—but perhaps it also applies to this Parliament of ours.

Even in that field, my hon colleague has mentioned his review of the laws which he administers under his portfolio. I should like to tell the House that at the present time we have a task group working on our mineral laws and we hope that by this time next year we shall have introduced a new Bill into Parliament which will completely reform our mineral laws to the extent that we hope that we shall have only one mineral law instead of the present 13. We hope to deregulate as far as possible so as to make us more efficient and to make our departments more productive.

Whilst I am on the subject of labour, I should like to react to the hon member for Durban Central. The hon member mentioned the report and said that he saw that Coloureds and other non-Whites were being trained in the diamond-polishing industry as well as at the Alexander Bay diamond diggings. When one reads these reports, one will see that the Government and this particular diamond company are actively endeavouring to train people of colour so that they can take their place alongside other workers in the production of these products.

Mr Chairman, I should like to move on to the hon member for Springfield and thank him for his kind words about our officials. I, too, am going to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the officials, certainly those in my department, since without them my task would be almost impossible, and I can agree with the hon member that these people are highly competent. A lot is said about the Public Service, much of which is often not very complimentary, but believe me, having had to work closely with them I find that they are highly competent people who are dedicated to their jobs. They certainly do a wonderful job.

He also raised the matter of ethanol, and I should just like to confirm that there was an investigation which resulted in the sugar industry making proposals to our department. We then, through the National Energy Council, asked a firm of private consultants to comment on the industry’s report and proposals—comparing of course the sugar industry and the petroleum industry. However, we believe we must examine this project in far greater depth. We have got to look at the long-term viability of a synthetic fuel plant producing ethanol from sugar and sugar molasses and compare it with our other synthetic fuel plants in South Africa, by which I mean Sasol as well as Mosgas.

That study has been conducted and a computer model has been drawn up. The report has now been received and this is in the hands of the National Energy Council. They have a task group that is now in the process of finalising all the findings of these various investigations. It will in due course be presented to the Minister and if it looks as if this is a viable project it will in due course be taken to the Cabinet. I certainly do not envisage any final decision being taken on this before the end of July. However, all the groundwork has been done and it is now a matter of assessing the information that we have received.

I should now like to refer to my old friend the hon member for Havenside. I must say that along with his colleagues we enjoyed a very nice tour of the mining industry late last year. It was good to get all the members from the various Houses together.

He mentioned the removal of the definition of scheduled persons. There is a delay, and I know that many people have been asking why those regulations have not been promulgated. I set a deadline of the 17th of this month, which is a week from tomorrow. I might say that one of the reasons for the delay is that we have given the draft regulations which my department, with the help of our law adviser, drew up, to the Department of Manpower, because we are trying to remove from our regulations many provisions that really fall within the scope of the Labour Relations Act rather than our Act, since our Act is essentially concerned with the safety and the health of the mineworkers. Thus this document is being looked at this very day by the Department of Manpower, and I am hoping that within the next three or four days we will have their inputs in this regard. Who knows, this might even meet the deadline of next Friday. We hope by that time they will be approved and will finally be passed on to the Government Printer. We are very close to that point at this moment.

Finally, the hon member mentioned the matter of the fall-off in the demand for diesel. Other subjects have been raised, such as the price of petrol, octane ratings and so on, but I am sure that the hon the Minister will react to that. The hon member asked why there had been a decrease in the demand for diesel. No study has been made by our department to establish exactly why this is so, but I should like to suggest that one of the possible reasons for the decline in the amount of diesel used is the fact that there has been abuse of the fact that the price of illuminating paraffin is so low. There has been a blending of illuminating paraffin with diesoline. We know that there have been cases of this, and they are currently being investigated. If one studies the increase in the usage of illuminating paraffin, one will find that it has sky-rocketed in recent times because there is a differential of something like 10 cents or more per litre between the price of illuminating paraffin and diesel.

While I am on this subject I would like to record that South Africans are very fortunate that our entire liquid fuel industry has been managed so successfully. If one examines, for instance, the South African pump price per litre with an exchange rate of R2,126 to the US dollar, one finds that our premium petrol at the coast is 79 cents per litre; in New Zealand it is 132,7 cents per litre; in the United Kingdom it is R1,53 per litre; in Italy it is R2,34 per litre and in West Germany it is R1,32. I believe it is very important for South Africans to realise that if one examines the basic price of petrol—that is before taxes and levies are applied—the South African price is 45,8 cents per litre; in New Zealand it is 68,77 cents per litre; in the United Kingdom, with all its North Sea oil, it is 50,9 cents per litre; in Italy it is 47,6 cents per litre and in West Germany it is 47,8 cents per litre. This means that despite the fact that there have been boycotts against South Africa and despite the fact that we have synthetic fuel plants—such as Sasol and now also Mossgas—which are financed through the levy which was initially built into the price of petrol to further and promote these projects, our basic price of petrol is far lower than many other countries throughout the world. Surely this is indicative of the efficiency, expertise and professionalism with which we have been administering this in South Africa over the past few years? I believe this is to our credit.

As far as illuminating paraffin is concerned, unfortunately we have a problem with our liquid fuels. We have differential prices like we had with diesel, where we had the agricultural price and the normal transport price. We found that there were unscrupulous people who would abuse this to the extent that they would register themselves as fanners and buy diesel and fuel in bulk. Then they used the diesel for other purposes such as road transport etc. If I may use the expression, they were ripping off the Government in the process, because they were not paying tax on these large volumes. Worse than that, they were entering into unfair competition with the honest people in South Africa who bought their diesel at the correct prices. Therefore we had to do something about it, which we did last year when we lowered the differential margin between the two diesel prices and it helped. However, we now find that illuminating paraffin is being used and blended with diesel. This could be the reason why the amount of diesel used in South Africa is dropping. However, one should also look at the exact reason why the volume of illuminating paraffin usage is increasing and in this connection I would suggest that we have to look at this price. Perhaps it is too low.

In this regard I would make an appeal to my fellow politicians, because a lot of these differential prices have resulted from the actions of people going to the politicians and saying: Get us a special deal. I am a farmer and I can remember how in the past, when I sat in the opposition benches, the former hon member for Mooi River, Mr Bill Sutton, often said that we should lower the input costs of agriculture. He said that we should remove all the taxes and levies on fuel as one way of reducing the input costs. However, what happened? This resulted in this distortion in the fuel prices and as a result we get the abuse we have uncovered in recent times. We estimated this was costing the State R1,2 million per year in our effort to stop the abuse. We estimate it is also costing the State nearly R12 million per year in lost revenue because of taxes not being paid by these unscrupulous people.

Therefore I believe we ought perhaps to look at the possibility of having a single fuel price, if at all possible. The people will also ask: “What about the poor people who cannot afford to pay the higher price for, say, illuminating paraffin?” Well, we have conducted an investigation into how much fuel these people actually use. I believe that if one studies this, one will find that if illuminating paraffin were to be sold at the same price as diesel, one might find that an average household in, say, a peri-urban area around our cities where people do not have electricity or wood, might have to pay R2,20 per month more for paraffin.

I have agreed that I will have these figures resulting from this investigation put into a report and we will have them circulated to the various Ministers’ Councils for their information. We will then see whether there really is such an urgent need for this differential or lower price on what we may call humanitarian grounds. We politicians should perhaps ask ourselves whether we are not letting our bleeding hearts—excuse the expression—influence our better judgement and in so doing causing the Government to have to set up a big bureaucracy to try and prevent the abuse resulting therefrom. There are many people in South Africa who try to rip off their fellow-South Africans and the Government by avoiding having to pay their correct duties and levies. Having said that, I enjoyed the debate and I want to thank all hon members who took part.

Mr Chairman, listening to the competent way in which my two Deputy Ministers replied and reacted to most of the points raised by hon members of this House, I believe there is very little left for me to say. I will, however, have to react to some of the points made by hon members.

To begin with, I believe it is quite an easy task to reply to very high quality speeches, as was displayed by my two hon colleagues. It is also a very pleasant task to have such very efficient and competent colleagues to assist one. I think every speech made in this House today on this Vote was to the point and highlighted the important issues of our economy. Nothing was said by any hon member in this House today that I cannot fully endorse, agree with and even support wherever necessary.

I think the hon member for North Western Transvaal started by highlighting the great importance that minerals play in the economy and the economic structure not only of South Africa, but also of its neighbouring states. I think this is ignored most of the time. If one looks at the labour force of our mining industry, one finds that it originates mostly from our neighbouring states. I believe the economies of our neighbouring states are also interdependent on the economy of South Africa.

I do not want to elaborate on this, because my colleagues dealt with this very adequately, but I want to highlight that I think we must accept the fact that it is a dwindling and diminishing asset. For every single ton of ore taken out of the crust of the earth, there is one ton less for the future. This, I believe, brings us to the next important aspect raised by just about every speaker today, namely the importance of industry in South Africa and the production of components and products to be exported, in other words the importance of our export industry, and export incentives, which was dealt with by my colleague. I therefore think that this diminishing asset, this void or vacuum left by the decreasing importance of minerals in the industry, must be taken up by the manufacturing industry. I think that should be developed. It should be encouraged.

I want to thank each and every hon member for highlighting this issue of the promotion of exports and the development of our manufacturing industry. I think it was the hon member for Southern Natal who referred to the importance of exports by saying that exports are really the pillar of the growth of our economy. He also made some very valid remarks by saying it was also important to develop our internal manufacturing capacity and ability. It is also important to develop, at the same time, our self-sufficiency and self-support in South Africa. We must be able to protect and improve our balance of payments for employment creation. That is of the utmost importance. However, the most important part of this is the creation of wealth. Without the creation of wealth we cannot uplift the standard of living of our people. I want to thank the hon member for Southern Natal for highlighting this aspect in his speech.

I want to thank the hon member for Central Rand, the hon member for Springfield and the hon member for Mariannhill, as well as the hon the Minister of the Budget. They paid tribute to the officials of the department. This is appreciated. I see Dr Stef Naude is here with his officials. They are very competent people. They have listened to hon members. We appreciate the fact that it has not gone unnoticed. We have an open door approach to everybody we can assist. I also want to thank hon members for the tribute they paid to my two hon Deputy Ministers who are doing a very good job.

Some hon members referred to the importance of small business development in South Africa. The small and informal business sector can play a very significant role in the economy of this country. Specific mention was made of home industries. Certain points were raised about home industries, and I fully support the idea that we should remove all impediments that hinder the development of the informal sector as quickly as possible. From the informal sector, the small formal sector will develop. From the small formal sector will evolve the high-tech and technical field of business.

I therefore think it is of great importance. A lot has been done already. There were certain investigations with regard to deregulation, especially deregulation vested in local authorities. In this respect I would like to appeal to the Ministers’ Council to assist us in getting the regulations of the local authorities amended in such a way that they promote the development of the informal and household industries of South Africa. I think it is of absolute importance that we should encourage rather than hinder the development of these type of industries.

I think the hon member for Southern Natal referred to small businesses as well, and the impediments imposed by local authorities. The hon member made a very valid point and I fully agree with him. We will support as far as possible the removal of those hindrances.

The hon member for Springfield spoke about ethanol. It was duly referred to by my hon colleague. The hon member also spoke about the Mossel Bay gas project and he referred to the latest crude oil find. I think it is very encouraging and exciting but I think the quantity is so little that it is not yet economically viable. We have decided to move the second drill to the same area of Bredasdorp. That rig is being moved from Port Elizabeth to Bredasdorp where it will be drilling and we hope to expedite the prospecting possibilities in that area. I think we are all holding thumbs and praying that we will be able to sink a well that will make it economically viable so that we can become more self-supporting in that respect.

Three years ago we did not have sufficient gas to develop a viable project. Then all of a sudden we had an excellent strike and we immediately sent the second drill to that area which was at Mossel Bay. Within a matter of nine months we knew that we had sufficient quantities of gas to start a viable refining project in the Mossel Bay area.

Perhaps history will repeat itself. A few months ago we had an oil strike and we sent the second rig to that area. Perhaps nine months from now we will look back and say that we were lucky and that we have sufficient oil to start producing oil in that area. At the moment we have something like 12 000 plus barrels per day. The calculations we have made indicate that if we could have about 30 000 barrels per day we could immediately start to consider the production of crude oil which would then have to be processed to obtain fuel. I am very confident that we may be lucky in the months ahead.

The hon member for Mariannhill referred to the development of skills in our country. I think the hon member raised a very important point. All of us have a very important task in encouraging our children to study in a technical direction and to enter the technical world through technikons and universities. In other words, we have the responsibility to see if we cannot encourage our children to go into a technical direction instead of doing a BA or B Com degree. We need technically skilled people for the future. I fully support the idea of the hon member and I think we should concentrate more on technical education and training than we did in the past.

The hon member for Havenside referred to the matter of octane. The decrease in the consumption of diesel was handled by my hon colleague. The only point that I wish to raise is that I do not think the price of diesel has anything to do with the decline. Before April 1988 the wholesale price of diesel was 69,5 cents per litre.

However, since 1 April 1988 the wholesale price of diesel has been brought down to 64 cents which is a reduction of 5 cents per litre. Therefore it cannot be the price. I think maybe the drought could be responsible. I have a draft here which indicates the increase in the consumption of illuminating paraffin and the decrease in the consumption of diesel. I think that point was made very effectively by my hon colleague the Deputy Minister.

As far as the octane rate is concerned, we shall be making an announcement—I hope by tomorrow—as to how we are going to deal with the matter. We are thinking in the direction of decreasing the octane rate of fuel at the coastal areas and maintaining it in the inland areas. We have a very good reason for this because we are going to be reducing the lead content of fuel from 0,6 grams per litre to 0,4 grams by 1 January next year. That has a cost effect and to counter that I think we should rather drop the octane rating than increase the price of fuel. That will make it cheaper. We are at the moment investigating this whole problem of octane rating. We are discussing it with the motor industry and the oil companies and later, perhaps at the end of this year, we shall be issuing a joint statement of all the parties concerned as to what the future of the octane rating will be. An interim announcement, however, will probably be made by tomorrow, if all the parties concerned can come to an agreement.

I think the hon the Minister of the Budget referred to job opportunities as well as the importance of economic growth in the country for the upliftment of the standard of living of all our people. He referred to the matter of the panelbeater who could not start up his little backyard business. I think we agree with him on that point; we should get rid of those impediments as quickly as possible. I think I have called upon the Ministers’ Council to assist us because that matter lies mainly within the field of authority of the local authorities.

The hon member for Chatsworth Central referred to the jewellery industry. We really hope to make an announcement very soon which should open the doors particularly to jewellery exports from South Africa. As far as the cutting and polishing of diamonds is concerned, I think this is one industry which is developing very fast. We have rapidly developing industries in Pietersburg, Newcastle and Bisho where quite a few hundred people are either being trained or have already completed their training and are polishing diamonds of the lower carat grades.

My feeling at this stage is that the cutting industry in South Africa is gradually moving into the hands of the Coloured people of the country. I think this is right and that we should encourage it. I think the Indian community could play a very important role in developing the cutting industry in South Africa.

Of course, at the moment there is absolutely no restriction whatsoever on anyone with the ability to apply for and to be awarded a cutting and polishing licence in this country. I think it is up to the private sector and individuals to come forward now and apply for a licence if they want to start a cutting industry. Naturally, there are certain qualifications, but they are not restrictive. I think they are supportive qualifications.

*I should like to conclude my speech by referring to Alexander Bay, and once again I want to thank all the hon members. The hon member for North Western Transvaal was encouraged to speak Afrikaans, but he did not do so. [Interjections.] All he said was: “I can speak Afrikaans”, and then he went on speaking English. [Interjections.] I want to conclude by conveying my sincere thanks to hon members.

†I want to thank them for the support that we in both departments receive from the hon members of this House in putting our Bills into an acceptable form, in framing the amendment of our laws in an acceptable form, and in having them passed through Parliament. I want to thank the hon members of this House for the unanimous support that we receive from all hon members of this House. We appreciate that very much and we would like to maintain this excellent relationship between the hon members of this House and the officials of our department as well as my two hon Deputy Ministers and myself.

*Mr Chairman, thank you once again for the opportunity. It was a privilege to take part in this debate.

Debate concluded.

Mr Chairman, the Companies Act, 1973, makes provision for a standing advisory committee on company law. It is the function of this advisory committee, inter alia, to make recommendations to the responsible Minister. I should like to quote the objects of this Bill. The first of these is to authorise the Minister henceforth also to appoint a retired judge as chairman of the standing advisory committee on company law.

The second object is to provide for the continuation of the legal person where a close corporation converts to a company. The third is to extend the period of one year for which a defensive name may be registered, to a period of two years. The fourth is to provide that a special resolution may be adopted at a meeting in respect of which the required notice was not given, provided all members consent to the adoption of such special resolution. The fifth is to extend the authority of the liquidator in order to make it unnecessary for him to obtain the consent of the Master of the Supreme Court to open a current or savings account. This Bill has passed through the standing committee, and I therefore support it.

Mr Chairman, we on this side of the House have no problem in supporting this Bill, for all the reasons mentioned by the hon member for Central Rand. We support it.

Mr Chairman, this is a very interesting Bill. This Bill deals with the Companies Act.

The first difficulty that was experienced was in respect of the fact that a presiding judge of the Supreme Court was to serve as chairman of the standing advisory committee, and a problem arose immediately upon such a judge’s retirement. There was difficulty in maintaining the continuity of his services as chairman. Therefore the provisions of the Act are to be so amended that even a retired judge may continue to serve as chairman of this particular advisory committee.

The Bill also provides for certain clarification in respect of a close corporation which is converted into a company and insofar as the financial implications are concerned. The provisions also deal with the administrative functions insofar as the company is concerned and with the matter of a resolution adopted by a company. I think the Bill simplifies and modifies the implications with regard to notices that are given and resolutions taken at a general meeting of a company.

In short, therefore, this particular amending Bill updates the Companies Act, and rectifies some deficiencies in the Bill with a view to perfecting it. We on this side of the House take great pleasure in supporting the Bill.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister who spoke in the previous debate made mention of the fact that we in this House in particular normally support the Bills that emanate from his department. I want to assure the hon the Minister that as long as his department comes forward with good Bills such as those we have before us this afternoon, we quite naturally will support all of them.

The hon member Mr Thaver quite correctly drew the attention of this House to the most important provisions of this Bill, and I should just like to say that we are pleased that this Bill really emanated from the Standing Advisory Committee on Company Law. We know that this important advisory committee includes representatives of the South African Institute of Chartered Accountants, the Association of Law Societies, Assocom, the Federated Chamber of Industries and also the Chartered Institute of Secretaries and Administrators. This is important because all of the bodies which naturally make some input to company law are represented on that board.

We on this side of the House would like to take this opportunity, in fact, to commend the Standing Advisory Committee on Company Law for this particular Bill and other Bills which are on the Order Paper for discussion this afternoon. We should like to tell the hon the Minister that the Bill before us has our full support.

Mr Chairman, I enter this debate to support this Bill, being a member of the standing committee that examined the Bill. I think that after consultation with the Standing Advisory Committee on Company Law, which recommended the amendments after consultation with various members of the legal profession, the Department of Justice and the Chief Master of the Supreme Court, it was decided to make the necessary amendments which are before us today.

I agree with previous speakers that the amendments to the principal Act certainly take care of the changes necessitated in this modern age. One of the important things I want to mention here, which hon members have perhaps overlooked, is the matter of the protection of the interests of the members themselves. I think that the meetings and other aspects in terms of this Bill now regulate this. Annual general meetings will take place with a certain number of members present or else they will not be valid.

We do not have any hesitation in supporting this Bill because it was accepted unanimously and agreed to on the standing committee.

Mr Chairman, I wish to thank you for this opportunity and I wish to thank hon members for their support.

With reference to the Standing Advisory Committee I want to associate myself with the remarks of the hon member for Springfield, specifically with reference to his commending this advisory committee on the work they do. I want to point out that the brief of this committee is the development of company law in this country. Part of that is the simplification and deregulation of company law as well as the decriminalisation of company law.

The work of this committee has already resulted in the Close Corporations Act for which our present Director-General, Dr Stef Naudé, is mainly responsible. This is a very successful Act of Parliament and I just want to bring to the attention of hon members the number of conversions that have been facilitated. I am referring to close corporations that have been converted into companies. There were 12 of them in 1985. In 1986 they totalled 47 and in 1987 there were a total of 278. I wish to add that we shall shortly be discussing the Close Corporations Amendment Bill. The companies converted to close corporations numbered 6 071 in 1985, there were 6 615 in 1986 and 5 211 in 1987. That shows how important, for example, the second clause of this amendment Bill is. I want to be brief and I thank the House once again for their support.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, the object of the Close Corporations Bill is to afford the Supreme Court concurrent jurisdiction with a magistrates’ court in regard to the liquidation of a close corporation. The Act requires that an annual financial statement of the close corporation must be approved and signed by or on behalf of every member of the corporation. However, these requirements can in certain cases be hard to meet and can give members holding a minority interest in the close corporation the power to manipulate the other members. The principle that resolutions and approvals should be decided by a majority vote is consequently introduced. This Bill had the support of all the institutions and therefore I support it.

Mr Chairman, this amendment to the Close Corporations Act, No 69 of 1984, arises from a problem in interpretation. Like all other laws when there is a problem, it has to be looked at and submitted for amendment. The problem here was whether the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court was also included in the Act. By amending this Act the Supreme Court now also has concurrent jurisdiction. There is also the provision that not all the members of a close corporation have to sign the financial statement. I support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, this Bill has two principle objectives. Firstly, the object of the Bill is to make it clear that the Supreme Court shall have jurisdiction in any matter relating to close corporations in which magistrates’ courts have jurisdiction. Secondly, the Act requires that the annual financial statement of a close corporation be approved and signed by or on behalf of every member of the corporation. This requirement can in certain cases be hard to meet and can give members holding a minority interest the power to manipulate the other members. This difficulty has been overcome by accepting the principle that resolutions and approvals should be decided by a majority vote. An amendment has been introduced to embody this principle. I have no objection to supporting this Bill.

Mr Chairman, once again this is a non-contentious Bill, which emanates from a recommendation made by the Standing Advisory Committee on Company Law. Quite obviously, we support the Bill.

The concept of close corporations is a recent innovation in our commercial law practice. The fact that since close corporations were introduced to our law there has been such a tremendous number of people who have made use of this facility, is indicative of the fact that the whole concept is of great value. Quite obviously, there were one or two areas which needed to be looked into, and the amending Bill attends to these areas. As I already indicated, we have no problem with this Bill, and we fully support it.

Mr Chairman, I, too, would like to go along with other hon members in saying that the Bill before us is non-controversial. It is being introduced in order to amend certain requirements and bring all persons of close corporations and other people who utilise this provision into line. There have also been certain problems in so far as the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and magistrates’ courts over close corporations are concerned. I have no problem in supporting this Bill. It was accepted in the standing committee.

Mr Chairman, I rise to support this Bill, but before I do so, I see that the hon the Chairman of the Ministers’ Council is not here. I hope he learns of the reasons why this Bill is being amended and introduces the same measures to amend the Housing Bill of this House.

The Close Corporations Act was introduced primarily to assist small family businesses, small farming units, and small numbers of people to conduct businesses, where previously they had to register in terms of the Companies Act, which was an elaborate task. Unnecessary paperwork was done and expenditure incurred. To assist the small business people, the Close Corporations Act was introduced and passed by Parliament. This is a very laudable example of the assistance the State gives to uplift the economy of the country.

As is usual, the drafters of this law also introduced a great deal of ambiguity into this Act and the result is that the interpretation of section 7 of the Close Corporations Act, 1984 (Act No 69 of 1984) precluded Supreme Court jurisdiction in deciding cases on the abuse of close corporations. Consequently, clause 1 of this Bill remedies that deficiency and extends the jurisdiction to the Supreme Court of South Africa and also magistrates’ courts.

Clause 2 of this Bill is also very important. As we have seen with the Companies Amendment Bill, what happens in practice is that a small company which incurred large debts converts to a close corporation with the intention of avoiding meeting the commitments. Clause 2 of this Bill takes adequate steps against this. Although any company can convert to a close corporation or vice versa, the Close Corporations Act provides that the close corporation that converts to a company shall continue to exist as a juristic person, but in the form of a corporation. They are therefore still liable for whatever debts they might have incurred. This is a very important amendment.

Clause 3 of the Bill is also important. There are certain trustees of inter vivos trusts who are still living, but holding interests in close corporations. This is not the intention or desire of the lawmakers. This amendment to section 29 of the principal Act now forbids such malpractice.

Clause 4 is also an important amendment. Up to now the Act has demanded that each and every member of a close corporation has to sign agreements or reports. Sometimes people, due to business commitments, have to go away. They find it difficult to be there at all times. Some members of close corporations experience difficulties in getting each and every member to sign agreements. Some people, like the bigger shareholders in the close corporation, sometimes drag their feet. That is what is happening. The amendment to section 58 of the principal Act takes care of that. The principle of resolutions and approvals, which is common to all other societies, can now be decided by a majority vote.

Clause 5 of this Bill is of fundamental importance. As I said, the amendment effected in clause 2 of this Bill, has a very important bearing on section 63 of this Act. Certain trustees of inter vivos trusts who are still living can join a close corporation. When they see that their corporation is shaky, they pull out with the intention of not meeting commitments. However, this amendment to section 63 holds the trustee of an inter vivos trust or a nominee liable for whatever debts were incurred, regardless of their being prevented after the enactment of this clause—if the trustees of an inter vivos trusts are removed—from participating in close corporations. They will still be held responsible for whatever debts were incurred by the close corporation during the period that they were members of that corporation. I therefore support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank hon members for their support. They have rightly pointed out that this is not a contentious Bill, hence their general support of the Bill.

The hon member for Southern Natal rightly pointed out that there was an interpretation problem as far as the jurisdiction of the courts were concerned. We are therefore also amending that now.

*The entire concept of close corporations was to simplify the business form. That is why only 10 natural persons were allowed to be members of a corporation.

†Unfortunately this was abused when nominees of inter vivos trusts became members of close corporations and we had to take action. By allowing nominees of inter vivos trusts, we would have destroyed the entire concept of a close corporation as a simplified business form. Therefore Parliament had to take action.

*In conclusion I merely want to refer to the effect of close corporations and I want to mention a few figures. Since the Close Corporations Act came into operation on 1 January 1985, the number of companies has not increased. Although just over 5 000 companies were formed every year, at the same time an average of 6 000 companies were converted into close corporations every year. In the first three years, from 1985 to 1987, the number of registered companies decreased, seen from this point of view.

†This Act has been so successful that we have somewhere between 70 000 and 75 000 close corporations in this country today.

*We are always under pressure from interest groups. Interest groups pose a big problem in our country, as in any democracy. We are always pressurised by them to make this simplified business form more complicated again, and also to give them special opportunities. There are always people who want to have it incorporated in the legislation that annual returns should be audited by chartered accountants, but if we were to allow that we would destroy the entire concept.

†I want to thank hon members for their support. Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, this Bill is aimed at protecting the interests of retired persons in housing development schemes for elderly people. The measures stem from the recommendations of a committee appointed by the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Works in the House of Assembly in 1986 to look into these schemes. This Bill lays down in detail what has to be contained in a contract between seller and purchaser, including a statement of the place where and hours during which any rules governing the use of the scheme may be inspected, as well as a statement of the location, nature and extent of any facilities and services to be provided.

There are a number of safeguards in this Bill and I want to quote clause 10 of the amended Bill:

This is a good Bill in that it protects retired persons. I support it wholeheartedly.

Mr Chairman, we on this side of the House also support this measure and in doing so we first of all want to thank the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Works in the House of Assembly and the hon the Minister who is piloting this particular Bill through Parliament.

It is relevant in this day and age that this particular Bill is before Parliament. The President’s Council in its report has indicated the following in one of its comments:

Because of the demand for accommodation in the marketplace and the number of developers who have taken the initiative, the exploitation element cannot be ignored. It is unfortunate that these developers have from time to time seen fit to exploit the aged in our communities, for whom we have great respect. Therefore, as previous speakers have said, the hon the Minister had to introduce a measure to close the loopholes so that exploitation could no longer take place. It is particularly necessary as the demand for accommodation is going to be very great by the year 2000 because there will be approximately 2 million aged people in South Africa who will be over the age of 65. If we look at the breakdown we will see that in the Indian community there will be at least 50 000 aged persons; in the Coloured community 152 000; in the White community 510 000 and in the Black community 1,3 million. It is necessary and important that measures be taken that will safeguard their interests in future.

I do not wish to go into the measures that have been explained in this Bill. Suffice it to say that the prime objective of the Bill that was introduced related to the situation where interests in so-called retirement villages were sold, and due to the undesirable conduct of some developers—as I have mentioned—retired persons suffered substantial financial losses which in view of the particular circumstances were not always recoverable from the developers concerned.

The only issue that all of us were concerned about was that it was stipulated that these regulations would start off in the housing scheme development area. We were worried about what the hon the Minister was going to do about this stipulation and we are pleased that he is also going to look into existing schemes so that all schemes will be covered by this in future. I should like the hon the Minister to explain how this pertains to those villages that are developed outside the housing scheme areas because there has to be some kind of protection. It is not clear whether this Bill will cover that.

Another point is that in safeguarding the interests of the older persons it is also important to ensure that we do not restrict the marketplace for developers to develop areas. I am a little concerned that whilst the measure is welcome because of the needs of the 2 million aged persons we will have by the year 2000, there should be co-operation between the developers. My appeal today is really to the developers themselves that they will not regard this measure as one that will restrict the marketplace from our point of view and that of the hon the Minister, but that it is rather envisaged that it will safeguard the interests of older people trying to find accommodation and being exploited in the process.

We support this Bill and hope that this measure will regulate the problems facing us. However, it must not be misunderstood by developers as being a measure that will restrict development. It is rather to safeguard interests and if all the developers are wanting to do is to provide housing for the aged, there should be no problems.

Mr Chairman, during recent years various schemes involving retirement villages were sold. Retired persons participating in these schemes have in some instances suffered substantial financial losses. I believe that the development of retirement villages by the private sector should be encouraged, but I also believe that the interests of retired or retiring persons should be protected.

The standing committee identified four problem areas during its investigation, namely the protection of the interests of individuals in regard to retirement villages; the protection and the utilisation of funds; facilities and services at retirement villages; and the contracts pertaining to the acquisition of interest in retirement villages.

Retired persons are in their twilight years. They have done their duty and made their contribution to both their family and country. I feel that they should be able to pass their final days on earth in peace and tranquility. They should not be saddled with an additional financial burden at this late stage in their lives.

The Bill addresses the problems that may be encountered by retired persons who participate in housing development schemes. I therefore have no hesitation in supporting this Bill.

Mr Chairman, it is not my intention to bore this House with a lengthy speech. All I wish to indicate to this House is that this is a very good Bill, and quite obviously we in the PFP support it fully.

Mr Chairman, I want to agree with the previous speaker. I think a great deal has been said about the Bill but I want to be very brief.

Arising out of debates which took place year after year, it was only in 1986 that the hon the Minister decided to appoint a committee to investigate and report upon the drafting of legislation to protect the interests of retired persons with particular regard to their housing needs. This piece of legislation does just that by affording protection to those people with regard to housing schemes, share-blocks, interest, bonds, rights and remedies to the purchasers, and so on.

Previous speakers have elaborated on the necessity for this Bill but the appeal I want to make to the hon the Minister here, is this: We have now made the necessary amendments and brought this legislation into line with what is required. It must be implemented. It must be seen to be happening where it is needed the most. We do not want to see this legislation introduced and then left to lie on the shelf. I think there has been a degree of concern in these areas where our aged people have been experiencing a great many problems. I therefore make an earnest appeal that this piece of legislation should now be implemented. There must be no red tape in this regard. It must be implemented so that the people concerned may benefit from what is being done here.

Mr Chairman, the Bill makes an important clarification in that it is specifically intended that the Housing Development Schemes for Retired Persons Bill, 1988, should only be operative in respect of housing development schemes where the interests of such schemes are alienated to retired persons.

I often gaze wonderingly at certain advertisements which appear in glossy magazines, like the Palm Beach retirement scheme, the Peacevale retirement scheme, the Golden Sands retirement scheme, etc. They are so alluring, so inviting and so enticing. I saw one picture which depicted a retired person sipping his beer in the shade of some trees, and everything was so peaceful around him. All these developments are set up to assist the retired person, but there are some schemes which are, I would not say out to deceive people, but rather unable, due to mismanagement, to fulfil their architectural plans.

A retired person receives a lump sum—perhaps a fixed amount—and then he gets a monthly pension. I am sure that with the initial deposit he has very little left to meet the contingencies of old age. The Bill sets out to protect the interests of those who have served their time and to enable them to end their twilight days peacefully and without problems. I support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I would like to thank the hon members who supported this Bill in such an efficient way.

†Mr Chairman, I want to refer to the standing committee and to the substantial contribution made by the standing committee to improve this Bill before this House. There is a new clause in the Bill—clause 14—which is the result of the contributions of the standing committee, and several other amendments were also made to the draft Bill. This is in fact the 14th measure to be placed on our Statute Book pertaining to consumer protection.

*Our entire Statute Book in connection with consumer legislation and the protection of the consumer is receiving attention at the moment. We are looking at the different Acts. The basic Act is the Trade Practices Act. Hon members serving on the standing committee will know that we unfortunately had to admit that this piece of legislation was totally inadequate and did not serve its purpose. We have now produced the Harmful Business Practices Bill and it was unanimously agreed to by the standing committee. It will probably come before this House next week.

This is the basis of consumer protection in this country. If we had already had that piece of legislation and if it was developed, it would not have been necessary to come up with the Bill we are discussing at the moment, because we could have promulgated consumer codes in terms of which the Minister would be given the power to afford this protection. Because that legislation is still being developed, however, it is necessary to introduce the Housing Development Schemes for Retired Persons Bill.

†The hon member for Red Hill referred to the contribution made by the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Works in the House of Assembly, who gave birth, in a sense, to this Bill.

‘Many experts in the field of housing were involved in the debate and made a contribution. It is an excellent Bill. The hon member for Red Hill also referred to the general support that the President’s Council gave to consumer legislation. The President’s Council said that we should have better consumer legislation in this country.

We have an economic system—the capitalist system—that unfortunately can be exploited. We believe this is the only system that can bring the necessary prosperity in the country for our people, but the system is open to exploitation. That is why measures are necessary to protect consumers against exploitation. The hon the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology has entrusted me with the responsibility for consumer legislation and consumer protection in the country. I merely want to tell hon members that we are making a special effort in this regard.

†This is a special effort we are making this year and it will also be extended next year to improve consumer law.

The hon member for Mariannhill referred to the implementation of this Bill when it becomes an Act of Parliament. I want to confirm that it will be implemented soon—as soon as the hon the State President signs it, it will be implemented.

I also wish to refer to a question asked by the hon member for Red Hill in connection with existing schemes. I want to point out to him the definition of a housing development scheme as given in clause 1 (ix) of this Bill:

Thus any existing scheme can be declared a housing development scheme. Therefore not only new schemes will be affected, but any existing scheme. Although he is not an hon member of this House, I would like to refer to my colleague the hon the Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology (Mr G S Bartlett) sitting here, who has mentioned two existing housing development schemes in his constituency where there are problems. This provision can now be used to declare those schemes as schemes which are covered by the provisions of this Bill when it is enacted. Perhaps we will then be able to give …

Mr Chairman, could the hon the Deputy Minister tell us if that will include private and public sector housing development schemes?

Mr Chairman, all development schemes declared by the Minister under this Act will be covered. With those remarks I would like to conclude my reply.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, it would appear as if the hon the Minister of Economic Affairs and Technology has had a smooth passage so far this afternoon with his two Votes and one Bill. This second Bill also allows for smooth sailing because there is nothing in this Bill that could be contentious and there is every reason for us to accept this Bill. Hon members may recall that in the past we made a number of calls on the hon the Minister to lift certain restrictions which had been placed on the manufacturing jewellers. With this Bill these various restrictions which hampered the ordinary jewellers in exploiting their resources for greater opportunities are addressed.

I am pleased that the hon the Deputy Minister has introduced this first measure of relief to lift these restrictions, because I feel that in this way the potential of the jewellery manufacturing trade will be enhanced. This will bring about a greater amount of job opportunities for many people. I support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, this is a very important measure and I am pleased that the hon the Deputy Minister is here today. As regards the background to this Bill, the Standing Committee on Finance met two years ago and a lot of evidence was led before that committee.

The South African Jewellers Association led very valuable evidence about this precious metal which was being exported while jewellery which was manufactured in other countries was imported and sold locally. The members of that association felt that South African gold could be used to manufacture the jewellery within the country itself. It could then be made available on a cheaper scale to South Africans instead of the metal being sent overseas where it is transformed into a product which returns to South Africa to be sold locally.

I must place on record that the hon member for Yeoville in the House of Assembly played a very important role in regard to the evidence that was led before this standing committee. The net result was a report which was considered by Parliament.

When the report was considered by Parliament and adopted, the board, as a result, instructed a committee to look into the question of improving the lot of the jewellery industry. I am pleased that this Bill has come about, removing all the restrictions and giving the people who manufacture jewellery in this country a free hand to produce items of jewellery with the metal that is produced in this country. I think this is a very important Bill and I believe if this becomes law, we will create job opportunities and be able to acquire jewellery products at a much cheaper price, since it will be manufactured in our country itself.

I take great pleasure in thanking the hon the Minister for bringing this Bill before the House and my party also takes the greatest pleasure in supporting this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I must support the hon member Mr Thaver when he speaks about the benefits that ought to have been derived by this country. I am aware, as is that hon member, that last year the jewellery industry used about one ton of gold, whereas it imported something like 10 tons of gold jewellery. Of course, it is quite obvious to all of us here, who are concerned not only with finding employment for our people but also with deriving the maximum from the potential of this country, that we would like that work to be done within the country. However, I am aware that the hon the Minister has in fact begun, not only by means of this particular Bill, but also by other measures, to look at the regulations which constrain the jewellery industry in particular. For that I commend him.

I have indicated that we support the Bill, naturally, but what interests me in this Bill—and I trust that it will interest all other hon members in this House as well—is something which has not yet been mentioned. That is the provision which permits the issuing of jeweller’s permits to Black persons, also in respect of areas outside the released areas or scheduled Black areas as defined in the Development Trust and Land Act. For me this is a particularly important development and I trust that the hon the Minister will advertise that fact in the public media. I believe that it is important that we, at this stage of our economic development, and also of our political development, should be seen to be advertising the fact that we are removing these restrictions regarding Black people. For that, too, I would like to take this opportunity of commending the hon the Minister. As I have indicated, we support the Bill fully.

Mr Chairman, following on what the hon member for Springfield just said, I also want to agree. The principal Act on the handling of gold was in fact introduced in this country in 1908. The Act that we are amending is therefore 80 years old. It is very interesting that we find that after the discussion which took place last year regarding the gold that leaves the country and comes back as manufactured jewellery, the balance was so great that it necessitated this amendment.

If one looks at p 5 of this Bill, one will find that the words of the principal Act which are now deleted say, and I quote:

This is no doubt a very positive step forward in terms of reform and other things.

We therefore are very happy indeed that we can create more job opportunities for our people in this area. However, when we discussed this Bill in the standing committee, we were also told that we were short of artisans who could take on this kind of job. This is an area in which we hope the hon the Minister will use all his influence to see that facilities are created so that our young people can divert into this area of activity.

Mr Chairman, it is said that the Pathers, the jeweller class, can actually remove gold from before one’s very eyes. Is the hon member aware of that? If so, is he also aware of certain other persons who are capable of similar feats?

Sir, there was another group that entered into gold jewellery manufacturing. The Pathers then found that it was a bit difficult to do that! [Interjections.] In lighter vein, when the Gujarati people came from India to South Africa and worked as administrators and bookkeepers, they found it very difficult to trade here. They did not have any products, so they introduced ghee. They said in their vernacular, Nay woota tha, kayi woodanum, meaning “When the ghee is dished out, you may start eating your dish.” Then the Tamil people caught on to this and they started buying ghee. They then put ghee into the food and the Gujarati people started doing business. This is just in lighter vein.

I want to come back to the Bill. This Bill certainly opens another door for us. The mining industry is, of course, a very large industry in South Africa. We can be proud to wear our own metals. We on this side fully support the Bill.

Mr Chairman, we on this side of the House also take pleasure in supporting the Bill. One must acknowledge that the restrictions on the amounts of precious metals used per day by jewellers are now removed. The question of transporting precious metals has also been addressed. Permits for transporting precious metals have been abolished. We on this side have no difficulty in supporting the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank hon members for supporting this Bill. I did not for one moment—even in my wildest dreams—imagine that they would oppose this Bill! [Interjections.]

We have been hearing about the need for deregulation for some time now, and I believe we have here before us a Bill which is primarily concerned with deregulation. The hon the Minister has said for some time now that this was a task which he and his Cabinet colleagues were determined to get on with. One hon member said we have a very positive measure here before us.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Deputy Minister indicated that he did not in his wildest dreams expect this Bill to be opposed in this House. Is it because this Bill deals with carats in particular? [Interjections.]

Sir, I learnt a long time ago that in politics one has to keep one’s donkeys out of other people’s carrots! [Interjections.] This is indeed a deregulation measure. As hon members have all said, this will result in greater job opportunities. This is what South Africa needs at the present time.

The hon member Mr Thaver referred to the meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance and I can remember that meeting very clearly. We had the Manufacturing Jewellers Association appear before us and they listed all the restrictions that were hampering the industry. Their submission was indeed a very interesting one and I think the debate that followed was also very interesting and constructive.

There is another aspect which the hon member did not raise, and that is another restriction that has been placed on the sale of jewellery in South Africa. I am of course referring to the very high ad valorem tax on jewellery, which is in the region of 35%. If one reads the report of the Board of Trade and Industries on this industry one finds that one of the recommendations that was stated very clearly was that there should be a reduction in the taxation on jewellery so as to enable the industry to sell more of its goods in South Africa. The argument was that people could go overseas and buy jewellery made of South African gold and South African diamonds at a lower price than in our own country.

The hon the Minister may recall that this discussion in the standing committee took place at a time when I happened to get engaged myself. It must have been in 1985. It so happened that I visited a diamond polishing firm in Johannesburg to buy a suitable stone for my fiancée and at this very hearing of the standing committee the representative of the Manufacturing Jewellers Association referred to a member of Parliament who had to find a stone for his fiancee and who had to pay a great deal of tax on it. I do not know whether the hon member recalls that little episode, but I can speak with feeling when I refer to the high tax. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister is the gentleman who is charged, along with his colleagues, to look at this other aspect of promoting jewellery manufacture and I make an appeal to him to heed what hon members have said and also what the report said about what is yet another restriction on the manufacturing of jewellery in South Africa.

The hon member for Springfield said that we use one ton of gold in South Africa to manufacture jewellery, yet we import 10 tons of jewellery manufactured overseas. This gives an indication of the scope that exists in South Africa. The hon member also referred to the Blacks and I think it was the hon member for Mariannhill who also mentioned the fact that the restriction against Blacks was now being removed. This is another example of the Government’s action to examine every little bit of legislation and to remove all discriminatory clauses that might be there. I think this should indicate the sincerity of the Government and its determination to get on with the job.

[Inaudible.]

The PFP does not believe you!

There are many people who may not believe me but the facts are there for all to see. It was the PFP who congratulated us on doing this and I believe the facts should be advertised and I want to say to the hon members of the PFP that they should be in the forefront of advertising the fact that the Government is removing these discriminatory factors. [Interjections.] They should do it. Because they are in opposition and because there are sceptical people around the world they perhaps have more credibility than I would have in certain quarters, especially overseas. If the hon member will excuse the term, I want to say that he must put his actions where his mouth is and he must get out there and advertise the fact that the Government is doing all these positive things. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Deputy Minister a question? Is he not aware that the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition did precisely that when he recently spent a month overseas advertising South Africa?

I was referring particularly to the hon members of the PFP. [Interjections.] I am not quite sure who the Official Opposition is at the moment.

Mr Chairman, will the hon the Deputy Minister not agree that the hon members Mrs Helen Suzman and Mr Harry Schwarz, in spite of the fact that they are opposition members, have creditworthiness when they go overseas and speak out against disinvestment in this country.

I will concede that point. Those hon members have done a very good and honourable job by doing exactly that. I was not being critical, I was merely saying that the hon member for Reservoir Hills said that we should advertise this fact. I sincerely agree with him and hope that he will do so at every opportunity.

The important thing is that we have removed this restriction against Black people. I said earlier on in this Chamber this afternoon that we were reviewing all our mineral laws and we have a task group working on this. I received a letter from the South Africa Institute for Race Relations some time ago attached to which was a document written by some person—the author’s name was not on it—listing all the various discriminatory practices in the various laws of South Africa which discriminated against people of colour when it came to the mining industry in South Africa. I read through this—I do not know if the hon the Minister is aware of this—and sent it to my task group that was working on the reforming of our mineral laws.

The hon gentlemen sitting in the officials’ bench may recall that I instructed them that I wanted them to work on that document in the finest detail to ensure that as we revised and reformed our Acts we ensured that we removed any discriminatory clauses the present Acts might contain. I am happy to say that many of the things they mentioned in the document have already been removed over the past few years. This indicates that we are moving in the right direction.

May you have many more sons!

Thank you. I once again want to thank all members from all sides and parties for their support.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

General Affairs:

1. 1. Accountants’ and Auditors’ and Financial Institutions Amendment Bill [B 87—88 (GA)]—(Joint Committee on Finance).

Committee Reports:

General Affairs:

1. 1. Report of the Joint Committee on Trade and Industry on the Harmful Business Practices Bill [B 80—88 (GA)], dated 6 June 1988, as follows:
   The Joint Committee on Trade and Industry, having considered the subject of the Harmful Business Practices Bill [B 80—88 (GA)], referred to it, begs to report the Bill with amendments [B 80A—88 (GA)].
2. 2. Report of the Joint Committee on Trade and Industry on the Patents Amendment Bill [B 79—88 (GA)], dated 7 June 1988, as follows:
   The Joint Committee on Trade and Industry, having considered the subject of the Patents Amendment Bill [B 79—88 (GA)], referred to it, begs to report the Bill with amendments [B 79A—88 (GA)].

Own Affairs:

House of Assembly

1. 3. Report of the House Committee on Education (House of Assembly) on the Education Affairs Bill (House of Assembly) [B 73—88 (HA)], dated 8 June 1988, as follows:
   Your Committee, having considered the subject of the Education Affairs Bill (House of Assembly) [B 73—88 (HA)], referred to it, begs to report the Bill with amendments [B 73A—88 (HA)].

House of Delegates

1. 4. Report of the House Committee on a Question of Privilege (House of Delegates), dated 9 June 1988, as follows:
   Your Committee, having considered the subject of its enquiry (see Minutes of Proceedings of House of Delegates of 11 May 1988, p 143), begs to report as follows:
   1. (1) The terms of reference of your Committee were: That a committee on a question of privilege be appointed to enquire into and report upon a complaint of alleged breach of privilege in terms of section 10 (3) (e) and (g) of the Powers and Privileges of Parliament Act, 1963, by Mr S Ismail on 9 May 1988 in that he uttered certain words and threats against the person of Mr Y Moolla, MP.
   2. (2) At the Committee’s meeting on 9 June 1988, the Chairman laid upon the Table a letter from Mr Y Moolla, MP, addressed to the clerk of the Committee. In the letter Mr Moolla indicated that Mr S Ismail, whose utterance of certain words and threats against the person of Mr Moolla resulted in the appointment of your Committee, had expressed to him his apology and regret for his actions. Mr Moolla also stated in his letter that he had accepted Mr Ismail’s apology, and suggested that no further action be taken in regard to the complaint.
   3. (3) Your Committee, after considering Mr Moolla’s letter, found itself to be in agreement with the sentiments expressed by Mr Moolla, and accordingly recommends that no further action be taken in regard to the complaint.

Report to be considered.