laid upon the Table—

Mr Speaker, may I first express a personal word of thanks to both the hon the Minister of the Budget and the hon the Minister of Education and Culture in respect of one matter—that is the very considerate approach which they adopted in regard to the needs of certain private schools, particularly in the Transvaal where there was a completely abnormal system. Whereas everything is not quite what one would like, I do not want to detract from my very sincere thanks for both the manner in which the representations were received and the way in which action was taken. It is much appreciated by very many people.

Having said that, I want to turn specifically to the speech of the hon the Minister of the Budget. I should like to quote a particular passage, because I did not have his written speech at the time he delivered it and I want to be quite sure that I have it right. He said the following:

He then mentions the year again:

I want to stress the word “benodig”; in other words, that amount is needed. He then goes on to say:

The problem that I have with the speech of the hon the Minister of the Budget is that the figure to which he refers is also the figure which is given in this Bill. It is the same figure which is also given in Vote 8 of the main Budget.

However, the factor which the hon the Minister of the Budget has completely ignored is that his Budget Vote has been cut back by 2%, so that, in fact, he does not have the money which he says he needs. When one looks at the estimates in respect of both revenue and expenditure which are before us, and one takes into account the money which is to accrue from the sources of the Administration of the House of Assembly itself, plus the amount that is going to come from the central Government Budget—remember, that Budget was presented on 17 March—one will notice that he actually does not have the money which he says he needs. He is actually not in a position to appropriate the money which he is asking us to appropriate in terms of this Bill; in other words, when one takes from Vote 8, say, the R4 498 million, plus another R225,776 million from the “Improvement of Services”, one arrives at a figure of R4 723,775 million. However, the reality is that when one cuts back the amount in terms of the estimate for general affairs in the Administration: House of Assembly, one will notice that the hon the Minister is budgeting for R89,960 million more than he is going to receive. That means that the figures which we have been given are wrong; it means that the Appropriation Bill is wrong. It also means that the money is not available to be appropriated, and it means that if we pass this measure we will be appropriating money which we do not have. Therefore we cannot pass the measure as it is at the present moment. The only remedy that would exist would be if the provisions of the Exchequer and Audit Act were to be used—that is section 8—where the Treasury would stop the hon the Minister from spending the money which he is asking this House to pass if we pass this Bill. It is the Treasury which will then have to use its powers in terms of section 8 to suspend the payment in order to stop the hon the Minister from spending money which he does not have.

That amount, if one does a very simple calculation, comes to more than R90 million of money that the hon the Minister is trying to spend and which he does not have. The Treasury will have to stop him from spending it in terms of section 8 of the Exchequer and Audit Act. We cannot allow that to happen. One cannot afford a situation in terms of which one is trying to spend money which one does not have. One cannot have an Appropriation Bill where one knows full well at the time when one introduces it, and one says this is the money I need, that one will not get it either from the central Government Budget or alternatively from one’s own revenue sources.

One thing is very clear. On the date that the hon the Chairman of the Minister’s Council delivered his speech, which was yesterday, he knew and I knew and everybody in South Africa knew—apparently the hon the Minister had forgotten—that he did not have that R90 million. Therefore we regret not being able to pass a measure in order to spend money which we do not have. If we are going to cut back by 2% in respect of this Budget I ask the hon the Minister now to get up in reply to this Budget and tell us where he is going to cut back that 2%. How is he going to amend the Appropriation Bill? I ask the individual Ministers to tell us where they are going to cut back. Are they going to cut back on health services, on social pensions, on housing? Where will they cut back?

The reality is that we have been asked to approve of an Appropriation Bill here in this House, a Bill in terms of which money is to be spent which we do not have, money which is not available. That is why we originally intended to move an amendment setting out our attitude in relation to own affairs. We do, however, have to add a rider to it now. That is why I move as an amendment:

1. (1) the form of constitutional structure within which the funds are to be appropriated is neither practical nor financially efficient nor politically acceptable; and
2. (2) the total of the moneys sought to be appropriated by the Bill is not available from the State Revenue Fund in terms of section 84 of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, 1983, nor from the House of Assembly’s other own sources of revenue.”.

Sir, having pointed out that the hon the Minister is trying to spend money which he does not have, and trying to appropriate money which he does not have, let me continue to deal with some other aspects relating to our amendment.

Firstly, insofar as this particular Budget is concerned, there has been no indication by the hon the Minister in connection with how he has arrived at the figure he asks should be spent on the affairs of the House of Assembly. How was a balance arrived at in respect of the various Houses? How did we actually arrive at a figure in relation to what the House of Assembly was entitled to, what the House of Representatives was entitled to, and what the House of Delegates was entitled to? There is no indication in the hon the Minister’s Second Reading speech. Nobody has told us how this apportionment has taken place, and the formula has of course not been worked out yet. It cannot therefore be based upon a formula. It must then be based upon somebody’s decision, and we do not know on what basis and in what circumstances.

It is covered by the main Budget.

The hon the Minister says it is covered by the main Budget. The main Budget sets out the figures, Sir, but nobody tells us how the hon the Minister arrives at the amount which goes to each of the three Houses. That is the whole question I am raising. He says this is covered by the main Budget. Surely he is a member of the Cabinet. He must have been a party to the decision as to how much goes to each individual House and what the basis of it is. He sets out some basic points in regard to the formula. The problem is that those are elementary issues. The real crunch issues have not been dealt with and have not been addressed. Those real crunch issues are, as we see it: Firstly, is there going to be a movement towards equality of services pursuant to what the State President has said?

Yes!

Secondly, what is the level at which those services will be? Does it mean that services are going up to a certain level so that they will be equal, or that some services will go down so as to achieve equality? Thirdly, is there a timetable? Is there any time within which this equality of services is going to be accomplished?

This is, to my mind, the crucial issue. The issue is whether the economy can grow at a sufficiently fast rate to generate the wealth to equalise the services within an adequate time span in order to satisfy reasonable aspirations. Moreover, bearing in mind the internal unrest and the external pressure, is there actually going to be enough investors’ confidence to generate the capital formation and the investment to create the wealth so that the money can be available to render these services?

The next question is whether inflation can be kept within limits. There is going to be a basis upon which we will get an escalation in nominal terms in services when in fact in real terms these services will actually be reducing in quality.

Let me give hon members an example as to what disturbs me. I do not know whether the hon the Minister has had a look at some of the hospitals in the Cape. Have those responsible for health matters seen the large posters that have been put up which say: Free hospitalisation will end on 1 April 1986. Next time you come to hospital bring your income tax return form with you or some other proof in relation to your income? Is this what is now going to happen? Is this the way in which one puts across a change which is going to take place? Must one use these vast posters so that the people who come to the hospital, who have not got the means, are suddenly confronted by a poster which says: “Free hospitalisation ends on 1 April 1986”. I wonder what good that does to anyone in regard to the relationship between us and the people who cannot afford it.

We have not taken over the hospitals.

The own affairs administration is responsible for the provincial administrations. They will be appointed and they are all Government nominees. It is the same NP Government that runs them with the exception of Natal where it is the Administrator. The posters to which I am referring are in the Cape and anyone can see them. It is an NP administration and the hon the Minister must not pretend that it is anybody else’s.

If the hon the Minister is ashamed of it that is another matter. I do not blame him for wanting to repudiate and run away from it. I have no problem with the fact that the hon the Minister wants to run away from it and have nothing to do with it.

Let me give some examples of why I feel the question of own affairs and general affairs is ridiculous in so many respects. Let us look at the job creation programme.

The hon the Minister of the Budget serves in both the Cabinet and on the Ministers’ Council. He knows that a White housewife is presently teaching domestic work to unemployed Black people. Is that a general affair or an own affair?

It is her own affair.

Is it? What is it?

Let us look at this Budget and take the very subject that the hon the Minister spoke about. A White farmer assists with the creation of jobs for unemployed Black workers. Is that a general affair or an own affair?

So one can continue with example after example. This whole issue verges on the ridiculous. Another example is the resource utilisation and the evaluation of what is called “certain contributions of specific animals.” That is regarded as being an own affair; in other words that animal is a White affair and not a Black or a Brown affair. To my mind this is madness! It is absolute madness, Sir! It is high time we faced reality.

This is not only a political issue; it is not only an economic issue; and it is not only a social issue; it is actually an issue of practicality when it comes to many of these services. I would like to appeal to the hon the Minister of the Budget to review this whole concept so that we can get some logicality and some practicality in regard to the division between general and own affairs. In fact, if we have any sense, we will do away with this completely irrational concept with which we are now faced and which we are now debating.

Mr Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon the Minister on his Budget for the further development of own affairs. We are continuing to build upon the foundations we have laid.

†Mr Speaker, as a member of the “left wing” of the NP … [Interjections.]; and with my “left wing” colleagues sitting on the right of me and not on the left of me, I should like to refer to the speech made by the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition on 20 March 1986 in this House. The speech concerns own affairs. I should like to summarise his speech.

One of his first conclusions was that people of various races identify themselves across racial lines in respect of a number of different aspects. He then referred to sport, religion, education, commerce, industry, trade and labour matters. Secondly he believes own affairs should be scrapped. I think that is the general view of the hon members of the Official Opposition. According to the hon leader that concept points to a fatal flaw in the Government’s present Constitution. [Interjections.]

Thirdly, he says groups vary from time to time depending on the issue at a particular moment. He sees the individual—irrespective of that individual’s group identification—as the touchstone of the values in our society. [Interjections.] Further, Mr Speaker, he says that the Government claims that own affairs has to do with the protection of minorities or minority rights. However, he is of the opinion that it has little, if anything, to do with the protection of minorities. According to him, own affairs is really a form of old-fashioned apartheid.

In the USA at the moment, there is a campaign for disinvestment. There one finds the following slogan: “Support disinvestment; fight apartheid.” It makes one think.

It is important to analyse the assumptions on which the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition based his arguments and conclusions. The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition sees the South African society as a pluralistic society and not as a plural society. It is very important to define those two concepts.

In the case of a pluralistic society, shared values are a necessary prerequisite for political integration. In pluralistic countries where coalitions often vary from issue to issue, the cultural categories tend neither to be carefully demarcated nor always politically salient.

Permanent ethnic communities acting cohesively on nearly all political issues determine a plural society. The existence of separate cultural groups with generally incompatible sets of values, constitutes a necessary condition for a plural society. I think it is very important to repeat that for the benefit of hon members on the opposite side of the House. The existence of separate cultural groups with generally incompatible sets of values, constitutes a necessary condition for a plural society. In South Africa we do not have a pluralistic society. We have a plural society.

Secondly, the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition assumes that the structures of South Africa’s social and economic systems are not based on race. This is not the case. Our racial divisions coincide with our economic divisions. [Interjections.] Mr Chairman, they do not know their statistics! The White man receives the top income and the Black man’s income is the lowest. They must not tell me they do not know this!

Have you read the Population Registration Act?

Mr Chairman, let me carry on with my speech.

If one analyses the assumptions of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition, one finds that they are based on fallacies and that they are even dangerous for the maintenance of a democratic political system in South Africa.

The third assumption of the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition is that mutual interaction and mutual understanding among persons of different communities engenders harmonious relations. Education and other forms of social engineering, for example multiracial neighbourhoods, are often designed to reduce or eliminate ethnic animosities. [Interjections.] However, Rabushka and Shepsie, in a study entitled Politics in Plural Societies: A Theory of Democratic Instability, came to the conclusion that industrialisation and education do not eliminate tensions in Belgium or Canada. Even in America where education is widespread and the significance of the colour bar is considerably less, ethnic and racial sentiments are now on the increase. I should like to quote from an article in the latest issue of The Economist, entitled “Doomed to fail in the land of opportunity”. The author writes as follows:

When one analyses the approach of the hon Leader of the Official Opposition one comes to the conclusion that it is not acceptable or practical in South Africa. When we analyse that approach we can understand why he does not accept the concept of minority rights. Of course, I am aware of the fact that certain members of the Official Opposition have told foreign visitors that they do not believe in own affairs but in minority rights. However, if one adopts the approach of the hon Leader of the Official Opposition one cannot believe in minority rights.

Even the United Nations give a lot of attention to minority rights. I should like to read to hon members a section from the Draft International Convention on the Protection of National or Ethnic Groups of Minorities, as follows:

It is time the Official Opposition took a realistic view of South Africa. When they try to equate own affairs with apartheid, and then sell their ideas in America, they stimulate the whole disinvestment campaign against South Africa.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Waterkloof confined himself chiefly to the PFP. This shows that he has been incorrectly associated with the left wing. He should actually be associated with the middle group; that is where he belongs.

When the hon member spoke about minority rights, he was silent on the important question of how those minority rights were to be protected. We have been waiting for many years for the answer from the Government, but it has yet to be provided. The hon member for Waterkloof also failed to provide the answer. It is impossible because there is only one way in which minority rights can be protected, and that is by means of international borders.

By partition?

Yes, of course by partition. That is why the hon members of the NP are unable to tell us how they are going to protect minority rights.

The hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council of this House is doing his level best to give the concept of self-determination of own affairs some substance. This Budget and the debate on it provide incontrovertible proof that the hon the Minister is kicking against the pricks and that he will never succeed for the simple reason that the Budget which we are discussing here today, the Second Reading of which will be agreed to later thanks to the NP’s majority, is subject to the approval of a later sitting of this House and the other Houses. It is subject to the approval of the general affairs Budget. What is more, the Budget we are discussing today has to go before the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates later this year. If they do not approve it, this little effort of ours will have been fruitless.

Last year the own affairs Budget was approved by the House of Representatives on 27 May and the House of Delegates on 22 May. That is the procedure. The term “self-determination of own affairs” is in reality, therefore, an utter misnomer. The hon the Minister would be acting correctly if he said that he had joint responsibility over White affairs. That would be the correct terminology. There is no such thing as self-determination of own affairs because we do not have sole authority over the Budget.

In his Second Reading speech yesterday, the hon the Minister cited Belgium and Switzerland as examples of self-determination of own affairs and joint decision-making on general affairs, but in that respect he was misleading South Africa yet again. Each Swiss canton has its own tax source and alone decides how heavy its taxes are to be. The federal or, according to some people, confederal government has its own tax sources which are completely separate from those of each canton. There is no question at all of an exclusive tax source for the House of Assembly. As I told the hon the Minister’s predecessor last year, the House does not even have the right to levy a dog tax. The then hon Minister could not even make a recommendation about wheel tax or anything else. He had no such power. There is no own source of own income for the House of Assembly. Consequently, the term “self-determination of own affairs” is quite inapplicable as far as the constitutional dispensation for Whites is concerned.

I want actually to confine myself today to the Vote of the hon the Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply. I want to tell him firstly that I am going to refrain from making statements today because he gets furious when I do so. This does not upset me; it simply proves that the hon the Minister does not have an answer. I shall refrain from doing so anyway because I want the hon the Minister to think rationally about the question under discussion. I shall therefore limit myself to facts.

In the first place I want to look at the situation of agriculture generally. I am not even going to try to analyse the figures myself. I shall provide a few facts from Volkskas’s Ekonomiese Soeklig of March 1986 which I have in front of me. The first fact I want to mention is that the price index for farming requirements rose by 19% in 1985. The price index for agricultural products rose by 8,6% while the rate of inflation was 16,2%.

The debt burden of farmers since 1980 is set out by Volkskas as follows—its main source is Die Kortbegrip van Landboustatistiek—farming assets increased by 8% per year between 1980 and 1985. In that period total debt increased by 24,3% per year and the short-term debt of all farmers in South Africa increased by 30% per year. Shortterm debt, expressed as a percentage of total debt, was 28% in 1975 and 54,4% in 1985. Gross farming income increased by 10,4% per year between 1980 and 1985. Net farming income increased by minus 3,7% per year in the same period. Interest payments during this period increased by 39,3% per year. Interest, expressed as a percentage of a farmer’s net farming income, was 9% in 1975 and 83,5% in 1985—83,5% of his net farming income.

The average farmer in South Africa—this includes all farmers from Messina to Cape Point, from the West Coast to the East Coast—has R663 000 invested in his farming unit on which he earns precisely R428 per month. The average farmer in South Africa earns R428 per month. That is about as much as we pay the people who make our tea in South Africa but the average farmer has to support his family on that sum and he has to clothe and educate his children. What is more, he has to pay off his R175 000 debt from that R428 per month.

I would also like to examine the own affairs budget for agriculture and the general budget. I just want to look at the plain facts. The total main Budget rose from R31 billion to R37 billion, an increase of R7,6 billion or 24,2%. That is what the State is appropriating for its expenditure this year. The amount to be voted for agriculture in the main Budget has dropped from R578 million to R421 million, a decrease of R157 million or 27,2%. In contrast to the increase of 24% in the total Budget, provision for agriculture in the main Budget has dropped by 27,2%. The amount allocated to agriculture in the budget of the hon the Minister of Agriculture and Water Supply has dropped from R571 million to R529 million, a decrease of R42 million or 7,4%.

In the most trying circumstances, in the fifth year of drought and at a time when inflation is ravaging the farmer and his income has dropped to R428 per month the provision made in the Budget for the financing of agriculture has been reduced from R402 million to R333 million, a decrease of R69 million or 17,2%. Without making statements, I would like to put the facts to the hon the Minister. The Budget is, after all, an indication of the Government’s priorities, which must surely lie where it budgets for the highest amounts. One can come to no other conclusion than that agriculture is a negative priority for the Government, because the provision made for agriculture in the Budget has decreased. [Interjections.]

I wish to mention certain facts. Agriculture is certainly not responsible for inflation in South Africa. No-one can deny this, because agricultural producers’ prices rose by 8,6% last year while the average increase in the inflation rate was 16,2%. The total amount budgeted for for agriculture under own and general affairs was reduced by 17,3%. The provision made by the State for agriculture therefore did not contribute at all to the rising inflation rate; on the contrary, it had a controlling effect on inflation. The farmer’s profit, after he has paid interest, is R428 per month. Inflation has not been boosted as a result of an enormous increase in farming incomes. Nevertheless the amount provided by the Government for agriculture has been reduced at a time when farmers are in desperate straits.

I do not want to make a statement now; I just want to give the hon the Minister a little tip. His colleague, the hon the Minister of Manpower, said that he could make an entrepreneur of a man after one week’s training. I want to suggest that the hon the Minister undergo two weeks’ training with the hon the Minister of Manpower! [Interjections.] He may then become a Minister.

I come now to one of the most serious problems of agriculture. It concerns the grain farmers who are now entering their fifth year of drought. I wish to refer only to one small group of them, namely those who have no more security. The debt burden of some of these farmers is already running at more than R1 200 per hectare. A man with such a debt burden cannot get help anywhere any more. I would also like to tell the hon the Minister that whereas stock farmers received fodder subsidies of up to 100% in the last phases of the drought relief scheme, grain farmers received no subsidy except on interest. The grain farmer received no subsidy, except that on interest.

My, my!

He received no subsidy, except for that on interest. He did not receive a subsidy on any means of production. The hon the Minister cannot dispute that. It is true that stock feeds are subsidised during certain phases of the fodder scheme. There is no such scheme available to the grain farmer.

I want to tell the hon the Minister that I think firstly that a survey should be conducted to establish how many farmers have reached the position, after five years of drought, where no more loans are available to them. I made a rough estimate. It seems to me that it includes those farmers who farm approximately 300 000 hectares and are no longer creditworthy. I feel, therefore, that a survey should be conducted to establish precisely the nature and extent of this problem.

Secondly, I suggest that the Government negotiate with the banks to lower the interest rate to these farmers to 15%. This is possible in the light of the current prime interest rate. I realise that the banks will say that those fellows are a high risk. The higher the interest, the greater the risk that the banks will not get their money back. I therefore request the Government to negotiate with the banks to lower the interest rate to 15%. The banks must also be negotiated with to ensure that these farmers are not sold out. I want to request the hon the Minister to apply existing legislation and impose a moratorium of two years on these people if the authorities do not have success in their negotiations with the banks. [Interjections.] After all, it is the aim of the Agricultural Credit Act to protect people against creditors. If South Africa can declare a moratorium on the repayment of its debt, South Africa can also do so in the case of these farmers who cannot repay their debt. [Interjections.]

I wish to address another request to the hon the Minister. It is not pleasant to have to do so, but we have been reduced to the level of beggars. I want him to grant these people a minimum subsidy which they will not have to repay, so that they can plant a minimum crop of two tons. In this I do not include the farmer who is still creditworthy, who can still borrow or who has at least half a crop and can still carry on somehow. I am referring to the man who, in this fifth year of drought, does not earn enough to be able to plant a new crop.

This requires three bags of fertiliser, and I mean the cheapest fertiliser available. If the hon the Minister gives that fanner one and a half bags of ammoniated supers, he will apply just 6 kg of phosphate per hectare. This is sufficient for one and a half tons of maize. Hopefully there will still be enough reserves in the soil to ensure a harvest of two tons.

On what land size?

I am referring to those farmers who have come to the end of their tether and have no more security.

You mentioned a maximum.

I am referring to all the farmers who have reached the end of their tether. We must conduct a survey in this regard. I estimate that 300 000 hectares are involved, and I say that those 300 000 hectares occupied by those people should also be kept in production.

One and a half bags of LAN will provide the farmer with enough nitrogen for two tons and will cost R60. To this can be added R10 for seed which will produce 12 000 or 13 000 seedlings. This is very little for certain parts of the country, but we are talking about the minimum. Diesel at R40, wages and money to live on bring us to R150 per hectare. If the hon the Minister subsidises those 300 000 hectares in this way, it will cost R45 million.

What advantage will this have? Firstly, the disintegration of the rural infrastructure will be checked. The schools, all the amenities, the rural lifestyle, the doctor, lawyer, shop-owner, pharmacist and all these people will receive a little boost.

Secondly, by doing this the hon the Minister will prevent a final financial collapse. If those 300 000 hectares are placed on the market, the bottom will fall completely out of the price of land and the financial position of all the other farmers will be changed radically. If it were revealed that those farms were to be placed on the market, a chain reaction could follow which would disrupt the whole South African economy.

A further advantage to be gained from my proposal is that not only the farmers but also at least 30 000 Black labourers presently employed by them would be kept on the land. This would be more effective than the R600 million scheme for the creation of employment opportunities. They are there already, and they are trained for the work they do. The hon the Minister will enable them to keep their jobs. If one includes their families, it means that 150 000 people will keep their jobs.

I therefore wish to entreat the hon the Minister most earnestly to consider this matter very seriously.

But you said I was not a Minister!

The hon the Minister now has the chance to prove himself. If he does not even want to try, it will not disillusion us. We are, however, asking the hon the Minister to show us, for a change, what he is capable of. Cannot he do something? It seems to me that the hon the Minister cannot hold his own against his hon colleagues and in the Cabinet. I do not, however, want to reproach the hon the Minister. After all, we are facing a great problem here in South Africa, and I am asking the hon the Minister politely and in all seriousness to prove now that there is sympathy for these people and that something will be done to help them. They have reached the end of their tether and have no other source of assistance.

Mr Speaker, the hon member for Lichtenburg will excuse me if I do not follow him into the agricultural sphere but that does not happen to be my field. The hon the Minister probably appreciates that after the hammering he has just received. [Interjections.]

In his Second Reading speech the hon the Minister of the Budget said that this was the end of the first full year of the Administration: House of Assembly. Well, chronologically speaking, this is of course so. Although we have reached the end of the first full year it cannot be said yet that the new system has gotten fully into its stride. That is so because of the fact that a number of departments and functions—hospitals, education, local government etc—have not yet been properly taken over from the provinces, and at this stage we can only guess how the new system is going to work. Education, however, is due to be taken over as from 1 April this year, and will be under the control of Pretoria from that date. As far as we are concerned as Natalians, this is of course a very sad day for us because it is with extreme reluctance that we have relinquished our own provincial control of education, something which we have jealously guarded since Union in 1910, and in fact long before that.

Of course, when people have made this sort of somewhat plaintive cry, they are asked what they are worried about because things will be much the same anyway. We are told we will still have our own provincial directorate that will be running things; that there will be an Executive Committee to run things. This is perfectly true, of course. There will still be provincial administrations handling these affairs. There will, however, be one distinct difference. They will not be answerable to an elected provincial council in Natal. They will be answerable to a Minister in Pretoria.

To this House!

Yes, I know that. That is, however, only the theory. In practice they will be answerable to a Minister. Is the hon the Minister trying to kid me? He should not do that, please! [Interjections.]

The other point which must be borne in mind is that the Executive Committee will no longer be there as an elected body with public accountability. In future those members of the Executive Committee are going to be appointed—so I am given to understand—by the State President. They may or may not be Natalians. There is no law which says that must be the case. I do, however, assume that even this Government is intelligent enough to appoint people from Natal.

I do not quite agree with that statement.

No, I do believe they are intelligent enough.

Do not count on that! [Interjections.]

The point is, however, that they will be nominated people and, such being the case, they will be answerable to the Government and not to the public. They will, as I said earlier, not have public accountability. Such being the case, if they want to hold on to their jobs— perhaps they will want to—they will just jolly well have to do as they are told. This we do not believe is a desirable thing.

Whilst it is true, Sir, that we supported a yes vote in the referendum of 1983 for a change in the Constitution, I would just remind hon members that we did so with many ifs and buts. Further, we have never ever moved from our attitude that the second tier should be elected in some form or another. It is quite obvious now that this is not going to be the case, and I should like to suggest that the first fruits of education being taken over are the minute increase on the Education Vote. Again I have looked specifically at the figures for Natal and with inflation running at 20% it would be reasonable to expect some such increase on this Vote bringing it—as it should have been with this sort of increase—to R298 million. Incidentally, the increase was 20% last year. However, now we have an approximately 8% increase on last year’s R248 million and that, presumably, is subject to the 2% diminution or reduction that we have to save on the Budget that the hon member for Yeoville was talking about. As I have said, I cannot answer for the other provinces only having examined in depth the situation vis-à-vis Natal. However, this does not augur very well for that province in the first year of Pretoria rule.

The increased Vote, as far as I can gather, does not even cover salary increases, let alone increments. Where is the money to come from? This is the same sort of cry that the hon member for Yeoville was making. The Budget does not seem to have the money to accommodate the needs which have to be met. If the money is not there, there is only one of two ways in which the matter can be resolved, and the matter can be resolved, as I see it. The one is that the standards are going to be arbitrarily reduced and the other is that the public are going to be called upon forthwith and immediately to put their hands in their pockets and pay these new enforced school fees. If they do not pay they will have to go to court; and if they still do not pay or cannot pay for whatever reason, they either have to be a little humiliated in front of their children or go to jail. So, maybe the public will understand henceforth what the NP concept of free and compulsory education is.

Let us now have a look at the Department of Health Services and Welfare. As the hon the Minister has said, curative medicine has not yet been handed over and the provinces are still running it. Why is this so at this stage? Nobody knows. The hon the Minister has been handling this, as far as the curative medicine side is concerned, for quite some time now since the concept of own affairs was brought into being. However, I believe that it has not been handed over because the Government has at last awakened to the fact that efficient and economical medical services cannot be split to be run by a whole bevy of Ministers, each having his own watertight compartment. I would like to suggest that among those who were responsible for them coming to their senses may well be the new hon Minister of National Health and Population Development, Dr Van Niekerk, and I would like to give him credit if he did have anything to do with that. I also believe, however, that before he took over, this Government had already done considerable damage to medical services by splitting the homelands’ hospitals from the provincial hospitals. I suspect that but for the massive protests of the provincial Exco’s—incidentally not only in Natal because I know there was a little unhappiness in all the provinces over this matter—and the protests of the members of the medical profession and everybody else who has the faintest idea of the running of hospitals and the running of medical services, they would probably have taken that lot over as from 1 April 1986 and made a complete mess of that too.

The organisational ability of this Government is almost beyond comprehension. If there is an inept way of handling anything they will certainly find it. There is no doubt about that in my mind. Fortunately, for the moment they are having second thoughts about wrecking the hospital services.

While I am on this Vote I would like to comment on the pensions for the aged and veterans. The hon the Minister said in his speech, and I quote:

He then told us that R318,8 million had been allotted for them. Last year the figure was R319,5 million, just slightly more. There does not appear to be any increase in this figure at all. At some stage I believe the exact increase, if any, should be stated. The hon the Minister must remember that inflation hits these people probably harder than people on higher income levels.

I do not propose to touch on agricultural matters because as I mentioned earlier I do not know much about the issue but one of my colleagues will say a thing or two about agriculture tomorrow.

I must, however, say a few words about local government. This again has not yet been taken over. I believe this is largely due to the fact that the Government has not yet sorted out the problems. I honestly do not believe, however, that with what they propose to do they will ever be able to sort out the problems of local government because in no way is it possible to have local authorities totally White or Coloured or Indian or Black; that is, of course, unless one involves oneself with the most brutal of forced removals, and I do not believe this Government would ever dare do that again.

Another possibility would be that this Government would try one of its magic tricks and tell some members of the population that they do not belong to the main group, that they do not live in a particular town and that they have to vote in another place. They therefore do not in fact live where they do live but in some place near it which would be part of their own group.

That is good Nat logic!

Yes.

As I have made it quite clear all the way through we are not happy with this Budget and will not be able to support it. There are a number of hon Ministers who are getting well paid for performing only a fraction of the work they were appointed to do, because their functions have not yet been taken over. It looks to me as though this is likely to be the case for some time. Perhaps it might have shown a little wisdom under the circumstances if there had been a delay in putting these ideas into practice especially as the State President wants full co-operation for the forthcoming statutory council. There have been pleas and demands to have further discussions before final steps are taken in regard to the council.

We are faced with a really unfortunate position. The State President needs credibility for this statutory council, and we want it to work. I am sure most hon members on this side of the House would want that statutory council to work but the State President will not get credible Black leaders to serve on it if he and his Government are not prepared to show reasonableness.

I know that the Chief Minister of kwaZulu asked for a moratorium to be held on the dissolution of provincial councils in general but in particular in Natal until the situation had been resolved. So far it has been made very obvious that that moratorium will not be granted; in fact the breakup has already started. I want to warn those gentlemen that if they are going to be so “kragdadig” and intransigent they will not receive co-operation and they will be directly responsible for the destruction of this country. I say that in all sincerity.

There was a big congress planned in a place called Wilton Park in Britain. It was largely sponsored by the British Government to assist in finding solutions and recommendations in respect of South Africa. Many very prominent people had agreed to attend that conference. I now want to point out something strange. A number of the Black people who had accepted to attend that conference refused subsequently because they refused to sit at the same table as a representative of the kwaZulu government. I think it was Dr Oscar Dhlomo who was there as a representative of Chief Buthelezi and his government. Because he was there, some Black people refused to attend.

If we want to get anywhere in South Africa we have to have the Zulus as well as the other groups with us. If we do not assist in building up or allowing Chief Buthelezi to build up his credibility we will be in very severe trouble. This is why I make an appeal-even at this last minute—to the hon members on that side of the House, the members constituting the Government of South Africa, to think very seriously indeed about the proposals that are being made in respect of an indaba for Natal, and in respect of how these proposals may subsequently be applied in other parts of South Africa.

We are not being parochial in this. We have led this country though many changes from that small province in the eastern part of South Africa—and we have not made too many mistakes in doing so! Certainly, we have made fewer mistakes than the hon members on that side of the House.

I will conclude, then, by saying that we cannot support this Bill as it is neither practical nor financially efficient. I am sorry that I cannot support the amendment moved by the hon member for Yeoville because we in this party do accept the fact that there can and should be own affairs. It is for that reason that we cannot accept his amendment and because he insists that the constitutional structure is politically unacceptable. I conclude, therefore, by saying that we will not be supporting the motion.

Mr Chairman, there cannot be many people inside or outside the system in South Africa today who have not come to the conclusion that the system of so-called own affairs has been an unmitigated disaster to date.

The hon member for Waterkloof tried desperately to convince us that own affairs was not apartheid. [Interjections.] He will possibly be able to persuade some of his own colleagues that that is not so. However, the vast majority of all South Africans are sincerely convinced that own affairs is simply other terminology for apartheid. [Interjections.] In effect, that is what it is. One cannot persuade the world outside or South Africa inside that that is not so. [Interjections.] Own affairs is apartheid because it allows for the provision of services on a rigidly racially segregated basis, and that is what is perceived to be and experienced as apartheid in South Africa.

I should like to address my remarks to the hon the Minister of Education and Culture in the Administration: House of Assembly, or, if one likes, the “Minister for White Apartheid in education”. The advent of own affairs in education has caused an immense amount of uncertainty, scepticism and deep concern among educators and parents in South Africa. The Government is largely responsible for this because of its consistent failure to provide clear and satisfactory answers to the pertinent questions which are being put to it. Nobody in South Africa seems to know at this stage what the policy, educational, technical and financial implications are of the move of education from the provinces to the department of this hon Minister. The time has come for the Government to give a clear answer as to what the position is.

Moreover, the Government is desperately attempting to prove that it is pursuing equal educational opportunities for all groups within South Africa. I really wish that it was possible for us to say that that approach and that policy was succeeding, and that it was succeeding in persuading other South Africans that that aim was being achieved. The Government, however, is undoing its own efforts by insisting on superimposing upon this policy and these principles its determination to have rigidly segregated educational structures from preprimary level to university level for all South Africans.

From the cradle to the grave, therefore, education—if one takes into account formal and informal education, and adult education—is to be apartheid structured in the future. Whether the Government likes it or not, this deeply offends the dignity of the Black, Coloured and Indian communities of South Africa. It is militating against any possibility of the concept of equal but separate education being accepted in South Africa. Moreover, it consistently prevents the development of good race relations by preventing communication between children in their formative years.

The third point I want to make is that the transfer of education from the provinces to own affairs is considered highly suspect by all interested groups and parties in South Africa. The provinces are losing political control over education. This means that the elected representatives of the people within the provinces will no longer be able to monitor the provision of education or decide on educational policy. However, the bureaucracies—I am referring specifically to the Transvaal Education Department with all its hangups, prejudices and handicaps—continue. In future a nominated or appointed body of people selected by the Government representing the authorities, the teachers and the parents will control education in the provinces.

I think the hon the Minister let the cat out of the bag when he said:

I think it means just one thing, namely that the control which the provinces have lost over the determination of policy will now also be denied to this House. It will be denied to the elected public representatives, because the hon the Minister has already said that the provinces can continue in terms of their traditions, attitudes etcetera. Those aspects will be safeguarded and will not be subject to change. [Interjections.]

I should like to make the point that if this hon Minister and his department wish to be successful, then he is going to have to do something about the Transvaal Education Department at the very outset. The hon the Minister and his department will have to cleanse that bureaucracy of the racial prejudice, the arrogance and the corruption which characterise its activities. [Interjections.] That department has been responsible for a number of scandals over the past few years. It does exactly as it pleases. It is totally unconcerned about the interests or the attitudes of the public.

Only a few days ago, a new scandal was revealed through the disclosure that upwards of 500 White children from Zimbabwe and Botswana are being subsidised in Northern Transvaal schools. The subsidy is not only in respect of their education, which amounts to R1 500 per pupil per year. There is also an additional subsidy of R500 per year for their hostel fees. That amounts to R2 000 per pupil per year. This means that approximately R1 million per year or, if this has been going on for five years, something like R5 million of the South African taxpayers’ money has been surreptitiously used in an undercover operation. This was done without the sanction of the Transvaal Provincial Council and without the knowledge of the general public, in order to subsidise foreign children of one race group only at South African schools. This is highly unfair to the thousands of South African children—Black, Coloured and Indian children—who are denied a good education and who are being prejudiced by a government that is prepared to use money— a scarce resource which should be used for the education of South African children—for the education of foreigners.

Are hon members aware that we could educate 10 Black children, at a cost of roughly R200 per annum per Black child, for every one foreign White child educated at a cost of R2 000 per year? [Interjections.] One could educate 10 Black children for that amount. That represents a gross example of blatant racial discrimination.

Children from outside South Africa— those foreigners—are admitted to those schools and educated there only because they are White. At the same time, South African children are excluded from those schools only because they are not White. I believe that is a blatant form of discrimination and a gross form of injustice which cannot be tolerated.

What about the undertaking of equal education? How is that affected by this scandalous procedure? What about the State President’s undertaking to South Africa in respect of clean administration? Is this clean administration? I believe the hon the Minister owes South Africa specific answers to these specific questions. For how long has this scandalous procedure been going on in South Africa? How much has it cost the South African taxpayer? In which other provinces are there similar examples of such behaviour? How many children are affected, and what are the total financial implications?

We are not opposed to extending educational opportunities to children and students from outside South Africa; on the contrary, we think South Africa can do that as part of a process of good neighbourliness. [Interjections.] South African children must, however, always receive top priority, and the policy must be publicly known and approved by Parliament. It must not be done under cover, and there must be no discrimination whatsoever on the grounds of race, creed or colour in the selection of people who will benefit from such a policy or in subsidies that are paid or in bursaries which are extended.

I should just like to repeat the warning that I have given to the hon the Minister, namely that if he is not prepared to deal effectively with the Transvaal Education Department, that department will destroy any good effect that may come from the creation of this hon Minister’s department. The Transvaal Education Department, because of their background, attitude and arrogance and the race prejudice which is evident in that department, cannot promote equal education or better race relations.

Mr Chairman, at a later stage in my speech I shall come back to the speech made by the hon member for Bryanston, but I just want to tell him now that the irresponsible attack he launched on the Transvaal Education Department was a reprehensible, scandalous one. We shall be dealing with him on that issue when the time is ripe. [Interjections.]

Before commencing with my speech, I just want to extend my sincere thanks to Mr Cornelissen, the Director-General of the Administration: House of Assembly, on his appointment as Transvaal Provincial Secretary. We hope and trust that he will have a very pleasant stay in the Transvaal.

Whilst listening to the budget debate yesterday, and having read through it once more, I again came to the conclusion, having gained certainty in my own mind, that we are in the process of developing own affairs into a very fine department. In support of that statement let me mention a few examples of the announcements the hon the Minister made in his budget speech yesterday. He spoke, for example, of the broadening of the administrative independence that department heads are going to obtain within the administration when it comes to staff and finance functions. That is a very important announcement that was made here. In addition the line-function departments will be granted the authority to control the daily handling of staff and finances within their departments. We look forward to each own affairs department having its own accounting officer. There are also plans afoot—and efforts are being made to give effect to this—to allow for such department heads to progress to the level of Director-General. These are fine guidelines laid down in the Budget. We want to thank the hon the Minister and the Ministers’ Council for these wonderful initiatives they have taken.

If one looks at the Budget, bearing in mind what the PFP and the CP said last year, and are still saying, about the amount that is going to be handled in this Budget, one feels like doing what children so frequently do by saying “Yah!” and perhaps sticking one’s tongue out, too, at what they have said in the past. [Interjections.] I warned them last year that they would have to swallow their words because the overall amount in this Appropriation could perhaps increase by 100% in one year. They did not believe it then, and today they are still denigrating own affairs as being a completely inferior component of the constitutional programme. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Bryanston and the PFP perhaps have a reason for their opposition, because they do not unbegrudgingly acknowledge the full-fledged existence of groups in South Africa. For them own affairs has no relevance whatsoever, and the Whites as a group do not have any place in the South Africa they want to create. According to them the White group has done its share and must now stand aside for a so-called open South Africa in which it is not permitted to play any dominant role. [Interjections.]

On the other hand the CP, the HNP and the AWB factions begrudge every other group in South Africa an equitable right to exist.

Also the Kappiekommando supporters.

If hon members want me to include the Kappiekommando and the Afrikaner Volkswag, I shall do so. [Interjections.] They can argue that each group, by an overall process of physical displacement, must find a place in which to establish themselves. What they are really advocating, however, is a completely new settlement pattern for virtually every group in South Africa. According to them there will have to be ethnic migration. Each group will have to pack its bags and start moving to some or other destination. Where they must move too—where that “some or other destination” is—has not yet been spelled out. In their structural twilight and their dark, unfathomed thought processes they are going to restructure the residential patterns of everyone in South Africa, moving them all and resettling them elsewhere. [Interjections.] They are in for a rude awakening, because they are not going to be able to manage it. It is untenable. No people will be part of this made programme of ethnic migration of theirs—not the Whites either.

Are you opposed to group areas?

We frequently hear—particularly in recent times—the CP’s accusation that the NP has forsworn separate development, wants to dismantle it, is ashamed of it.

Of course!

That is untrue.

It is true!

Homelands, as established by Dr Verwoerd, are an important milestone and an extremely vital substructure for a future new South Africa. The four independent States and the national States present a very important platform from which significant programming and planning for a future South Africa can be launched.

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

No, Mr Chairman, I do not have any time to answer questions put by the CP. [Interjections.]

What about the concept of apartheid which has become obsolete?

In recognising homelands—something we gratefully do— we must also realise that we have to grant recognition to those Blacks throughout South Africa who live outside the national States. They will also have to be taken into account when a future South Africa is contemplated. They will also have to be listened to, and they will also have to make a contribution towards creating own affairs for Black people in South Africa. [Interjections.] It is truly a pity that there are radicals and activists who wish to jeopardise such participation, such dialogue, in South Africa. They are bedevilling relations between groups to such an extent that this could eventually lead to an unwillingness to discuss matters with one another and to accommodate one another. They could imperil the whole programme of sound negotiation. The whole object in creating proper, orderly coexistence in South Africa could be jeopardised by them.

I have here a publication of the University of Pretoria. Just let me congratulate Tukkies on its fine victory over the Maties last Saturday. [Interjections.] In this Tukkies publication there is an interview conducted by Mr Willem van Rensburg with Mr Piet Rudolph, also known as Piet Skiet. We all know him. He is a Pretoria city councillor, and he was the one who with great bravado, during a city council meeting just the other day, wanted to go and evict Coloureds who were sitting in the public gallery.

Let us have a look at what this Mr Rudolph says about relations between Whites, Blacks and Coloureds in South Africa. The following question was put to him:

His reply was:

Then he was asked:

His reply:

He was also asked:

His reply was:

Then the next question was put to him:

The question is repeated:

His reply:

That is the kind of mentality reflected in regard to relations. [Interjections.]

Order! I note that there are several speakers from all the political parties who have yet to speak. Hon members must give the hon member an opportunity to complete his speech.

My question is whether it is not our task, as politicians, to give our voters the kind of leadership that would give rise to a positive approach, amongst members of the general public, towards improving race relations in South Africa. One would have to stop fanning the flames of hatred and insulting other groups. If that does not stop, the risk we run is that time will run out for us, as Whites, to discuss own affairs in this Parliament.

Mr Chairman, the Appropriation before the House this afternoon deals with the group of people that the NP calls a group but which we call the Afrikaner people or the Whites.

In this context I firstly want to refer to hon members of the PFP who have little or no feelings of race. They also have little or no feeling of ethnicity. As far as they are concerned, the determinants of one’s identity count for virtually nothing. One’s racial origins, one’s ethnic ties, one’s cultural ties and one’s history are some of the major determinants of one’s identity. These aspects, however, leave hon members of the PFP stone cold—that is if they are not completely indifferent to them. For them people are merely individuals, and the quicker they can be brought down to the same level and crammed into the melting pot of a racially mixed society, the better. [Interjections.] So limited, so superficial and so hollow are the views of the PFP that they prefer not to notice and, if possible, do not want to notice, those aspects that most significantly distinguish one person from another. They would prefer to ignore them. [Interjections.]

The tragedy of our day and age is, of course, the fact that the NP has nuzzled up very close to, virtually up against, the Progs, with their view that in South Africa, there is now only one overall South African nation with a certain number of minority groups.

The Afrikaner people does not constitute a minority group, it never has and it never will be. [Interjections.] The Afrikaner people is a proud people in its own right. [Interjections.] It is as much entitled to a fatherland as are the Xhosas or any other people in the world. [Interjections.] It is as much entitled to its sovereign independence, for which it fought, as any other people in the world.

There is something I want to tell the hon member for Houghton this afternoon. The other day she made a great fuss about how the Coloured and Black children were prepared to die for what she called “freedom”.

That is unfortunately true.

This afternoon I want to tell her that throughout history there have been, in the Afrikaner people, children who were prepared to die for their people and for their fatherland. [Interjections.] She, the international money market backing her up and the whole of the outside world, must not think that in the era we are embarking upon, the Afrikaner people will not again find untold numbers of children who would be as prepared to die for their people, for their fatherland, as was a Dirkie Uys and those children who, as nine-year-old youngsters in the Second Anglo-Boer War, fought to the very end! [Interjections.]

Today I want to say that the Afrikaner people and the Whites, who have always been the pivot on which civilisation in South Africa has hinged, are in the process of actually dying out at the moment. They are dying out, whilst all the other population groups are experiencing a population explosion. The natural growth rate amongst the Whites has now reached an historic and disastrously low average of 0,78% per annum. The Whites—particularly the Afrikaners— are in the process of dying out. The growth of a people is completely static at 1,7% per annum. [Interjections.]

Order!

The Whites of South Africa have therefore passed the point of stasis and are now decreasing annually. [Interjections.]

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

No, I am not prepared to answer questions. [Interjections.]

As far as grade I and grade II are concerned, from 1978 to 1985, ie in seven years, the number of children has decreased from 185 000 to 157 000. In seven years the number of children in White schools has decreased by 28 000 in these standards. In primary school, within only two years, the number of children has decreased by 29 000. I am now speaking about primary school as a whole.

In contrast the Blacks, Coloureds and Indians are experiencing a population explosion. In South Africa, the homelands and the independent States in 1974 there were 3,5 million Black children attending school. In 1985 there were 5 800 000 and in 1990, in a period of four years, it is expected that there will be seven million Black children attending school. So in 16 years there will have been a doubling. The Institute for Futures Research at the University of Stellenbosch recently published these figures. They say that in 1980 the Whites comprised virtually 16% of the population, but by the year 2010 they would comprise less than 11% of the South African population. In 1972 the Blacks comprised 72% of the population, and in the year 2010 they will comprise 80% of the population. The Coloureds and Indians will more or less maintain their present position.

The hearts of the Progs and of members of the NP are filled with compassion for every other race group up as far as Ethiopia! If their children are dying of hunger, we must lend a hand. I want to ask this hon Minister this afternoon to give me an indication of the present position in agriculture, farming primarily being the province of the Afrikaners. What is the position of the Whites in the cities? Just look at how they are becoming impoverished! What is the position of those who have to do military service? How are they not struggling to find accommodation? The time has come, now, today—and this is my appeal to the hon the Minister—to have an in-depth, scientific investigation launched to determine the reasons for this catastrophic decrease in the number of the Afrikaners, the White people, and at the same time to ascertain the reasons for the population explosion in the non-White population groups.

This is my plea to the hon the Minister: Could he tell us today—or as quickly as possible—that he will allocate R1 million, R5 million, or whatever amount is necessary for this purpose, to an institution such as the University of Pretoria, just as Dr Verwoerd, in the ’thirties, played a large role in having an investigation instituted into the erstwhile question of poverty amongst the Whites. Our plea to the hon the Minister is to launch a thorough investigation—with the State shouldering the costs—with a view to determining why there is such an alarming decrease in the White population, whilst the other population groups are increasing in numbers, something which is causing the whole pivot on which civilisation in South Africa has always hinged, and always will hinge, to crumble under this Government, if I may put it in those terms.

Defeatists!

I appeal to the hon the Minister to take the initiative in this connection. The HNP does not have the means at its disposal, because otherwise the HNP itself would do this. I therefore appeal to the hon the Minister to vote the money in this crisis. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: Is it in order for the hon member for Rissik to shout to hon members opposite, calling them a bunch of defeatists?

Order! The hon member for Sasolburg may proceed.

I have finished, Mr Chairman. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I trust that the hon member for Sasolburg will remain because I have a few words to say about him a little later in my speech. [Interjections.]

Put in you 7% worth, Roger!

A bit more than that, Brian!

A word or two about the fires at the University of Natal in Durban. I have close personal links with that university. I obtained an Honours Degree at the History Department that was destroyed, I studied in the Political Science Department with, among others, Dr Dennis Worrall, who was a lecturer, and my wife worked for several years for Prof Schlemmer at the Centre for Applied Social Sciences. [Interjections.]

Who caused those fires, who did it? I would say it does not matter. Whether it came from the far-left radicals, who have determined that change will come through the barrel of a gun, by a flaming necklace or a limpet mine, or the far-right fascists whose vicious burning, killing and pot-shotting racial behaviour is aimed at preventing any move to peace or change—it does not matter. What matters is that those of us who occupy the centre ground—and here I include some of the hon members opposite …

About 35.

That is right, about 35 … also the many thousands involved in extra-parliamentary politics—in the UDF, in Black Sash and Inkatha and others—must confirm today that we will not be intimidated by the far left or the far right.

Because he sits with us in this House, in a Parliament with traditions going back through the British parliamentary system, far back into history, I want to say a word about the speeches, the underlying threats by the hon member for Sasolburg and the party to which he belongs. As a single member of his party he has a hard task. We know that; the hon member for Houghton has been through it. It may be that his continuous speechmaking possibly dulls our senses, but we must be warned. This appeal to race, this bitter slamming of others because of their colour, this vicious threat to use “other means” to defend his “volk’s domination” of the political system—these are the coinage we must reject, and reject with contempt. [Interjections.] All of us! To his fellow travellers in the CP and in the AWB I must say they must go to their laager alone.

Keep your hands off us!

They should not think they will go into that laager with our assistance.

I shall set fire to your beard! [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, I should tell the hon member for Langlaagte we are not the wishy-washy, knock-kneed opponents he may think we are. We can fight. Our fathers and our grandfathers have fought wars against people who wished to dominate them and to deprive them of their rights. [Interjections.]

To what nation do you belong?

Mr Chairman, we have fought wars … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Langlaagte really should speak a little more softly.

Mr Chairman, we have fought wars and won against the fascist, right-wing threat of “support us or we shoot you”. Now, I deliberately make mention of the parties in this House. Power-sharing will come. There will be a Black State President. Will hon members in the HNP and in the CP accept those changes as democratic …

No, certainly not!

Never! [Interjections.]

Will they, before that happens, call out their private armies?

We shall do whatever we deem fit!

Are you a member of the UDF?

Show us your membership card of the UDF?

Mr Chairman, I should like to quote Prof Arthur Keppel-Jones. In his book When Smuts goes he wrote the following …

Show us your UDF card! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I quote from Prof Keppel-Jones’s book—the 1950 edition—as follows:

Why do you not show us your UDF card?

Order! The hon member for Langlaagte has made enough interjections. He shall not be permitted to make any further interjections during the hon member for Pinetown’s speech.

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

No, Mr Chairman, I am not prepared to answer any questions now. [Interjections.]

I continue to quote, as follows:

That is the President:

That, Sir, is where hon members of the CP and of the HNP want to take us.

Tell us now whether you are a member of the UDF! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, the same can be said of the far-left radicals. The fascists of the left look to a totalitarian victory with the seizure of the State political apparatus. That day will not come. It will never come. Thinking that bombs and burnings can advance that day merely serves to emphasise the futility of those dreams of taking over the SADF, the SAP and the State.

Mr Chairman, power-sharing will come. Next week’s indaba is a sign of this coming together.

Over our dead bodies!

It may well be! [Interjections.] The NP’s fence-sitting cannot last much longer. Either one is in the moderate camp or one is with the CP. There is no other option.

That is right!

We are going to be pleased to see who is going to attend the indaba, and I hope before it ends the people attending on behalf of the NP will be given permission to speak and to discuss matters.

Mr Chairman, I should like to refer briefly now to the Government. Why is the Government so totally insistent on ruining what bright ideas they may still have? I ask this because, as was said by the hon member for Yeoville, we congratulate the Government on their policy of subsidising the private schools. The schools themselves cheered, but were nevertheless wary about it. What has the Government done, however? They have hanged themselves again.

Private schools, in order to receive the 45% subsidy, have to be 90% White. To receive the 15% subsidy they must be 80% White.

Why?

One may well ask. Even to register—and to receive not a cent from the State—they must be 70% White.

Disgusting!

What idiocy is this? What happens to truly non-racial schools? Mr Chairman, what happens to those schools which, under the Financial Relations Act, could register with the province at 50% plus one? Already, Mr Chairman, a provincial director of education has phoned the private schools in his province politely to request that they agree not to have a Black, Coloured or Indian pupil content exceeding 9%. In return he will ensure that they get the 45% subsidy. This has already happened, Mr Chairman. Are the Government completely mad? Cannot they read? Cannot they understand this? This is nothing but racial blackmail.

Mr Chairman, we have received letters. I shall read them to hon members. I have one letter here from the South African Catholic Bishops’ Conference, and I quote briefly from it, as follows:

Now, what is going to happen to those schools? I understand that there is going to be flexibility. This is the discussion among the schools. What kind of quota flexibility will there be? One per cent? Two per cent? The phrase “as agreed to” between department and school, is, I believe, going to be written into the criteria. Is this going to ensure the Government is going to keep its lily-white own affairs hands clean? It will be the schools which will have to capitulate. This is shameful and it deserves to be rejected with contempt. [Interjections.]

We on these benches believe very strongly in the subsidy—we have supported it and said so in a Press statement. We thanked the Government for extending the subsidy to all private schools. The Government must please not be so idiotic as to have a racial quota to go with this.

Next Tuesday, 1 April, marks the takeover of provincial education. I want to pose some questions so that people have been warned. These again are questions unanswered for a year or more. Who appoints the provincial Director of Education and on whose advice? The provincial education councils are not yet even in existence. When are they going to come? I now believe at the end of April. What takes their place from 1 April? Nothing. A vacuum. What powers will Exco or the MEC have on 1 April? Why are the pre-primary schools totally excluded from any representation on any structure of educational control in the provinces, including the provincial education council? The hon the Minister of the Budget has promised funding formulas. He keeps saying that they are coming, but we have still to see them.

Lastly, I would just like to make reference to the details found on the education budget votes in the provinces. They are reflected for all four provinces and they go into extreme detail of how the spending takes place and where it is allocated, eg transport for pupils, etc. Everything is here. I appeal to the hon the Minister of the Budget when he with his colleague, the hon the Minister of Education and Culture, bring us the memorandum on the votes later in this session, that he has a breakdown that accurately reflects the same sort of thing as was reflected in the provinces earlier.

Mr Chairman, I do not want to react directly to the speech of the hon member for Pinetown. All I would want to say is that it is highly entertaining to watch the far left and the far right firing salvos at each other, but one can hardly say that it contributes to a meaningful debate.

In this country at this stage, both inside and outside the House, a serious debate is taking place on the political rights of people. I should like to state that if the right of self-determination of groups—when I speak about groups I am also speaking about the White group—is accorded too little value, the search for constitutional structures within which joint decision-making can take place is unnecessary. If we consider the amendment that the hon member for Yeoville moved on behalf of the PFP, namely that this Budget should be rejected because the constitutional structure within which it takes place is not acceptable to them and on the other hand when we take a look at the statement of the hon member for Lichtenburg that this Budget should not be approved because sole decision-making is made possible where international borders exist then we understand why the contributions of these two parties in the House have no chance of making a contribution at all to meaningful joint decision-making.

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

No, Sir, I shall come back to the hon member in a moment and I cannot answer any questions now.

I want to return for a moment to the speech made by the hon member for Lichtenburg. His condition for decision-making within a constitutional dispensation is that there must be internationally recognised borders. If that is the situation then I should like to ask the hon member whether he thinks the borders of the Coloured homeland which he would like to see would ever be recognised internationally. [Interjections.] If that is a condition for decisionmaking within a political system he will never be able to get any constitutional system which he may possibly negotiate under way.

Joint and separate decision-making is part of the political history of this country. If we think back to the system as it was when we were still part of a Commonwealth, then we will remember that there were members who were some of our most acrimonious critics but within the context of the Commonwealth, while our group rights were recognised …

Do you want to go back into history?

I shall come back in a moment to modern history and then those hon members may feel embarrassed.

Do you want a monarchy in South Africa?

If we look back to the dispensation as it was during the Commonwealth we shall see that even some of our most acrimonious critics took decisions with us about us. Joint decision-making was therefore possible.

If we look at the set-up in the TBVC countries and even the BLS countries we find that there are formal and informal state structures within which joint decisions can be taken about things which affect us. Why is it that hon members cannot see the possibility of joint decision-making taking place in the present dispensation of the tricameral Parliament?

Hon members have just been telling me that I must come back to the more recent past. The hon members of the CP themselves supported the 1977 proposals.

Yes, we did!

They made provision for a structure within which joint decisions could be taken. What did that structure look like? After all, the hon members for Brakpan and Rissik were instrumental in preparing the draft constitution of 1977. [Interjections.]

You were on your farm; you were not here.

I wasn’t here, but I can read. [Interjections.]

Order! In my opinion the hon member does not need so much help in delivering his speech. From now on I am going to pay close attention to unnecessary interjections. The hon member may proceed.

Clause 19 of that draft constitution read as follows:

It was also indicated how the Cabinet should be constituted. Moreover, it is indicated how a Cabinet shall be appointed, and I quote:

I would say that this 1977 draft constitution takes many aspects which bother the CP now much further even than is the case with the present new constitutional dispensation.

To my mind the successful implementation of the Constitution of South Africa lies in the determination of the extent to which the capacity for self-determination of the three groups concerned can be promoted. This structure allows each population group, the Whites, Coloureds and Indians to make legally enforceable decisions within their own group.

The authority and ability to control the financial processes which arise from the decisions which each takes for its own group contributes to the capacity for self-determination which we would like to promote within this new dispensation.

In terms of section 84 of the Constitution certain amounts will in future, by means of a formula, be apportioned to each of the three Chambers of this Parliament. The question that arises is: To what extent do the Own Affairs Ministers, the Ministers’ Council, the separate Chambers of the Parliament and eventually the separate population groups have control over the money which is apportioned to them according to the formula?

Pursuant to what the hon Minister told us in his introductory speech, I should like to submit that in future the capacity for self-determination will be significantly promoted as far as control over own funds is concerned. Together with other hon members on this side of the House I am delighted to hear that accountability is going to be accorded to the top officials of the Own Affairs Departments. Accountability means to me greater responsibility for Own Affairs Ministers and greater responsibility of the Own Affairs Ministers vis-a-vis the public as far as these matters are concerned. It is an advancement once again of the capacity for self-determination of each group.

My question to the hon the Minister then is: Will the accountability which is going to be accorded to top officials also mean that a transfer of funds between certain programmes within a department for own affairs could take place. I would recommend that that happen. I would furthermore ask the hon Minister to ensure that when the full amount of appropriated funds is not spent within an own affairs department, such funds which remain be transferred to a reserve fund of each Own Affairs Department.

My plea to the hon the Minister is that he should make every effort to expand the Own Affairs Department so that it can in fact eventually lead to the total self-realisation of each separate group.

Mr Chairman, I have always had a fairly high regard for the hon member for Waterkloof and for what he has to say in this House. I must say, however, that his speech today quite amazed me.

What I should like to do today is refer to the report of the HSRC investigation into intergroup relations. The investigation is a strong argument against what the hon member for Waterkloof said, and also to a certain extent against what the hon member for Fauresmith said. I believe that this document is one of the most important to have been tabled in this House for some time, and I hope every hon member will give it the attention it deserves. Unfortunately, in the short time at my disposal today, I can only discuss individual aspects of it. Obviously, I cannot hope to cover it in any detail at all.

To start off with, I should like to refer hon members to pages 39 and 40 of the report. The hon the Minister will note, for example, that English-speaking Whites and Coloureds do not regard ethnicity as being as important as Afrikaners and Africans regard it as being. Among other groups, for example, Jews, Indians, Greeks, Portuguese and Germans, “ethnic interests are manifested in the sphere of private cultural organisations and have no link with political affiliations”. The report goes on to say on the same page:

[Interjections.]

In chapter 3 on page 59 of the same report the conclusion is reached that:

It goes on to say on the same page—I think the hon the Minister ought to take note of this—that:

I should also like to refer the hon the Minister to a recent newspaper report which quoted certain findings of the Market Research Africa Organisation. I am sure the hon the Minister has probably read it. The article reads, inter alia, as follows:

Therefore, it can be said that all the facts and all the research findings fly directly in the face of the present Government policy of ordering our political lives on the basis of compulsory membership of a given group.

Finally, I should like to quote the conclusion they reached, and I refer the hon the Minister to page 143 of the same report, which reads as follows:

Once again, we see that the policy we are following flies directly in the face of the facts which research has revealed.

Turning back to another section of the report, viz pages 129 and 130, I should like to make a final quotation in this regard. It says there that the laws governing inter-group relations and the way in which the State apparatus—the police and the courts—backs up these laws, have to a large extent brought the legal system into disrepute and heightened the conflict within South Africa. In this regard, I should like to quote to the hon the Minister from an article written by Prof Du Toit, which appeared in a recent edition of Die Suid-Afrikaan. It reads as follows:

[Interjections.]

I wish the hon the Minister would listen. He might learn something.

The gentleman you are quoting is in London to hold talks with the ANC. [Interjections.]

That is where he should be. [Interjections.]

Order! I find it extremely difficult to listen to six members of the Official Opposition all talking at once. The hon member may proceed.

Prof Du Toit goes on to say the following:

May I ask the hon member a question?

May I just finish the quote? Just one last point. A little further on in the same article he again says:

May I put a question now?

I want to make one last point. I have very little time to speak this afternoon.

The last point I want to make in my speech relates to what was said by the hon member for Pinetown today. The path we are following currently is leading us nowhere. The Natal-kwaZulu Indaba gives us at least a little bit of hope that we can embark on a new path. In fact, the Government should welcome it. My plea is the same as that of the hon member for Pinetown and the hon member for Umbilo: Please give this a chance. If we do not do so, where are we going? That is what we all want to know in this country.

One other thing that is emphasised in this report is the question of time. The hon the Minister knows we do not have all the time in the world. The longer we delay action and the longer we wait, the less credibility leaders like Chief Buthelezi will have. The hon the Minister may now ask his question.

Mr Chairman, I should like to ask the hon member whether it is his party’s policy that the Government should negotiate with organisations which hold a policy according to which violence is regarded as legitimate.

Mr Chairman, I think Prof du Toit answered the same question. It is a chicken and egg situation. Many of those organisations will say, rightly or wrongly, that the Government is also using violence to implement its policy. Therefore we are in need of a bit of statesmanship. If those organisations are unbanned and they are allowed to operate openly, their whole stance and argument in favour of violence is gone.

Mr Chairman, I listened with interest to what the hon member for Pietermaritzburg South had to say. No doubt by now he is aware that the NP in Natal will be sending observers to sit in on the deliberations of the Natal-kwaZulu indaba. We will watch the developments with interest. I do not disagree with him when he says that there is a trend in South Africa towards a greater understanding among peoples. I should sincerely hope that that is the case. On the other hand, I should like to point out to him that one cannot ignore the reaction and the statements made here today by the hon member for Sasolburg and hon members of the CP. For that reason I am going to speak today on the right of groups to determine own affairs, and in so doing I want to reject the submission often put forward by the PFP that the concept of own affairs is apartheid in disguise.

I was very pleased to hear the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition say on Thursday when he spoke to the motion moved by the hon member Prof Olivier, that the debate in South Africa had changed and was more wholesome now than it had been in the past. He added that gradually there had grown an awareness that even if there were groups, we had to find a way of reconciling the differences and the problems between and among groups, and that we had to find a way of living together in one country and within one economy. I agree wholeheartedly with the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition. However, the problem arises—certainly in the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition’s mind—as to how these groups should be identified and how they should be accommodated within the constitutional structure. Here again I agree with him that this is the crux of the continuing debate in South Africa. He said it was a healthy debate, and I sincerely hope it is. I hope that we have passed the stage where we talk past one another. We should rather talk with and to one another over these matters. I agree with him that it is a healthy debate, providing one approaches the subject in a truly objective manner.

While the PFP may strive for the ideal of groups being identified and catered for within a constitutional structure on the basis of what he calls freedom of association and freedom of choice, I want to submit to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition that the reality of the political dynamics of South Africa, at this stage of our constitutional development anyway, forces us to identify these groups on the basis of ethnicity, race, culture and socio-economic differences. I sincerely wish that this could be different, but I believe one has to be realistic.

The hon the Leader of the Official Opposition stated that “the Government takes only one factor, namely race, as the only paramount and fundamental factor … (or) criterion” on which it bases all its identification of groups. I want to submit to him that that is not correct. We have 10 different and clearly identifiable groups within just one of our races, namely the Blacks. These groups are identified by the criteria of historical circumstances, ethnicity, culture, language and regional and economic interests. The vast majority of these Black peoples freely identify themselves with their particular groups purely on the basis of their freedom to associate with those people and their freedom to choose in favour of their ethnic groups and value systems. For this to be a healthy debate between the Official Opposition and the Government, it is necessary for the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition to concede at least that point.

These identifying criteria among our Black fellow South Africans are extremely powerful forces, as they indeed are among some White South Africans as we have seen today. If the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition doubts the validity of this statement, I ask him simply to listen to the speeches of the hon members of the CP and the hon member for Sasolburg. I do not know whether he was here when they spoke. I ask him also to research the underlying causes of the recent conflicts between the Pondos and the Zulus in the Umlazi area right next door to my constituency. A tremendous potential for conflict is inherent in the desire for self-determination on matters of own affairs. We would therefore be wise to think deeply on these matters before we place too great an emphasis, at this early stage of our constitutional development, on the identification of groups purely on the basis of free association within constitutional structures.

We have seen what has happened to many constitutional structures elsewhere in Africa. If mutual respect is to exist among all the diverse groups in South Africa, the Constitution must first guarantee the political self-respect of each group. This can only be achieved by creating for each its own political power base for self-determination on own affairs. I want to put it to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition that this is surely the most urgent first step down our constitutional road. The great democracies of the world did not achieve their present freedoms overnight. Diverse groups must first learn to understand one another and through co-operation grow to trust one another before each will entrust to its neighbour those things which it holds dear. Surely the history of Europe has taught us this. The Europeans certainly have a long way to go before they achieve the ideal to which the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition seems to aspire.

I would like to say in conclusion that I believe the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition and his hon colleagues do a disservice to this country and its constitutional development when they erroneously refer to the NP’s constitutional policy as being an apartheid policy. The word “apartheid” bears a terrible stigma throughout the world today resulting from former policies and attitudes which were based on fear, prejudice and discrimination. The NP has now renounced these attitudes and is in the process of dismantling those structures. For the sake of healthy debate and to avoid talking past one another, which the Official Opposition seems to do so often, I ask them at least to recognise and concede the truth of the statements I have made.

Perhaps the most successful democracy in the world is Switzerland—a nation which has four language groups and some 26 ethnic subgroups. Yet it is a nation which had succeeded greatly in the devolution of power, both legislative and administrative, over own affairs to these various groups. [Interjections.] This was not achieved overnight. It started its long road to mutual respect and peace in the year 1291, and yet as recently as 1979, after the required referenda, it created its 26th canton called Jura. It comprises the French-speaking areas of the predominantly German-speaking canton Bern.

Hon members may be interested to know what the creation of the canton Jura means to the Swiss. I want to quote the following from a document which I found in the library:

Hon members of the PFP may also be interested in the regional and local government system in Switzerland. I want to quote from an encyclopaedia on this matter. It states the following:

I might add that I am led to believe that in certain of the cantons in Switzerland economic rights are vested only with the residents of that canton and are denied to others.

I want to quote further from this encyclopaedia:

So, I put it to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition that we are in a stage of constitutional evolution in South Africa. We have taken the first step to bring Coloureds and Indians into this Parliament because the Coloureds and Indians form part of the so-called non-homeland of South Africa. This is the first step. However, as we move into the greater constitutional talks which will embrace all our people, to deny groups their political power base I believe is a foolish thing. This political power base has to be based on those things which those groups feel deep down in their gut are important to them. As I have said, to ignore these things is asking for conflicts such as we have seen in parts of Natal in recent times, because people feel very, very strongly about their ethnic origins and their ethnic rights. I submit these thoughts to the hon the Leader of the Official Opposition.

Mr Chairman, I have great difficulty in following the logic of the hon member for Amanzimtoti. I have always understood that the ten ethnic tribes of the Black people constitute one nation, just as the ethnic tribes of the White people or the Coloureds or the Indians constitute one nation. Ethnicity does not come into it at all. I see a tremendous shift in ground in the arguments of the hon member for Amanzimtoti. He is now strongly in favour of own affairs. How many times has he stood up in this House and preached local option? Now that he has changed from the NRP to the NP he has shifted his ground completely. [Interjections.] He says that we have argued that this concept of own affairs is apartheid in disguise. We have never said it is apartheid in disguise. We say this is rank apartheid. [Interjections.] I shall deal with some of his arguments in my speech.

The own affairs Budget that we are discussing today is based on the structure of apartheid. It perpetuates and entrenches the separation of groups. It eliminates the fundamental and basic right of freedom of association. It is structured within the confines of the tricameral system which restricts and retards progress, prosperity, peace and tranquility. [Interjections.] Unless we scrap this system—I call for the scrapping of this system today—and eliminate and remove apartheid, the present turbulence, unrest, bitterness, resentment and frustration will not only prevail but will get worse.

Apartheid, simply defined, is a system of discrimination. In South Africa there is discrimination on the grounds of the colour of a person’s skin. In South Africa this discrimination is written into the Statute Book. Whether it is petty apartheid, partial or stringent apartheid, the sin is that all these are to be found in our laws. What we need most urgently is only one law. This one law should make it a punishable offence for any person to discriminate against another on the grounds of the colour of the person’s skin. [Interjections.]

Why do we not pass such a law? Enough statements have been made about the elimination of apartheid by, for example, the State President and the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning. The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is on record—we commend him for it—as saying the following:

He said:

He then went on to say:

Since that is the case, surely we are committed to remove discrimination from the Statute Book, and also to persuade those to whom we have access to live in accordance with this fundamental principle.

Do you agree with the rest of that speech?

I am coming to the hon the Minister of the Budget right now. [Interjections.] Discriminating laws must be removed from our Statute Book. We must make it our duty to do so.

What I want to know from the hon the Minister who has just interjected is whether he agrees with what the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said. Does he agree?

I agree with his whole speech. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister agrees with the whole speech. [Interjections.] In that case, he will have no difficulty in supporting us in our efforts to have apartheid removed from the Statute Book in South Africa. [Interjections.]

By perpetuating this system, which includes the system of own affairs, the burden on the economy is increased. The own affairs system duplicates and triplicates services, it builds bureaucracies and, in fact, illustrates the absurdity of the present Constitution.

Let us take a look at the hon the Minister’s Second Reading speech, and more specifically at the section dealing with the provincial system and the take-over of that system. I believe this aspect highlights the absurdity of the own affairs system. The hon the Minister said that a project team of the Commission for Administration was investigating the take-over. The project has now become urgent and relevant if provincial councils are to go out of existence at the end of June 1986. Is that not what is envisaged? However, the project team’s wings have been clipped. They may only make recommendations within the confines of the tricameral system and within the walls of apartheid itself.

What has so far been recommended? The Cabinet has improved the transfer of resorts, museums, libraries and auxiliary services. How ridiculous! Surely these are the very services that should be open to all races and which should fall under general affairs.

Let us have a look at resorts, for example. Does this mean that the Blyde River Canyon in the Transvaal is to be an own affair? Will non-Whites not be allowed to go there? Hotels have been opened to all races. Why should the use of resorts be restricted to one group only?

Take libraries as a further example. It is the height of stupidity to want to turn this into an own affairs matter! Already libraries are open to all races. If this becomes an own affair, are there going to be separate libraries under the control of the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates? Is that not going too far?

This argument applies to museums as well. Surely they are at the moment open to all people. We are trying to break down apartheid, not to perpetuate and build it up! Has the Government merely been playing with words while it is not serious about carrying out what it says it intends doing? These recommendations only perpetuate apartheid; they do not do away with it. If one grants resorts, libraries, museums and auxiliary services to the House of Assembly, then one must also grant the same to the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates. Is that the hon the Minister’s intention? Can this be economic? It is no good saying that they will be open to all the races and that they will be allowed to go there, because if that is the case, why confine them to a particular group? It must be a general affair, open to the whole country.

Education is to be taken over from 1 April 1986. At present we have a Minister of National Education and we have Ministers of Education and Culture for the House of Assembly, the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates. There are numerous departments—some in the homelands that are not independent and some in the homelands that are independent. There is a Department of Education especially taking care of the needs of Blacks within the Republic. What happened to the report of the De Lange Commission, may I ask, which recommended one system for all?

Let us take a look at local government for a moment. We have four Ministers at local government level and their bureaucracies that go with it. What will happen, for example, to the Transvaal Board for Peri-urban Areas which does not fall under a regional service council, or the divisional councils in the Cape which also do not fall under regional councils? What is to happen to them?

Look at hospitals for a moment. The hon the Minister tells us this matter has not yet been settled. Now, only three months away from the provincial councils going out of existence, we have limited time left to decide on this most important aspect of hospital administration. What will happen to the nurses? What will happen to the administration? More important, what will happen to teaching hospitals, where one has people of all races, attending universities, learning to be doctors at a teaching hospital? How will the hon the Minister unscramble this egg? What will he do with a hospital such as Groote Schuur, or Addington in Durban, for example?

Provincial roads—whom will they fall under? Who will control licences, trade licences? Nature conservation: Will that be an own affair? Horse racing: What is the future of that? Will that be an own affair or will it be a general affair? [Interjections.]

The buildings, such as the provincial council buildings, what will happen to them? Really, the Government have got themselves into such a tangle! This reminds me of a fisherman casting with his bait on the hook. He throws his line into the water and he gets an overwind. He then stands there disentangling a bird’s nest while his bait is lying in the water. That is precisely the situation in which I see the NP Government today.

The State President said: “We have outgrown the old outdated colonial system …” This is a well-worn phrase now, but on the other hand, how do we reconcile this with the statement by the hon the Minister of the Budget when he says:

The hon the Minister makes a speech entrenching group security. The hon the Minister asks: “For how long therefore can we go on like this?” Can one reconcile the hon the Minister’s remarks with the statement by the State President that he does not intend to stop here, progress is going on; he and his Government are dedicated to it. I am sure the hon the Minister, if he is part of the Government, will have to support this, but I do not believe that the hon the Minister does in fact share these sentiments. Even yesterday the hon the Minister said that the key to peaceful co-existence in South Africa lies in this concept. If this is the case, why since 1983 when the Constitution was enacted, has there been no peace and no peaceful coexistence in South Africa? Is that not what the position is? Unless one succeeds in offering credible safeguards against group domination and certainty with regard to group identity, relations and co-operation will remain difficult.

The hon the Minister also asks in which multicultural society this own affairs concept has succeeded. He gives examples of Switzerland and Belgium. But in the cantons in Switzerland everybody can live there. They are not on a group basis. In Belgium one has tens of thousand of Arabs living anywhere, whether they are French or Flemish speaking. They can live anywhere. Where is the hon the Minister’s group concept and where is his example as far as that is concerned?

Not compulsory, by choice!

According to the hon the Minister White domination is acceptable in South Africa, but what about the numerical domination of other groups? The only answer therefore, is to have—and I say this in conclusion—a consociational type of government whereby we have a grand coalition, we have segmental autonomy, proportional representation and we have the right to veto that will entrench the rights of all persons.

The sooner we change this, the sooner we will find consensus, power-sharing and prosperity for all the people in this country so that we can all live in harmony and peace.

Mr Chairman, hon members of the PFP accuse the Conservative Party of drawing a distinction between groups on the basis of race and colour. I now just want to put one question to them. If we distinguish between groups on the grounds of race and colour, how is it that we distinguish between a Zulu and a Xhosa? Surely they belong to the same race. They are also of the same colour. Or is one perhaps a little blacker than the other? [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I should also like to ask the hon the Minister of the Budget whether he has perhaps looked at the petition relating to Munsieville.

That is not a clever question, Koos!

The petition has been handed to the State President.

I just want to know whether the hon the Minister has seen the petition.

No, I have not.

The hon the Minister has not seen it. I find that very interesting, Mr Chairman. Here today we are dealing with own affairs. That hon Minister is the Chairman of the Minister’s Council, and in terms of the Constitution local government is an own affair. In schedule 1 to the Constitution it is clearly indicated as such. What is more, in the same schedule it is provided that when it comes to own affairs, the State President is compelled to heed the advice of the Minister’s Councils. In the case of Munsieville it is strictly a question of municipal problems being involved, problems in regard to local government. The State President cannot act in such a case without the Minister’s Council advising him and telling what to do. That hon Minister does not even know about that! Then they come along and tell us there is something such as own affairs! What a farce! [Interjections.]

It is true that I have not seen the petition, but I have been fully involved with the rest of it.

Yes, the hon the Minister had nothing to do with anything, except for the fact that he is going to lose in Vereeniging. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to put a question to the hon the Minister. He thinks, does he not, that he has won a round against Pik Botha. Does he foresee South Africa—I am now putting this question to the hon the Minister—getting a Black State President in terms of his government’s policy? Yes or no? [Interjections.] Well, if the hon the Minister does not reply, he is in an equally difficult position. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister is not replying to my question, Mr Chairman. He is not prepared, in this Parliament, to tell the people of South Africa that he is opposed to a Black State President governing White people. He is not prepared to say that here!

I shall give you an answer when I reply to the debate. [Interjections.]

The hon the Minister could just as well have given me an answer now. You see, Mr Chairman, the interesting dilemma, in which the National Party finds itself, lies in the fact that it alleged that the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs is wrong and that it did not advocate a Black State President. When the Blacks are sitting in this House one day, however, ten or more groups of them, and the National Party does not allow those ten groups to designate who the State President should be, surely that party would be advocating domination. So in both directions, the National Party finds itself in difficulties. When it wants to endorse a Black State President, the conservative elements reject the party; when it does not want to accept a Black State President, this amounts to domination. Thus the National Party is drawn even deeper into the fearful vortex. [Interjections.] Since this is a debate on own affairs, it is a very good thing to examine the entire principle underlying own affairs. Let me ask what, in fact, own affairs are. Yesterday this same hon Minister—the hon the Minister of the Budget—placed own affairs on a par with self-determination. He equated the two. The rest of his subsequent statements were the poorest testimonial imaginable for the concept of own affairs. Let me quote to the House a report in this morning’s Beeld. I read it on a flight down here. I quote:

According to Beeld the concept of own affairs is the key to peaceful coexistence in South Africa, Mr Chairman. What I want to know from the hon the Minister is where he has been in recent years. Not in South Africa, because in South Africa there is the very opposite of peaceful coexistence.

In the Black towns there is the worst possible degree of uncontrollability. The hon the Minister ought to know that the situation has never, in the annals of this country’s history, been as bad as that.

In both the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates this concept of own affairs is rejected. Those two houses are directing their efforts at the collapse of this entire tricameral Parliament.

In White political circles there are the greatest imaginable divisions. I was in Vereeniging only a week ago. That is this hon Minister’s constituency. Two thousand people attended our meeting there. I put it to the hon the Minister that those people are angry at their MP. They asked us to convey a message to him. They told us to inform him that he was working his notice month as MP for Vereeniging because he would not again be the MP for that constituency. [Interjections.]

Practice has shown, with regard to own affairs, that the Conservative Party was correct. The Government’s concept of own affairs is a farce, a failure, having plunged this country into the greatest crisis in its existence.

When one examines the Constitution, one plainly sees how beautifully the National Party handled what we termed the propaganda clause during the referendum campaign. From this it is apparent what they presented to people as being own affairs.

I cannot quote it all, because I do not have the time. Let me refer to section 14 of the Constitution. Hon members may read it for themselves. There it is stated that everything involved in the maintenance of one’s identity, everything relating to the upholding of one’s way of life, one’s culture, one’s traditions and customs are own affairs.

It is with that that South Africa was cheated! Thus the Whites were told that all these things were their own affairs and that they alone would decide about them. No mention was made, however, of the proviso referring to section 16. That section states that own affairs may not affect the interests of another group. That puts paid to the whole question of own affairs.

That is how the referendum was fought. It was fought on the basis of the right to self-determination of the Whites remaining unimpaired. The concept “self-determination” has surely had some meaning for us throughout the years. Surely this concept has been given substance throughout the years. What has this concept embodied as far as the Afrikaners, the Whites, members of the NP were concerned?

Domination!

For us it was synonymous with sovereignty, which means unrestricted power over everything and everyone within our country’s borders. That was not domination, because we wanted to exclude the other groups. [Interjections.] That is what the Republican struggle was all about. That is surely why we wanted a Republic. That is surely why we fought for a Republic. We specifically wanted to be free of the interference of others in our own affairs. The Republic’s own affairs included the right to draw up one’s own Constitution, the right to decide on one’s own Appropriation and the right to have one’s own foreign policy. Even transport affairs, education, law and order, defence, justice and agriculture—all these things—were our own affairs in the Republic of South Africa, affairs in regard to which we could take decisions without any interference.

This Constitution subsequently nullified all that. What kind of self-determination do we now have left? What kind of self-determination does a people have which cannot even change its own Constitution? What kind of self-determination does a people—the Whites—have if it cannot even dismiss its own State President? If it were at all possible, we would dismiss him today, but we cannot.

Hear, hear!

Do hon members know why it is not possible? In the past the Head of State could be dismissed by a majority of one vote in this House. Now the Whites cannot even dismiss their own Head of State! Even if all 178 of us were to vote in favour of that, it would not be good enough. We have to go to the other Houses. Even if we were to convince all 85 members of the House of Representatives, it would still not be good enough, because we would still have to consult the House of Delegates. If there were 22 of them supporting us, there would be two of the three Houses and 283 members of Parliament wanting to fire the State President, but because 23 Indian members said he should stay, it would not be possible to dismiss him. Then NP members tell me we have self-determination! The NP, which brought the Republic of South Africa into being, has brought about its demise. By wiping out the self-determination of the Whites, the NP has brought about the demise of the Republic of South Africa. The own affairs that the Whites have today are a constitutional insult as far as the self-determination of a people is concerned. Last year 114 Bills were passed here. Only five of them related to the own affairs of the Whites. 101 involved general affairs. Of actual own affairs there is virtually nothing, everything being subject to general laws.

The most ridiculous contention is that the Whites still have a say over their own education. If one looks at this schedule—the hon the Minister himself is a lawyer—one sees that there is nothing that can really be classified as our own affairs. The finances, the staff, the syllabuses—everything is subject to a general law made in consultation with Indians and Coloureds. Then the NP tells the Whites that they have self-determination as far as their own education is concerned!

The Whites are beginning to realise that the Government deceived them about their freedom and right to self-determination and that the pathetic little own affairs, which the Government has created for us, are all we have left of our right to self-determination.

The Whites are beginning to feel that they are no longer free and can no longer make the decisions they want to make. To think that the Government can say there is no such thing as a White fatherland!

There never was.

Those are Prog words. Hon members heard the hon member saying: “There never was a White South Africa”. [Interjections.] They are being honest.

The NP is saying today that there never was any such thing as a White fatherland. Go and have a look at Bloukrans where almost 200 Afrikaner women and children were murdered. There it is written that they paid for their fatherland with their blood. The NP nevertheless says that the Whites no longer have their own fatherland. Under the NP’s concept of own affairs the Whites have gained the status of tenant farmers in their own country.

There is a new ideal on the White South African horizon. The moment of truth is coming for White South Africa. The Whites who are prepared to disappear into a pit of multiracialism must stand to one side and get on with it. The Whites who want to struggle for true freedom and self-determination for the Whites in South Africa, however, are becoming increasingly well-organised and are growing increasingly stronger. That is happening as far afield as Vereeniging where 2 000 people attended a meeting.

White opposition is growing and is a reality. The NP is going to find out that it is impossible to make a stand against White nationalism. I want to quote to hon members what Dr Malan said about nationalism. [Interjections.] Then they will see what enormous odds they are trying to fight against. Dr Malan said:

The NP is going to find out that those are the odds they are up against. Afrikaner nationalism in this country is coming to life. We refuse to be submerged in a pit of multiracialism and to be governed by others.

In the past many hon members and I fought for a Republic. In the fifties we went from platform to platform. More than 60 000 of our people waited at Jan Smuts Airport for Dr Verwoerd’s return. On the night of 30 May 1961, we waited on Church Square in a deluge to hear that a Republic had been declared. I now want to warn the NP that the same kind of struggle as that waged for the Republic is now coming to life and raging forth in the Republic. It is a struggle for an individual White fatherland where the Whites can govern themselves without any others having a say over them. We are going to win that struggle and the NP is going to lose.

Mr Chairman, when I was a child I learned that the more scared one became, the more loudly and rapidly one spoke. The hon member for Jeppe quoted Dr D F Malan who said: “Net so min as jy die Oostewind kan keer met ’n sif … net so min sal jy ooit in staat wees om nasionalisme te keer.” He also used other comparisons. That is true, of course, but what is also true is that it is not solely White nationalism that we have in this country. Since Dr Malan uttered those lofty words, other nationalisms have also manifested themselves in this country. Other nationalisms are also seeking a place under the Southern sun of South Africa.

Of course!

Hon members are now saying of course. That being so, the matter is no longer as simple as the hon member for Jeppe professes.

At a later stage I shall come back to more political utterances. Meanwhile, if it is still possible, I really would like to say something about the Appropriation.

It has become fashionable for right-wing radicals to proclaim throughout the land that the National Party Government has turned its back on the interests of the Whites, more specifically the interests of the aged, children and so on. It is said that the National Party Government has turned its back on the Whites of this country. According to them everything is being done just for the Black man. They merely do not use the same terms.

If one pages through this Appropriation, one is struck by the fact—it is in fact striking—that there are three characteristic aspects. The Appropriation is characterised by compassion for the aged, sympathy for the less privileged and empathy for the handicapped. In saying this, let me focus hon members’ attention on the following amounts: Old-age pensions, R318 million and war veterans’ pensions, R30 million.

In speaking about compassion for the aged, however, let me point out that R443 million has been budgeted for subsidies and homes and settlements for the aged. Budgetary provision is being made for 395 homes for the aged, in which 27 000 aged can be accommodated. That is proof of the compassion for the aged.

The less privileged are well looked after. Even our handicapped are, in the hon the Minister’s Budget, taken under the House of Assembly’s wing. An amount of R50 million is being budgeted for the physically handicapped, R22 million for the sensorily handicapped and R23 million for the mentally handicapped. So this Government is doing a thorough job of looking after the less privileged and the handicapped.

This morning’s Die Burger carries a report of the farmers’ burden of debt having increased by 374% over the past 10 years to a total of R9 495 million. One is agitated and upset by that. I think we are all greatly concerned about the future of agriculture and of our farmers in this country. [Interjections.] Notwithstanding a burden of debt totalling R4 095 million, the State is voting R333 million for agricultural financing and R253 million for subsidies. [Interjections.] If there were no compassion for the farmers and for agriculture as a result of the problems being experienced at the present time, surely the Government would not have budgeted for these amounts—amounts of more than R500 million—solely for agriculture.

Where do you get your figures?

I get them from the Appropriation. The Government cannot in any way be accused of not regarding the problems that are being experienced in a compassionate light. [Interjections.] I think these figures and this argument refute the accusation that is also made about the Government not looking after the Whites in this country.

The hon member for Sasolburg made a very petulant statement here, or rather requested that a commission of inquiry be appointed to investigate the reasons for the decrease in population growth amongst the Whites. He is terribly upset about it, and one really must congratulate him personally for having done his share as far as that is concerned.

The decrease in population growth is, of course, the NP Government’s fault. Of course it is; he is quite right. That is so because the NP Government has, since 1948, consistently allowed the standard of living of the Whites to increase. [Interjections.] Hon members are free to check upon that. As the standard of living increases there is a decrease in population growth. That is, after all, a proven fact. So that is why it is the NP Government’s fault, because had it not been for this stable government ensuring that the standard of living of the Whites increased as it has done, there would not have been a decrease in population growth, as has indeed been the case. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Lichtenburg spoke of international boundaries protecting minority rights. The hon member for Sasolburg spoke about the fact that the Afrikaner was entitled to his own fatherland. About Afrikaners being entitled to their own fatherland, let me just ask the hon member whether that is in addition to the White homeland about which the hon member for Lichtenburg spoke. He spoke about a White homeland and the hon member about an Afrikaner homeland. Are we talking here about two different homelands? [Interjections.] Would my bench-mate, whose wife is English-speaking, live in the Afrikaner homeland, whilst his wife lives in the White homeland? [Interjections.]

What about an hon member who is married to a Black person?

No, he lives in his own group area. [Interjections.]

On the strength of the hon member for Lichtenburg’s pronouncement, let me say that international State boundaries come into being by negotiation. He does not even need to bother himself very much about an individual territory or an independent State for the Coloureds. All he need do is walk down the passage and try to negotiate with the political leaders of the Coloured people. [Interjections.] Right here in the same building. If the hon member manages to negotiate a homeland with the political leaders of the Coloured people and succeeds in obtaining a signed agreement, I shall also become a member of his party.

Mr Chairman, I want to begin by saying that the hon member for Hercules furnished very interesting and important data in this House today concerning the services being rendered. In the course of my speech I, too, shall refer to specific matters he touched on. I shall also make specific announcements in connection with the services rendered to the people we represent here.

I wish to dwell for a moment on one aspect touched on by the hon member for Jeppe. My first comment is that it seems to me as if the position of Mr Eugene Terre’-Blanche is now in danger. In view of the style and content of his speech this afternoon, I believe that the man is now being put at risk by the hon member for Jeppe. [Interjections.] Secondly, it is of course the case that the hon member for Jeppe took his place here after the 1977 election. That election was conducted on the basis of the well-known 1977 proposals, of which the concept of own affairs was a significant component.

[Inaudible.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Rissik need not become so nervous.

The hon member for Jeppe can attribute to that the fact that he has his seat in the House of Assembly, but at the same time he adopts a very disparaging attitude to the concept of own affairs in this House.

Well then, stick to the 1977 proposals!

I cannot get away from the fact that the concept of own affairs adopted by the hon member for Jeppe and his party is marked by selfishness. [Interjections.]

Uriah Heep!

Indeed, as the hon member for Jeppe spelt it out here this afternoon their policy is obviously one of blatant domination. I have no doubt whatever on that score.

And then you call yourself a Minister!

The hon member for Jeppe can let his remarks suffice. It has been clear to us for a long time that this place is too big for him. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members must accord the hon the Minister an opportunity to make his speech. The hon the Minister may proceed.

I want to make certain announcements about two aspects.

Are you no longer dealing with me, then?

The hon member for Jeppe should not be so conceited as to think that he will get all the attention of this side of the House. [Interjections.]

It is a pleasure to participate in the debate on the Budget of the Administration: House of Assembly, which was introduced here in capable fashion by the hon the Minister of the Budget.

As far as housing in South Africa is concerned the setting of objectives for the supply of housing is of the utmost importance. It is essential that housing aid be provided where the proven needs are the greatest. As we see it, through computerisation of housing needs a reliable record is created according to which estimates may be made whereby housing can be supplied in accordance with real factors.

Increasing demands are being made on the Treasury in respect of housing. Despite the phenomenal progress made in recent years in housing everyone in the country properly, there are still problem areas. The lack of any kind of reliable data base in terms of which needs may be determined is a serious difficulty. Estimates and projections based on unreliable data also pose their own inherent dangers.

The provision of adequate and suitable housing is intimately bound up with the general welfare and quality of life of the population. This is not something that can be done in a haphazard fashion. Therefore a reliable basis for projections for housing and target planning is being sought in consultation with the National Building Research Institute of the CSIR.

It appears as if the computerisation of waiting lists for housing affords the best way in which a measurable need may be determined. The housing data bank established at the Department of Local Government, Housing and Works has already been expanded by means of a computer programme for the updating of the waiting lists.

I have already held out the prospect of a survey of needs and I should like to announce today that a country-wide housing survey of needs will be undertaken among Whites, Coloureds and Indians of all income groups in regard to all types of housing and building plots with effect from 21 April 1986. An effort will also be made to have the completed forms submitted to local authorities by the end of June 1986. My opposite numbers in the House of Representatives and the House of Delegates will also make similar announcements this afternoon.

The survey is not limited to a determination of the housing needs of the low income group, but is aimed at providing an overall picture of needs in the sphere of activities of the authorities or the private sector. All types of housing, including welfare housing as well as building plots, will be placed on record in this way. To this end the Department of Local Government, Housing and Works of the Administration: House of Assembly will conduct the computerisation programme on an agency basis for the two sister departments of the Administration: House of Representatives and the Administration: House of Delegates, but the three departments are undertaking the survey jointly. All waiting lists for housing of the three departments involved in the survey, local authorities, utility companies and welfare organisations will be updated, and the details will be fed into a computer.

The aim of the survey is therefore, firstly, to induce everyone who is inadequately accommodated to place his housing needs on record. Secondly, an attempt is being made to quantify and qualify registered needs in order to obtain a reliable overall picture of the housing circumstances in the country as a whole or in specific regions, towns or cities, and to identify existing problem areas. Finally, the purpose of the survey is the establishment and maintenance of a scientifically accountable data base on the basis of which physical, socio-economic and financial planning may be carried out.

All bodies that provide housing by way of loan funds from the State are regarded as participating bodies for the purposes of the survey, and these include regional offices of the Department of Local Government, Housing and Works of the Administration: House of Assembly, local authorities, welfare organisations and utility companies as well as housing utility companies.

An application form has been designed for the purposes of the survey in accordance with a format that is as simple as possible, so that it may be filled in with relative ease by all applicants. It will be provided to local authorities at an early stage. It is important that these bodies see to it that the community they serve or in which they are active come forward with their housing needs and place them on record.

I should also like to request participating bodies to ensure that applicants on existing waiting lists register their housing needs, too, by way of a new survey, since the old waiting-list systems will lapse as soon as the computerised system is in operation. Sufficient notice will be given of the date of the change-over to the new system. It is also important that people who already have suitable housing should not apply to appear on the waiting list.

In the interests of a co-ordinated effort I appeal to housing utility companies, welfare organisations and utility companies to provide application forms submitted to them, to the relevant local authorities so that they can be sent to the head of the Housing Data Bank Control. A specific announcement by way of a press release in regard to the addresses and so on will also be issued at the same time.

†The computer printouts of applicants which will be compiled on the basis of the survey will contain no duplication of applications. Provision is also made for the proper maintenance of data, and it will be possible to determine data accurately on a monthly basis. The particulars of persons who have been assisted by the authorities in regard to their housing will be included in a computerised register for statistical and reference purposes.

The success of this project depends on the active support of the participating bodies. Co-operation by all will ensure the actual and dependable determination of housing needs for the first time. By means of this computerised system, the deficiencies inherent in most of the existing systems, for instance duplication, incompleteness and obsoleteness, will be eliminated.

The system is being introduced to facilitate sound and need-oriented planning for the future provision of housing. It will place the national housing strategy on a scientific basis and will simplify the determination of priorities, with the objective of optimum utilisation of limited financial sources to alleviate the most pressing housing needs.

The facilities offered through the system will be at the disposal of all participating bodies, as well as others who have the promotion of housing in general in the country at heart. It could for instance prove invaluable to private developers of housing in the planning of projects for specific target groups.

*I now wish to make an announcement in connection with a concession relating to rentals in individual cases. In the present economic circumstances some people with a limited income are finding it difficult to meet their financial obligations. In order to furnish assistance where appropriate, certain relief measures have already been announced and introduced in regard to rentals for dwelling units financed by the State.

In the case of elderly people, for example, the basic rental is determined on the basis of 5% of an income of up to R300 per month for single persons and R600 per month for couples. If the income is higher than R300 or R600 respectively, then the person involved pays an additional R1 for every R4 by which the income exceeds the limit until the maximum basic rental, based on an interest rate of 1% per annum on the capital cost, is reached.

The basic rental in regard to elderly people is therefore determined on a reasonable basis and applies to elderly people in homes as well as in other State-financed dwelling units.

Despite the favourable rental formulas it is being found that certain other lessees, excluding the elderly, are finding it very difficult to pay the rentals for particularly the newer dwelling units that were built at higher cost. A committee of housing experts is at present investigating the rental formulas with a view to inter alia furnishing additional relief to those who need it.

As an interim measure the National Housing Commission decided in 1985 that in confirmed cases of destitution, where the formula rental cannot be afforded, a basic rental may be determined based on 25% of the family income, provided that the “deficit” is recovered as the lessee’s financial circumstances improve. Although this measure afforded considerable relief, cases still occurred in which relief was appropriate. The Development and Housing Board which was established at the beginning of 1986 in terms of the Bill passed by this House last year, recently agreed to concessions being further extended to provide that the basic rental is based on 25% of the income of the breadwinner only.

In cases in which evidence is submitted of assistance being required, a breadwinner with an income of say, R200 per month will pay R50 plus the levy of, for example, R20,28 in regard to the maintenance, insurance and administration costs, irrespective of the income of other members of the family. In such a case, then, his monthly rental will be R70,28.

†Let us now have a look at how the rental for a specific type of dwelling occupied by lessees with different incomes is determined in three different instances.

The first instance is the normal basic formula rental on an income of R800 per month. The interest and redemption element is equal to R185,14 and the levy for maintenance, insurance and administration costs equals R20,28. That gives a total of R205,42 per month.

Secondly, let us look at a basic rental of 25% of the family income where the income of the breadwinner is R200 per month and the income of the rest of the family is also R200 per month—that gives a total income of R400 per month. Twenty-five percent of that R400 is R100 and if one adds the levy of R20,28 for maintenance, insurance and administration costs, it gives a total of R120,28 per month.

Thirdly, let us look at a basic rental of 25% of a breadwinner’s income where assistance is necessary. If the income of the breadwinner is R200 per month and the income of the rest of the family is also R200 per month, the rent calculated at 25% of the breadwinner’s income of R200 per month is R50 per month. If one adds the levy of R20,28 per month for maintenance, insurance and administration costs, that gives a total of R70,28 per month. One can compare this R70,28 with the R120,28 in the second example which was determined on 25% of the family income.

*I should like to emphasise that this concession should be of real value where it is needed, and that every deserving case will be considered individually and reviewed after a year.

I wish to say in conclusion that as regards the whole issue of planning and expenditure, the judicious utilisation of the money available for housing requires careful planning. Where it is necessary, on the one hand, to meet the proven housing needs in accordance with a systematic programme, it would be shortsighted to allow the acquisition of land and the provision of infrastructure for future use to fall behind.

It is also regarded as essential to build up and retain a small reserve of serviced plots. Accordingly an agreement has been reached with private developers who have purchased land from the department at, for example, Overbaakens, Port Elizabeth and Goodwood, Tygerdal, and are already engaged in township development, that a limited number of residential plots will again be made available to the department after the provision of services.

For the fiscal year 1 April 1984 to 31 March 1985 the total expenditure on the provision of housing was R125,877 million. It was applied as follows: R81,067 million was spent on welfare housing, and 1 084 units were completed. R44,81 million was spent on other housing projects, and 1 656 units were completed.

For the period of 11 months of the present financial year up to 28 February 1986 for which figures are already available, a total of R94,88 million is being provided for the provision of housing for Whites. Of this, R59,541 million was spent on welfare housing and 1 296 units were completed. An amount of R35,339 million was utilised for other housing projects and 864 units were completed in this period.

The short-term objective of the Department of Local Government, Housing and Works is, therefore, to identify the most acute housing problems and to alleviate them by implementing the principle of aid according to merit, to ensure that in providing assistance, priority is given to those who are the most needy.

The long-term housing development strategy aims at ensuring that an adequate, affordable supply of housing is provided and maintained, and at counteracting circumstances that detract from a healthy quality of life.

The Minister of the Budget referred in his Budget speech to the concept of basic dwellings which can be enlarged by the owner as his own needs and income increase. In this regard I should like to mention that the first of these so-called basic dwellings is being built in terms of this project at Elandspoort, near Pretoria. The project consists of 12 completed dwellings in which the various plans and various phases of expansion will be represented. The terrain has already been handed over to the contractor and he has begun building. I should like to state clearly that the aims of this project are not the provision by the State of affordable housing per se. However it is our intention that this will in fact serve as a demonstration of the principle of home ownership in accordance with actual family needs and financial resources, in order to bring accommodation within people’s means. In the discussion of the Vote I shall be able to make more detailed announcements in this regard, because in my opinion the project will be so advanced that at that stage it will be appropriate for me to indicate its full extent.

There is understanding for the fact that high construction costs and interest rates cause housing that is provided in accordance with the usual norms, to be priced beyond the means of the purchaser of a first dwelling. Nevertheless it is still possible to provide relatively cheap housing for the beginners’ market in accordance with accepted norms, provided the concept of home ownership in accordance with real needs and resources is emphasised. This certainly does not mean that the coming generation will have to be satisfied with inferior housing; on the contrary, it merely confirms the sound principle of reconciling expectations with resources. In the circumstances of our time, we are compelled to accept this reality. By dint of this effort and the intention to establish similar projects in other urban metropolitan areas the department would like to market and popularise this concept in South Africa as well. I should like to realise the concept of modest housing that can be upgraded as people’s resources, income and circumstances require.

Mr Chairman, it is a privilege for me to have the floor after the hon the Minister of Local Government, Housing and Works has spoken. We have come to know him as someone with excellent control of his portfolio and we want to thank him, in particular, for his efforts aimed at promoting the housing of the people we represent in this House.

I was astounded to see a motion before this House last week in terms of which all references to own affairs should be deleted from the Constitution. There was a specific request for own affairs to be deleted because they were supposedly a manifestation of apartheid. On the other hand there are also requests, in this House, for own affairs to be deleted because they supposedly smack too little of apartheid.

Surely both cannot be correct.

Both certainly cannot be correct. [Interjections.] If the hon member would give me an opportunity, he would see that both cannot be correct.

I should like to ask those spokesmen, of whom the hon member for Bryanston is one, saying as he does that own affairs should be deleted because they smack too much of apartheid, whether there is any apartheid in Belgium.

There is free choice and free association.

The fact of the matter is that the Belgian constitution makes provision for the constitutional accommodation of French, Dutch and German cultural communities. In that constitution provision is made for the following own affairs: For culture, as in South Africa; for housing, as in South Africa; for education, as in South Africa; for welfare, as in South Africa and also for health, as is the case in South Africa.

There is free choice and free association, without discrimination.

I think that we must realise that in any multinational society own affairs are absolutely vital. I also want to contend that own affairs, as embodied in our Constitution, are also justifiable in principle. Own affairs, as embodied in the present Constitution, are supported by Calvanist philosophy.

That is extremely discriminatory!

I have previously made this point, but I should very much like to do so again, for the sake of the hon member for Bryanston too. In his day he, too, was a very good Calvanist.

In saying that the principle of self-determination, when it comes to own affairs, is backed up by philosophy, let me specifically refer to the philosophy underlying the concept of law. It is chiefly based on two standpoints, ie individual sovereignty and individual universality. In terms of this philosophy, society as a whole is divided into spheres. Basic to a specific sphere is the fact that only the norms and laws pertaining to a specific group apply within that sphere.

Surely this is Dr Treurnicht’s maiden speech!

I hear the hon member for Brakpan saying that my words have a bearing on the hon member for Waterberg’s maiden speech.

Have you not perhaps read it?

I therefore find it strange that the hon member for Brakpan adopts a dismissive attitude to individual sovereignty as embodied in our Constitution.

What do you mean by “sovereignty”?

Let me tell the hon member. Individual sovereignty means that the laws and norms of a specific group apply within that sphere.

But not subject to a general law!

In terms of the principles underlying this philosophy, individual sovereignty is never absolute. It is specifically relative by virtue of its own boundaries. [Interjections.] That is true, is it not? [Interjections.] No, I want to debate the issue, because that is the truth of the matter. [Interjections.]

What I am saying is that the principle of individual sovereignty can never be absolute, because its own boundaries make it relative. More important, in terms of this philosophy, is the fact that that sovereignty is never absolute in the sense that there are also mutual points of contact. In other words, aspects of what prevails in a specific sphere also spill over into other spheres. That is why the second leg of this philosophy makes provision for the principle of individual universality. If we carry this through to our own Constitution, what it means is joint responsibility for matters of common concern. [Interjections.] I am merely making this point to indicate that self-determination in regard to own affairs should not be ridiculed to such an extent in this House.

We are disputing the extent of own affairs.

Own affairs are self-determining. I think, however, that the CP’s problem is that they would, for example, want to have Foreign Affairs an own affair, whilst it has never ever been an own affair.

How can you say that?

Surely it is the truth. Let us discuss this for a moment. On the basis of the Constitution do they not try to ascertain what are own affairs. Then they ask: What about Defence and what about Foreign Affairs. [Interjections.] I have just said that the CP wants to make Foreign Affairs an own affair, and now they are asking what I am talking about.

Yes, but surely that is the point. [Interjections.] May I put a question to the hon member? Yesterday an church elder in Florida told me that that hon member told him that if the Government …

Put your question!

I shall do so. He said that if the Government appointed a Black President, he would accept the situation. Is that true?

Koos, come on out!

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: An hon member has just said: “Koos, come on out!” [Interjections.] Sir, you know what he meant by that. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister of the Budget regards it as a joke, and you know what the Speaker’s attitude in this matter is. I ask you to take serious action against the hon member who just said that. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Brakpan has raised a point of order in connection with an hon member allegedly having said: “Koos, come on out.” Per se it is not at all unparliamentary. Nor did the hon member for Brakpan attach any connotation that could be regarded as unparliamentary. Therefore the hon member for Randfontein may proceed.

Mr Chairman, may I address you further on the point of order? The connotation attaching to what the hon member said must be deduced on the strength of what, on a previous occasion … [Interjections.] Sir, I am addressing you on a point of order. I hope I shall be given the opportunity. [Interjections.]

Order!

Sir, on a previous occasion Mr Speaker told an hon member that the expression “back to your cage” (hok toe) was used when referring to an animal, etc. I now want to suggest that the hon member who has just made the remark, and is now sitting there blushing, should tell you what he meant by that. The insinuation is that he must come out of the cage. [Interjections.] I think the hon member should explain what he meant by that remark; I would appreciate it if you would ask the hon member what he meant by that. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Brakpan says that the connotation he attaches to the remark is that it refers to “back to your cage”. If the Chair has to decide, on each occasion, how far such a connotation goes, we would never make any progress in this House. In the circumstances the hon member for Randfontein may proceed.

On a point of order, Mr Chairman: I am the person involved here. [Interjections.] Let me tell you that I am sick and tired of being insulted in this House. [Interjections.] I now appeal to you for your protection. On a previous similar occasion Mr Speaker was very definite in saying it was a disgrace; he protected me. I now appeal to you for your protection, because there is still the implication that I am an animal.

Order! I have already given my ruling. The hon member for Randfontein may proceed. [Interjections.]

Another kick! Another kick! Is old Koos leaving now, or what?

You are free to go, Koos!

Back to your cage!

Order! The hon member for Randburg may proceed.

Mr Chairman, an hon member has just used the expression: “Back to your cage!”

Order! That is a completely different matter. The hon member for Jeppe was no longer in the House, but that does not matter. What hon member said that? Did an hon member say “Back to your cage”? [Interjections.]

Sir, would you please repeat the question? [Interjections.]

Order! Did any hon member say “Hok toe”?

No, Sir, I said “walk”. [Interjections.]

Order! I have already asked hon members about this, but no one has replied. I shall therefore take hon members at their word.

Mr Chairman, this afternoon I have just tried, very briefly, to indicate that the whole principle of self-determination, when it comes to own affairs, is also supported by the philosophy of the concept of law, and also by Calvinist philosophy.

I think that, apart from Calvin, Ecclesiastes also states that there is a time to speak and a time to be silent; a time to come and a time to go. In the light of those words, I shall now conclude my argument. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I move:

Agreed to.