Mr Chairman, a budget, whether it is introduced for the Administration: House of Assembly or for the country as a whole, is the document which pre-eminently embodies the political objectives of the institution which it serves. It is of course very important to realise that no budget can ever be seen in isolation. The country’s budget, which we are going to begin debating in two weeks’ time, must be seen against the background of the economy of the country as a whole. It must, however, also be seen against the background of the world economy and in the light of the political views which the outside world holds on South Africa.

The budget of the House of Assembly forms an integral part of the country’s budget and must be seen with that background in mind. More important than that, however, is the fact that it interprets the political views of the Government which it then applies at ground level. While the main budget is concerned in particular with the fight against inflation, with the improvement of our economy and with job creation and the improvement of people’s living conditions, we are concerned here with the realisation of those things which are peculiar to the respective groups.

It is precisely at this point where the divergent paths of the various political parties in this country separate. The PFP on the one hand fail to recognise the existence of own affairs. Yesterday this was again made very apparent here. The right-wing alliance, on the other hand, says that the Government has already sold out the interests of the Whites in South Africa.

Of course the Government has sold out the Whites! [Interjections.]

Now I ask you, Mr Chairman, what is the truth of the matter?

The truth is that Jan Hoon is a political huckster! [Interjections.]

What is the truth, Mr Chairman? Surely both sides cannot be right. [Interjections.] I should like to point out of course that both sides may possibly be wrong. And that is exactly what the situation is. With this matter and with most issues in the country, it is a question of having the right balance. But together with balance it is also a question of relevance. Today I should like to contend that it is ironic that while we are holding a debate on arguments of this nature, the outside world and the future of the southern African subcontinent pay no heed to them because in the long term they are irrelevant to the future of this country.

If one wants to play with figures for a while one sees that the total Estimates for own affairs of the House of Assembly together with the Estimates of the other two Houses for own affairs is approximately R7 billion. It is therefore approximately 20% of the budget. In due course the own affairs of the Blacks, such as education, will be added to this. The fact of the matter is that we cannot deny that a part of this country’s expenditures has a bearing on what is peculiar to each group. In this regard the Estimates of the Administration: House of Assembly play a cardinal role in the new constitutional dispensation. It is not necessarily so because of the size of the amounts involved in the Estimates, but because they constitute an indispensable part of the system which concerns itself with the self-determination of groups. Whether it is 20% or 30%, what is the other side of that coin?

The other side is: What do we pay in taxes?

If it is 20%, then 80% of everything else in the country relates to general affairs. Today I should like to ask the hon members of the CP and the hon member for Sasolburg how long we as Whites can continue to want to decide about everything in this country …

We shall govern …

… while the total population is involved in 80% of the expenditure in this country. This is inconsistent with a Christian point of view and it is inconsistent with the basic principles of the NP because the policy of the NP is based on law and justice.

I do not want to discuss the price of bread today except to say that I think it is fantastic that under difficult circumstances the price of bread has not been increased. I should like to say something concerning the raw material for bread. I should like to use the image of a grain of wheat. There are three things that one can do with a grain of wheat. One can put it in a grain silo and keep it there. If one looks after it it lasts a long time, but then one must turn the wheat regularly and throw tablets on the wheat to kill the beetles. In the end that one grain of wheat which one throws with many others in the silo remains exactly that, a single grain of wheat. It stagnates and gives nobody any pleasure, it does not multiply and can only diminish in quality.

One can do a second thing with a grain of wheat: One can grind it, one can bake it into a loaf of bread which one can sell, one can eat it and it serves a purpose. If the bread is finished, however, then it is finished and nobody is going to draw any benefit from it in the medium or long term.

There is also a third thing one can do with a grain of wheat: One can plant it so that it germinates and can bear fruit in the interests of many people. This is exactly the case with the political division in South Africa today.

Stoffie is a dud seed!

The CP and its water-carrier from Sasolburg are like a farmer who has decided to risk nothing and who stores away his entire wheat harvest from the previous year in the grain silo. Because of the possibility of drought, hail or locusts the farmer prefers to keep it in the silo. There his grains of wheat are safe and they can keep each other warm. The result is of course that the following year there will not be a single blade of wheat on that farmer’s farm.

That farmer probably has reasons why he does it. He may be afraid of drought, overproduction or a poor price for his harvest, but because of his attitude there will be no progress on his farm. He will not be farming progressively and there will be no proliferation on his farm.

That is exactly what happens in the case of the CP policy. What they stand for is totally irrelevant in the broader South African political context and in terms of South Africa’s future. It is a selfish, selfrighteous policy according to which they want everything for themselves. They are not prepared to sow their seeds of talent in the risk acre of South African politics in the interests of the whole of South Africa and all its peoples. They will live only until they have used up all their own wheat. They will die of hunger in the desert of a country in which people did not grant each other an opportunity.

The PFP with their humanistic policy are like the other imprudent man who made flour out of his entire harvest and baked bread and even pretended to be Father Christmas handing everything out to everybody. The PFP know well that what they stand for has no hope for a future in South Africa. Of course they cannot escape the example of Africa even though they sometimes present it to us as a model.

Fortunately there is a third option, namely the man who is prepared to sow his grains of wheat in the interest of a new South Africa. In the same way that a farmer experiences droughts and pestilence so, too, will this attempt be subject to its ups and downs and threatened by dangers. Nothing is perfect. Those who have to undertake the tasks are, likewise, not perfect.

The fact of the matter is that if we want to live in South Africa and if we really want to progress in this beautiful country of ours and if we want to develop this land to its full potential we shall in a balanced manner have to sow a portion of our political grains of wheat in the risk acre of South African politics so that they may germinate and bear fruit in order to bring about a new South Africa in the interests of all its peoples. [Interjections.]

This Budget is merely the beginning of the new process of semination which is taking place in South Africa. In the same way that the grain of wheat must first die in order to bear a proliferation of fruit, we shall have to be prepared to relinquish the prejudices of the past, the mistakes of the past and prepare for a new era.

I should like to close now. The hon member for Yeoville says in his amendment that the constitutional structure within which the Budget is being dealt with is not practical, not effective and not politically acceptable. [Interjections.] He would rather that we grind the entire wheat harvest and consume it.

The hon member for Lichtenburg says on the other hand that there is but one solution for South Africa’s political problems and that is international borders or partition. The wheat that is being accumulated in that bam will do nothing to ensure the peace in Southern Africa.

I say that there is only one option which can work and that is the option moved by the hon Chairman of the Ministers’ Council.

Mr Chairman, there are two things I should like to say in connection with the speech made by the hon member for Paarl.

Firstly, seen from a purely logical standpoint, although two parties may be wrong, it does not necessarily follow that a third party is right. It is quite simple. [Interjections.]

In the course of my speech I shall come back to the whole question of own affairs. Secondly, though, I should like to point out to the hon member for Paarl that own affairs as such is meaningless. There must after all be a specific definition, a pre-determined moral or other basis according to which one must define own affairs. Seen objectively, there is no such thing as own affairs. It is the yardstick which one should use in order to determine whether an affair is a so-called own affair, but simply to say that there affairs which are own, or peculiar to a group as such, means nothing without the provision of that basis. I shall now return to the speech by the hon the Minister and what he had to say about this matter.

Allow me to express my appreciation for certain positive aspects contained in that Budget. In this regard I am referring to the pensions for the aged, the provision made for those more advanced in years and the reference made to Blacks on page 40 of the Afrikaans text, namely that their interests will have to be taken into consideration when the budgets for the Coloureds, Indians and Whites are being prepared. There are references to farm labourers and housing, as well as a reference to the elimination of the backlog in this regard. I am grateful that these issues are being raised once again and that the Government is, in my opinion, committed to the elimination of that backlog. For this I should like to express my appreciation.

It is terribly difficult not to feel frustrated in this House. We have already conducted endless debates on the concept of identity and the linking of own affairs to identity. Last week we conducted a comprehensive debate on it and I am sorry that the hon the Minister did not attend. It seems to me that time and again we come back to the same problem, namely that we used the term “identity” and link it to own affairs. It seems to me that whatever I may say makes no impression on the thinking of hon members on the Government side. I must honestly say that when one has reached the stage when one asks whether there is no logical reaction on the part of the Government and whether they are not able to take the arguments to their logical conclusion, one is confronted with the problem that one talks and talks but there is simply no reaction to what one has said.

We are not suffering from an identity crisis. [Interjections.]

Oh, please, Mr Chairman, that remark is unworthy of the hon the Minister. I can tell him frankly.

I want to ask again—I have done so many times—what have social services to do with the preservation of the identity of a group? What have research assistance and drought aid to do with the preservation of the identity of a group? Either way, here we have the ridiculous situation in which the Minister of the Budget of the Administration: House of Assembly appropriates an amount of money in his budget for the provision of employment opportunities on farms. For whom does he wish to create work? He speaks of the improvement of living conditions for farm labourers. Is he talking about Whites? [Interjections.]

Order! Hon members must please lower their voices. The hon member may proceed.

Thank you, Mr Chairman.

What do all these things have to do with the preservation of the identity of the Whites? If the hon the Minister cannot see the absurdity of it, then I am at a loss. I must admit that candidly here.

Surely that is not the only criteria for section 14.

No, no, wait a minute.

Surely there are other criteria as well.

I am waiting for those criteria! I can mention one aspect after another for which money has been voted in the Budget, for example for the take-over of provincial functions. What do holiday resorts, museums and libraries have to do with preserving the identity of the Whites?

They have to do with culture.

I am not speaking about our having decided of our own accord about the definition of own affairs. That is not what matters. What matters is the criteria which the hon the Minister himself has used in the concluding remarks in his speech. Again I want to ask what these things have to do with the preservation of group identity. The same applies to cultural matters. The hon the Minister of the Budget has let the cat out of the bag time and again. In this Second Reading speech he said the following:

If it is an affair which has a clear identity, surely it does not need to be identified because it goes without saying.

What does the reorganisation of health services have to do with the preservation of an own identity? The only thing that became apparent from the hon the Minister’s Second Reading speech was the immense triplication of administrative institutions and functionaries in order to implement the concept of own affairs. That was very clear. It is a triplication of unprecedented proportions. A vast machinery of red tape has been set up in order to cause that artificial division into three administrations to work. The hon the Minister condemned himself in his own words when he said:

Since they have to address the same kind of problem, why must a distinction be drawn? He says that the need for informal discussion therefore arose. Good heavens, Sir! That is in itself a condemnation of the fact that own affairs is a totally artificial division.

In view of the time available to me there are just three points which I should like to discuss with the hon the Minister. I should like to read his observations on peaceful coexistence which he mentioned in the conclusion to his speech because I think it is important that this be debated. He said:

He went on to say:

Now I should like to ask the hon the Minister to tell me in which multicultural societies we find something like own affairs. I do not know of a single case of any society in which matters which do not concern the culture of a people—culture as defined in own affairs— are seen as part of own affairs, and particularly on a racial basis. It does not exist. I should like to hear from the hon the Minister what countries he was referring to.

I want to quote the hon the Minister further because I think what he said here is important:

I agree with the hon the Minister. Unless we can find a system that can prevent group domination or political domination in South Africa, we shall never have peace. But if the hon the Minister were to say: “Look, let us get together with all the people of this country and try to work out a political system which would prevent group domination”, then he already knows that he would have the full support of this side of the House.

But we shall not accept your plan for that.

No, no. He talks of group identity and I want to tell him that if it is really bona fide cultural identity which a group wishes to protect, no one can object to that. But cultural identity has nothing to do with the concept of own affairs as he expressed it and as it stands in the Constitution.

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

Mr Chairman, I am afraid I have no time. The hon the Minister went on to say:

The hon the Minister will concede that this has repeatedly been the case in the past. In the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act it is clearly stated that amenities do not have to be equal, but that is not the point. The point that I want to make is that these are nothing but apartheid measures. The hon the Minister knows that as well as I do.

I should now like to ask him again: If that is true, does he wish to return to the situation in which we had separate elevators, separate counters and entrances and separate benches in the parks? [Interjections.] By definition own affairs boils down to the same thing.

I want to keep my speech short and in the half-minute available to me I should like to make an appeal to the hon the Minister. We know that the hon the Minister is a man of tremendously high integrity. We know he is a man of high status, not only among Afrikaners, but also generally in the country. He is also someone with a great deal of influence.

I should like to ask the hon the Minister now whether the time has not arrived for him to convey a new message to South Africa, a message which is not directed at the Whites only, but at all people of this country. In doing so he will really be making a contribution to our situation.

Mr Chairman, I do not want to react in too much detail to the speech by the hon member Prof Olivier, except to say that there is one point on which I do agree with him and that is that if two parties do not agree with a third, it does not signify that the third is right.

Furthermore, as far as his definition of culture is concerned, I think culture is a far wider concept than what the hon member did justice to. I think the hon the Minister himself will react to that himself. In my humble opinion culture is concerned with just about everything pertaining to a person. It is almost like the case of King Midas in which everything he touched turned to gold. Everything that man touches in nature or wherever he virtually transforms into a cultural product. There is almost no end to cultural activities, and the mark of the particular community which keeps itself occupied with all those activities, is imprinted on them.

I should like to touch on a few points which the hon member for Paarl raised here. I do not see him in the House at the moment but I think that what he said is important enough to warrant a reaction. The hon member referred to own affairs for own groups and I think he will agree with me that own affairs are not simply the small things which are specifically your own and which can be distinguished from others, but that own affairs in South Africa are concerned with everything which is defined under general affairs. [Interjections.]

This community, the White community, is concerned with defence, policing, trade and industry and foreign affairs. It is involved in those matters. For that community it is important who the Minister is. It is also concerned with the presidency, with the person who occupies that important position. It is therefore not merely these few minor things which are identified here as own affairs.

The hon member for Paarl asked how long we as Whites want to continue to govern everyone or everything. The hon member then tried to imply that if we on this side of the House wanted to govern everyone for all time. I think the hon member must wake up. He must wake up; he is really like a Rip van Winkel. I did not think of him as such because I think the hon member is level-headed enough by nature. He must really come and set up this kind of Aunt Sally in order to knock it over again. Surely he knows as well as anyone that if one advocates a policy of partition it really means that one wants to forgo having to govern others, but that one wants to be governed by one’s own people in one’s own fatherland in one’s own territory. That is quite the opposite of what the hon member said. Hon members may now ask whether it is practicable, but ten or twenty years ago one would surely not have asked people like the hon members for Yeoville or Houghton whether the application of a policy of separate development was possible. One would not have asked the hon member for Houghton whether it was possible; she would obviously have said that it was not possible.

She was right!

The hon member may think so.

The hon member for Paarl also used the concept of Christianity. The concepts of Christian, reconciliation, Christian unity and equality are being used quite often these days in politics. I do not want to elaborate too much on that, but I do want to state categorically that Christian unity and attitudes do not mean that one should force the members of all communities and all races—deeply divided communities—together into a unitary community, into unitary structures, into the same schools, into the same residential areas and onto the same voters’ lists.

By implication the hon member accused us here of being unchristian. I think that with the denial of the fundamental statement which the hon member made, namely that we wish to govern everyone, the accusation of unchristian conduct also falls away.

May I please ask a question?

The hon member must give me an opportunity to state my case. He must wait a while.

The hon member accused us in the same breath of having a selfish and self-righteous policy. Is he also prepared to make that accusation in respect of the Black states in South Africa that have accepted self-government and independence? Was it a selfish deed that they committed by accepting independence and self-government and by establishing security services in order to protect those interests, by establishing governments that protect the interests of those particular peoples against any threats that may arise from foreign governments and communities? I do not think the hon member should use the word “Christian” so indiscriminately, unless it is true, alas, that people regard ordinary humanistic Unitarian concepts and ordinary humanistic equality as being Christianity. I want to state that I deny categorically that those things are one and the same.

I should also like to ask the hon member for Paarl how on earth a unitary dispensation can be created from the deeply divided societies in South Africa; how one can create a unitary dispensation, one that makes sense, one that has a soul. I want to mention a single example in this regard. I would have discussed it in any case. We talk about the same education system, the same syllabi and so on. Let us now consider the example of the teaching of history in South African schools. History must now be taught in the Black, Coloured and White Afrikaansspeaking schools. One then has the case, as mentioned in a publication, that history in a Black school starts with Chaka or wherever and goes via Luthuli and Mandela to Biko. Then I want to say that surely this is not the history one is going to teach in a White school. Surely it is not the same. How does one want to create a unitary dispensation out of such deeply divided communities in South Africa?

I should like to ask the hon member what he means by his new South Africa. Oliver Tambo—I do not want to quote him here— has his own view of a new South Africa and on one fundamental point his view agrees with the NP’s view of a new South Africa. Oliver Tambo’s new South Africa is one in which apartheid is out. The new South Africa of the NP is one in which apartheid is dying and has become obsolete. That is the similarity between the new South Africa of Oliver Tambo and that of the NP.

The hon member sounded a very pious note by referring to the grain of wheat which first had to fall to the ground and die. That is a very profound truth, but I should like to ask him if his grain of wheat has died and grown again what is he going to get—does he get wild oats, barley or rye or wheat once again?

The NP gets khakibush.

Does he perhaps get khakibush, as the hon member for Rissik suggested? I think we must take a look at this kind of reasoning.

I should very much like to exchange a few views with the hon the Minister. The hon Minister made a speech which one can look at from all angles. However, I should like to ask him across the floor of the House on whose behalf in the NP he is speaking. In doing so, I do not want to underestimate his authority in the party.

I also want to say that I do not give much credence to the article by Dries van Heerden in Frontline, in which he divides the NP into three categories because I think his classification is a little dubious in places. For example I really did not think the hon member for Ceres could be considered to be amongst this far-left group. Nor did I think the hon member for Kroonstad would fall into that category. I think I am paying the hon member for Ceres a compliment by saying I really do not think he falls into that category. [Interjections.]

Having said that, the fact still remains that there is a very important question in South Africa. The question is: What does the majority party in this House look like? [Interjections.]

Furthermore, I should like to refer to a conversation which someone had with the former Leader of the Official Opposition.

Order! Speaking of conversations, too many conversations are being held simultaneously in this House and, what is more, they are too loud. The hon member for Waterberg may proceed.

Thank, you Mr Chairman. I shall try to increase my volume. The former Leader of the Official Opposition said some interesting things in this conversation with a representative of the Sunday Star. According to Dr Van Zyl Slabbert an hon member of the National Party told him they should have a talk. When Dr Slabbert reacted rather evasively, this hon member said that he was quite serious about their having a talk. That is how it went on and after Dr Slabbert had eventually handed in his resignation, this member was the first to send him a note telling him how much he regretted to hear about all these things, and adding: “When the new era dawns, I shall be with you”. This may have of course possibly been a case of one swallow not making a summer. Dr Slabbert said, however, that when he walked out of the House another very shocked hon member of the National Party came up to speak to him. Of course I have an idea who it might have been. The member concerned pleaded with Dr Slabbert not to resign before Monday and said that Mr Pik Botha would get in touch with him.

Do you believe that?

Well yes, Mr Chairman, it may perhaps not have much to do with the essence and the logic of the argument, but it does …

[Inaudible.]

The hon member for Rustenburg is one of those whose name is mentioned among these 30 leftwingers. [Interjections.] Is the hon member not a Pik Botha man? Or is he perhaps a Fanie Botha man? [Interjections.] It seems to me he is in fact a Fanie Botha man. [Interjections.] No, Mr Chairman, I think the House has the right to enquire of the majority party in the House of Assembly how matters stand on that side, for when a vote is taken the majority vote of that side wins. We have the right to know how matters stand with the vice-chairman of the National Party in Transvaal. The hon the Minister for Foreign Affairs is after all the vice-chairman of the party in the Transvaal, is he not? He says that when we share power with Blacks a Black president is inevitable. [Interjections.] Mr Chairman, I think that members on the side of Government are on our … [Interjections.] The hon member for Port Elizabeth North is also one of the 30.

Things are going much better now than when you were here.

Well, if things are going well with the NP now, it does not have a great future.

The hon Minister of the Budget says that the principle of own affairs is the key to peaceful co-existence in South Africa. He says that the interests of the Whites as well as those of the other population groups can best be served within the framework of maximum self-determination. I should like to agree with the hon the Minister, for that is the truth. Then I should like to ask, however, what we mean by the term self-determination. This afternoon I want to contend that the NP as well as the Official Opposition have completely deprived the concept of self-determination of its essential meaning. In its stead they have attached a diluted and diminished meaning to the concept. In this connection I consulted a modern dictionary, Longman’s Dictionary of Contemporary English, which appeared as recently as 1978. Under “self-determination” it is stated:

If that is so—and I am prepared to accept this definition—then I say that it cannot be true that one has self-determination only when one has the opportunity of making inputs. According to that definition the CP would be self-determining in politics. Nor do I think that according to such a definition one could say that consensus politics qualifies for self-determination. In the entire discussion on the concept of consensus politics and the like, some of the most prominent experts in this regard have told one that when consensus cannot be attained with consensus politics, it culminates in a majority decision.

We now have this in the practical politics of South Africa after all, we are not engaged in consensus politics here in this House of Assembly. We are not engaged in consensus politics in the President’s Council. It was the ideal to attain consensus in the President’s Council and not to compel a vote, but that was impractical. Eventually they had to vote.

I want to go further. One does not find self-determination in a so-called consociational democracy. One does not have it when one has a coalition government because in a coalition government one has different partners participating in it. Surely that is not self-determination according to the definition which I have given, the portion which reads: “… especially whether or not to be independent of another country.” Therefore it is not merely a question of participating in a discussion and trusting to luck, but also the right and the opportunity of being able to decide about you own independence as a country with respect to other countries.

In such a consociational model one also works with a minority veto. It is totally at variance with any thought of self-determination that a minority can exercise a veto on one. Furthermore there is proportional representation in one’s top structure, that body which takes the final decision. Surely that is not self-determination, for them one is dependent on those who are in the majority in that representative body which is constituted on a proportional basis. Surely hon members know that. Even the hon member Mr Van Staden knows it.

The hon Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is still searching for democracies. He wrote an article in Leadership with the title “In search of democracy”, but in the meantime he speaks of the “extension of democracy”. The State President says that we are extending democracy in South Africa and he extended it to such an extent that he wants to give between ten million and 17 million Black people permanent residence in South Africa. He gives them citizenship in South Africa and the right to joint decisionmaking on South Africa’s future. [Interjections.] I do not think the hon member is with me now. [Interjections.] The hon member for Smithfield talks about “in this model”. I do not think he understands the argument I am putting forward. Do those three hon members sitting there one behind the other and smiling, really want to tell me that the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs was completely wrong when he said that if one shared power with the Black man it would inevitably lead to one having a Black president? [Interjections.] Surely it then becomes inevitable!

That is not what he said. [Interjections.]

Of course he said it! Mr Chairman, that is really a case of wishful thinking. [Interjections.]

In any event, I maintain that one cannot in this way bring about self-determination for the various groups in South Africa; expecially as far as the whites are concerned, because there are only 5 million Whites compared with the 10 to 17 million—depending on circumstances—Blacks in South Africa— depending on whether one considers the homelands as being part of South Africa or if one makes this calculation based on those who live outside the homelands. If one takes into account only those Blacks who live outside the homelands then one is speaking of 10 million Blacks to whom one is after all giving permanence, and in a democratic system surely the majority must tip the balance. [Interjections.] By now every Tom, Dick and Harry knows that.

The hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs was therefore devastatingly correct when he said it was inevitable that South Africa would have a Black President. Had it not been so inopportune at that juncture, perhaps the State President himself would have announced it, but then the State President repudiated the hon the Minister.

One can have a variety of models presented to one. Prof Huntington said there were various models for South Africa. The one was the one race model—that is the Black model—which, in other words, would put a Black government into power over the whole of South Africa at the cost of millions of human lives. It is therefore not acceptable. The second is the so-called no race model, in which one completely ignores the identities of cultural communities, racial communities and ethnic communities and regards everyone as belonging to one state community. According to that model Huntington himself says:

He then says that one must forget about applying the Thomas Jefferson model of equal individuals within a state, in South Africa. [Interjections.]

The third model is one which the Government has now introduced, and that is the tripodal policy according to which Whites, Indians and Coloured have one parliament, while the Blacks are excluded. That is what we are busy with at the moment, and from the outset we on this side of the House told the Government that they could not succeed with it. It discriminates against the Blacks. If his point of departure was correct, it is wrong to exclude the Blacks.

He does postulate another model, but my time has expired. I should like to speak about the other model on another occasion because there are hon members who are interested in it. When one comes to the quadripedal model, the consociational model— White, Asian, Coloured and Black peoples—one is dealing with the consociational concept. Then one is working with coalition and the minority veto, segmental autonomy and proportional representation. It does not work.

I would be glad if the hon the Minister could explain to us how he views self-determination and how he is going to guarantee the White self-determination against the background of the demand which he makes, namely that no group shall dominate another.

Mr Chairman, up to this point in the course of the debate various speakers have participated and various questions been directed to my department.

In consequence of a lack of time, I shall unfortunately not be able to respond to all those questions today but I shall attempt answering as many as possible. During the discussion of my own Vote after the Easter recess there will be an opportunity and I wish to put it to hon members that we may debate these matters in depth with one another on that occasion.

I should like to reply briefly to what the hon member for Waterberg has just said. If I interpreted it correctly, the hon member attempted to indicate that one could not separate these matters surrounding the own-affairs concept because many of these own affairs were also important as regards general affairs. That is my personal interpretation of what he said.

Not one of us has ever differed on this; we have not contradicted it. We on this side of the House have accepted for years—the hon member also accepted it when he formed part of this side of the House—that on the one hand one has to do with a communality and on the other with a diversity throughout society in the country in which we find ourselves. No one has ever objected to this.

What I find interesting, however, and what I wish to correct in a few words is that the hon member used the subject of history to illustrate his argument. I do not know what his intention was in doing this. He could perhaps tell us whether he was attempting to indicate that the subject matter of history would be changing to the more general in accordance with Government policy or whether he was trying to indicate that he objected that it would perhaps be aimed at one specific population group.

What is true—whatever the hon member’s intention—is that we on this side of the House have never said that the content of any subject necessarily has to agree to the last-minute detail with the content of the same subject as presented by Coloured or Indian or Black education. The fact is, as clearly set out in the Constitution, that it involves the four specific affairs of a common nature which are the matter of the norms and standards of financing, the standards of education as such and conditions of service. This is the crux of the matter and not the specific content of a particular subject. I wish to state categorically today that no one on this side of the House has ever contended that the history syllabus should be rewritten to accommodate the demands of the Coloured, Indian or Black. [Interjections.]

I should like to use this opportunity to draw hon members’ attention to a few subjects regarding current plans within the Department of Education and Culture. I wish to start by saying that the provision in the Constitution that education is to be an own affair for each population group forms the foundation on which future building can take place with confidence. We do not apologise for this. It is our point of departure and we shall proceed from that point of view in future. From 1 April this year White education will enter a new historic phase on this basis.

The emphasis on education as an own affair is not detrimental to Government policy of equal educational opportunities including equal educational standards for every inhabitant regardless of race, colour, creed or sex. Full and equal education must be realised on the light of the point of departure on principle of the Government which is own schools and own education authorities for each population group. That is practicable.

From a political point of view the own education department is essential to allow the right of self-determination of each population group to come into its own in the sphere of education. This is based on the educational principle that the child should find a natural connection between his experience and education at home on the one hand and the school environment and education on the other. Consequently the Government stands just as inexorably by the guarantees it gave in this regard in the White Paper on the Provision of Education as by its intentions to reach parity in education for all.

Permit me to expand on this in consequence of the hon member for Pinetown’s argument. I wish to state clearly that the hon member has adequate knowledge of and insight into education as a result of his experience as the secretary of the Natal Teachers’ Society to be able to make an excellent contribution if he would only keep his hands off politics, if he would only be responsible in his utterances and if he argued in a balanced fashion. I really believe the hon member could make an exceptional contribution. The hon member said the classification of schools based on educational reasons was nonsense.

Although I have recognised his knowledge, I must say he cannot differ so blatantly from many well-known educationists not only in South Africa but throughout the world.

[Inaudible.]

The hon member asked why Whites and Coloureds could not attend the same schools if they all spoke Afrikaans. That is a fair question and I shall attempt to reply. The Government does not narrow culture down to the colloquial; culture is far more comprehensive and I should very much have liked to enlarge on this if I had adequate time. We may accept, however, that culture is not encompassed only by language, religious separation …

Skin colour!

… or merely by separation through skin colour. Culture is more comprehensive. The hon member’s view of culture and the provision of education is on the same wavelength as that of the Unesco policy-makers who, in the face of all realities, nevertheless attempt making people equal with a view to world unity and world citizenship.

That is not true!

It is the fundamental point of departure of the hon member’s argument. He ignores the right of self-determination which is a living reality. It will be of no avail for him to argue against that. I wish to tell the hon member that separate schools are based on differentiation. With this knowledge of education the hon member ought to know that the principle of differentiation is one of the most important building materials within education. We find it at various levels which I need not explain to the hon member. He knows it is true. The point at issue is not discrimination but differentiation which is a very important educational principle.

Let us say today that the White Christian Protestant is anchored to an educative teaching system. These parents regard school as an extension of parental upbringing. Educative teaching is not only “teaching, training, instructions” but actually something more. It involves religion, language, values, norms, traditions, customs and an outlook on life and the world. Everything is included.

We do not stand alone in this. A school for Blacks was established in Australia on the insistence of Black parents. They requested this because their children failed in consequence of the great cultural differences. The great educationalist Montagu says the following:

Did the hon member take note that a joint investigation by the University of Pretoria, the SABC and the HSRC confirmed that Black children could not use their intelligence fully when measured by Western standards? This has nothing to do with discrimination or skin colour. Other important norms have to be considered.

In his official opening address on 27 January 1984 the State President confirmed that the provision of education in the Republic of South Africa was an own affair at all levels under the new constitutional dispensation. This has been said repeatedly. In his opening address on 25 January 1985 he emphasised co-operative coexistence. He said:

The State President’s utterances which I have just quoted take into account, as does the Constitution, the two inescapable realities of South Africa—on the one hand the need for peace and co-operation in the interest of national unity and the recognition and protection of a large diversity of minority groups on the other.

The new concept of the South African education system has been adjusted precisely to these parameters and hard realities. Its structure, content and goal consider the great realities of this country—communality and diversity. There is communality because of a common fate, economic interdependence and common citizenship whereas there is diversity on account of the closer relationship between educative teaching and language, culture, outlook and society.

Do you understand what you are saying?

I stand by it, which is why I am saying it. I am not sitting now.

But do you understand it?

I will stand by it and I understand it as well. [Interjections.]

I wish to tell those clever hon members that those who do not accept these basic points of departure of the South African education system have a fundamental problem in acknowledging either the communality or the diversity of the South African scene and are therefore forced to search in the direction of one education department for all or in that of totally separate systems for the respective population groups.

“You want it, we have it” was the old SAP policy.

I wish to say that one may well ask in consequence of that hon member who is so verbose whether such an attitude does not illustrate a denial or an inability to consider all South African parameters in the structuring of its education system.

The Constitution provides for one system but with various departments in direct opposition to the argument for an education system contained as a whole by one massive education department and directly opposed to appeals for a return to separate education systems for the respective population groups. There is one system so that cohesion, unity of standards and equal provision and co-operation may exist but various departments within the single system so that there may also be devolution of authority to groups and differentiation according to need.

The Constitution prevents the different departments from becoming a negative divisive factor by prescribing one system within a central policy department which, assisted by a number of influential bodies and mechanisms, binds the respective departments in an overall capacity, directs them to one standard and permits them to draw on common structures. This all occurs under the jurisdiction of this Parliament.

Fundamentally all education departments are therefore linked to a unitary subsystem for the making of policy and setting of standards. In juxtaposition to this, however, executive education will continue operating this education with cognisance of general norms and standards under the jurisdiction of the respective Houses—at present with the exception of Black education.

Education and the promotion of culture as an own affair are not compulsory in terms of the Constitution but are correct in principle, essential for a feeling of security and a feasible ideal to boot. I honestly believe it is feasible. Consequently the Department of Education and Culture is rationalising and expanding education as an own affair with a view to greater efficiency and cost-effectiveness while a committee is also being appointed at present to issue a report on a strategy for cultural promotion. I shall say a little more on rationalisation as such in a moment.

The Constitution does not create—I wish to repeat this and also direct it at the hon member for Waterberg—create watertight and separate education departments in a rigid manner. In paragraph 14 of Schedule 1 to the Constitution there is provision for furnishing services to others. In this way existing infrastructures do not necessarily have to be duplicated and expertise can be applied to the advantage of all.

There is specific provision that a population group may provide services with the approval of the State President and on the basis of mutual arrangement among the Ministers concerned. Controlled admission of members of other population groups—from internal as well as foreign groups—to institutions of this department is a form of service in the general interest. [Interjections.] It is quite possible for a university, technikon or private school to admit members of other population groups as students after an agreement has been reached among Ministers on the provision of service. Consequently there is no question of a rigid, ideological form of apartheid based on a foundation of race or colour; this is simply untrue.

What is relevant, however, is protection of the character of institutions which are historically the property of a specific community. This affects the recognition and the maintenance of the character of educational institutions and their connection with specific communities.

Other forms of service are also furnished—in some cases repeatedly. This department intends continuing where possible to provide services to other groups as the need exists. We are not dismissive or aloof as regards the needs of our fellow citizens. Nevertheless I wish to add emphatically that submissions to have universities, technikons, private schools or designated cultural institutions allocated to this department declared as general affairs is in contravention of the letter and spirit of the Constitution. [Interjections.] The removal of these institutions from own affairs must necessarily lead to a diminution of the sphere of own affairs which will therefore erode a group’s right to self-determination and lead to dissatisfaction and conflict.

I wish to call upon leaders in education and culture as loyal citizens to remain true to the provisions of the Constitution in their official conduct and utterances.

†Today I also wish to give recognition to the important contribution of the private schools to the total provision of education. Private schools accommodate certain specific traditions and needs which can hardly be accommodated in a public school system. The Government has an understanding for the need of certain communities for own schools with a specific character and ethos. For this reason the Government, in the White Paper on the Provision of Education, made provision for the continued existence of private schools within the South African education system. In the Budget further financial support is now being provided for these schools, which are hard-pressed by economically difficult times. The amount by which private primary and secondary schools will be subsidised will increase from R10,5 million to R25 million. This is an increase of approximately 138%. In this way the Government wishes to express its appreciation and give support, and trusts that the partnership between the State and private school communities will be furthered.

*The hon member for Pinetown expressed thoughts on this very matter and I think the hon members for Bryanston and Umbilo also referred to it. The hon member for Pinetown mentioned certain percentages regarding the proportion between White and pupils of colour at a specific private school to serve as a norm for the registration of that specific school and for the allocation of a subsidy of 45% or of 15%. The hon member said he knew of a specific director of education who had contacted private schools by telephone on this matter. I have already referred to it but wish to repeat that it is a pity that this hon member dealt with such a sensitive and fine subject with clumsy, politically marked hands.

Are you denying it?

We are creating emotion through this which is not in the best interest of the service private schools or Government schools provide. The fact is that private schools, just as in the past, will have to fulfil certain requirements for registration and qualification for the subsidies of 45% and 15% respectively. This is nothing new; it has been the case since the appearance of private schools. I also with to put it clearly to the hon member for Bryanston that the pupil-community composition ratio is one of the norms which will have to be complied with. I make no apologies for this.

It is a disgrace, an absolute disgrace!

Mr Chairman, whether that hon member wishes to shout me down or not, those are the facts.

You should be ashamed of yourself!

The fact remains that that standard will apply. It will do so because basically we supply education to Whites in this department but also on the principle that we are eager to furnish the service and that we are eager to make use of the services of private schools. The department will apply this standard—this is important—and similarly all other standards with the necessary prudence and responsibility in order to negotiate the best for education in general in the process.

As I have said, in the final analysis this department is primarily responsible for White education but we are more than willing to furnish service as regards the needs of other population groups.

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

Mr Chairman, the hon member may put his question at the end of my speech—I still have to deal with various aspects of it. If I have time, I shall reply to the hon member’s question with the greatest of pleasure.

I am not prepared to pursue the discussion on this specific matter any further as there is no time. Let this suffice and permit me to thank the different associations of private schools which have dealt with this matter with so much understanding and responsibility. I pay tribute to them for this. Clumsy political hands will only bedevil this fine matter; that is all they will do.

I wish to continue by bringing it to hon members’ attention that we have now reached a very important turning in White education. For three quarters of a century control over White education was divided. From 1910 there were five education departments, each with its own executive body, of which one was central and four provincial. From 1 April 1986 White education will fall under only one executive body, the House of Assembly, and be administered by one State department, that of Education and Culture.

The best illustration of the new unity is perhaps this historic occasion on which a Minister is dealing with an education appropriation for Whites for the first time. Such a rationalisation of White education obviously results in the elimination of various kinds of duplication. It also results in a certain centralisation of policy-making but the potential negative effects of centralisation are crystallised out, cancelled out and balanced out by the delegation of the executive processes to the provincial education departments and by the granting of a meaningful say to educational partners such as the organised profession and the organised parent community at different educational levels.

In this respect it is of the utmost importance that these partners organise themselves effectively by means of statutory bodies and non-statutory associations in order to be sounding boards of their communities to the State so that each may assist in bearing coresponsibility for the good operation of education in its own sphere.

Provincial education departments have a history of meritorious service; they have excellent infrastructures. Each of these departments developed an historical own character, own style and own community sentiments over a very extended period. It is important that disruption of existing education be prevented to promote a smooth changeover from the old educational system to the new. That is why provincial education departments are linking up with the Department of Education and Culture on 1 April with the retention of their current system and executive functions. I should like to record the exceptional appreciation of the Government for the great work these departments have done since 1910.

I also wish to attempt replying very briefly to a matter raised by the hon member for Bryanston. I actually wish to respond to the sharp and undeserved attack he launched on the Transvaal as a province as well as on the Transvaal Education Department. The hon member made use of gross language and utterances—as we have already grown accustomed to hearing from him. I am not saying I do not expect this from the hon member because he has shown over the past year that he does use such language. He spoke inter alia of racial prejudice, the arrogance and the corruption which characterised all its activities. Mr Chairman, I must say it is simply shocking that that hon member should be the one to speak of arrogance. When the hon member makes such allegations, the least he ought to do is to provide proof. It is certainly not so that there is corruption in that department. Let us examine the matter closely.

The hon member for Bryanston alleged that a specific amount of money was paid in an underhand manner to the children or pupils coming from Zimbabwe and Botswana. What is the factual situation about this? In addition the hon member for Bryanston alleged that the Transvaal Provincial Council did not approve this.

Did the Transvaal Provincial Council approve it?

No, just listen! I did not interrupt the hon member, Sir. If he just listens, I will give him the answer.

I want to know whether the Transvaal Provincial Council approved this.

Mr Chairman, the fact is that as early as 1971 the Cabinet took a decision that education and hostel accommodation would be provided to White parents from African countries within the Republic of South Africa subject to normal admission requirements. That has been the case since 1971—15 years ago.

Did Parliament or the Cabinet approve it?

In addition, Mr Chairman, this entire decision was followed up at various administrators’ conference and also made applicable by the executive committees of the respective provinces. The granting of admission was therefore a continuous decision.

But it had to be approved either by Parliament of the Provincial Council.

Order! Will the hon member for Bryanston please give the hon the Minister an opportunity to complete his speech.

But the hon the Minister does not know what he is talking about! [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, it is really not necessary for the hon member to become excited. If he makes certain allegations, he should also be prepared to accept a reprimand. He would do well to sit quietly and listen. No one on this side interrupted him when he made his speech.

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon member for Bryanston will not make a single further interjection during this hon Minister’s speech. The hon the Minister may proceed.

Thank you Mr Chairman. The fact is that all parents—regardless of whether they hail from the Northern Transvaal or an African country—apply for hostel residence and bursaries for study on precisely the same form. What is more, Mr Chairman, not one of those parents who applied from Botswana or Zimbabwe and to whose child hostel accommodation or a subsidy was granted was the cause that a single parent or pupil from the Transvaal was put at a disadvantage in consequence. This is an important point. I further wish to assure the hon member for Bryanston that there are parents in the Transvaal—quite a number of parents—receiving exactly the same subsidy as parents from Botswana or Zimbabwe. Consequently there is no question of unjust favouring. Such an allegation is simply untrue. Does the hon member for Bryanston therefore want us to withdraw the subsidy now which we granted to private schools in the past because there are children from African countries in those schools …

But they were never subsidised!

Oh, the hon member for Pinetown does not know what he is talking about, Sir.

At least not in the Cape and Natal.

The hon member decidedly does not know what he is talking about. They were subsidised either directly or by way of payment of the teachers’ salaries.

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

Sir, the hon member may put a question to me later. What I have now conveyed to him is the factual situation.

My time appears almost to have expired. I really wish to invite hon members to continue this discussion with me when the relevant Vote is discussed. I shall pursue this discussion with hon members with the greatest of pleasure on that occasion when we shall also have more time for it.

Personal explanation during debate

Order! The hon member for Schweizer-Reneke has requested the opportunity of making a personal explanation. I take pleasure in according him that opportunity now.

Mr Chairman, I am grateful for the opportunity you are affording me of putting a point of personal explanation in a statement.

Yesterday by way of interjection I said “Hok toe!” here in this House. I withdraw it unconditionally and offer my apologies to the hon member for Jeppe. I regret not having done this yesterday. I therefore also apologise to the Chair and the House and hope you will accept my apologies. Thank you very much, Mr Chairman.

Debate resumed

Order! I now call upon the hon member for Mooi River to speak.

Mr Chairman, I can react to nothing that the last speaker has just enunciated to the House. I would, however, like to say how pleasing it is for us to note that the hon the Minister of Education and Culture has seen fit to increase subsidies to private schools. It is essential that these private schools be given every possible form of financial assistance.

I wish to deal with an aspect which I believe was raised yesterday by one of the hon members of the CP—I think it was the hon member for Lichtenburg—and I want to come back to the debate on what I think is one of the gravest crises facing the country at the present time I refer of course to the crisis that exists in the agricultural industry. It is quite clear that the Budget allocation, taking into consideration the situation in which agriculture finds itself, can only be described as being pathetically inadequate. I ask myself whether the Government really does appreciate the crisis that agriculture finds itself in today. Is it aware of the tremendous responsibility that rests on its shoulders to restore the industry to some sense of normality? There is no doubt that the present crisis in agriculture will be felt for many years to come, and it will require a superhuman effort to prevent a disaster from developing within the industry. May I point out, as has been stated before, that the estimated agricultural debt has now risen to approximately R11 billion. This is mind-boggling when one appreciates the fact that this debt has got to be repaid. It is all the more frightening when one realises that over 30% of this debt is carried by commercial banks. One realises that the co-operatives themselves have also got many problems. It is most disquieting too when one reads the contents of a publication that was circularised by one of the leading banks recently which clearly illustrates the very serious situation that agriculture is in today. I want to quote a few of the figures from this report because I think this gives a true picture. In 1975 the gross farming income from agriculture was R2 833 million. The net farming income before interest was R1 335 million. The interest was 9% of net farming income amounting to an overall cost of R134 million. May I repeat that the interest paid by the agricultural sector in 1975 took 9% of net farming income amounting to R134 million. In 1985 the gross farming income was R9 667 million. The net income before interest was R2 036 million. In 1985 interest was some 83,5% of net farming income amounting to R1 698 million, leaving a balance of R330 million total net farming income. May I briefly remind hon members that this must be read against an amount of R134 million ten years previously and a total net farming income of some R1500 million.

While appreciating the efforts by the Government to rescue the industry through drought relief measures during recent years, I must warn that the Government must realise that its task is far from complete in that it must ensure that the flow of financial assistance must not in any way turned off or in any way stifled.

I also wish to point out that forced sales of farms are very much on the cards in many areas. This can only spell disaster for the regions that are likely to be affected.

One must also not lose sight of the fact that a great deal of the underlying damage to the agricultural industry took place in the 1970s when, what could be described as gambling fever, gripped many farmers at that time. These farmers sought to overlook and abandon the ecological factors in their areas in their quest to embark on a get rich quick campaign of cash cropping.

During this period we witnessed excellent ranching areas falling prey to the ploughshare. Natural indigenous grazing was destroyed, never to be restored. Consequently we face a situation today in many of these areas where existing problems have been self-created and self-inflicted and where the present farming practices do not conform to the ecology and the potential capacity of those areas.

All this can be attributed to the fact that there was no long-term agricultural policy at that time. I am aware that attempts are being made by the Government to rectify the problems created by the the lack of a longterm strategy of the past. I must point out, however, that it will take many years to restore a sense of normality to these marginal areas.

Government must realise that it has a crisis situation on its hands when it comes to agriculture. This could undermine the whole pattern and structure of life in the rural areas and there must be no question of the Government opting out in any way at this stage.

As I see it, the formula of granting financial assistance must be reviewed. It has been brought to my notice over recent months and I must admit that I was extremely concerned to learn—that numerous applications for assistance from farmers, including young farmers, have been rejected without any obvious reason.

I admit on the other hand that a number of these could be described as borderline cases. They are, however, now faced with little alternative but to leave the land—the beginning of an erosion process. My appeal is that this must not be allowed to happen. For that reason I feel it is absolutely imperative that a new formula of assessing applications should be looked at.

I accept the fact that this may increase the risk factor of the State. The State’s extension services could possibly be called upon to play a greater role in monitoring the situation to ensure that correct farming practices are being carried out with an eye to safeguarding the State’s involvement. I am particularly perturbed about the future of the semi-intensive farming areas. These semi-intensive farming areas are a vital cog in the production pattern of this country and cater for mixed farming systems. These semi-intensive undertakings are particularly threatened at the present time. It is common knowledge that farming of this nature involves high input costs. This is the area of farming that has been affected most by the enormous escalation of input costs over the past two years. This is also the area where greater stability in agricultural production exists for it is not necessarily subjected to the variations in production trends that are evident in the more extensive areas.

It is the semi-intensive undertaking that bears the full blast of increased input costs. Yesterday I attended a meeting of farmers in my constituency. The general impression I gleaned from that meeting was one of gloom and a sense of considerable frustration.

One talks quite glibly about the fact that the rate of inflation has dropped to some 18%. I should like to tell hon members in this House, however, that for the farmer the rate of inflation is very much closer to 30% or 35%. [Interjections.] It is to this problem of high input costs that the two hon Ministers and their departments must direct their attention urgently. I pose the question: For how long can any business undertaking continue to operate when its returns, in real terms, are substantially lower now than they were 10 years ago?

I am alarmed at the possible—and I emphasise “possible”—hardening of attitude on the part of the Government. I therefore appeal to the Government to heed the warning lights that are flashing. The Government must heed those warning lights and also brace itself to prevent the breakdown of this vitally important industry. As I stated earlier, the impact of the present crisis situation will be felt for many years to come.

I just want to deal briefly with the question of the reintroduction of loans for the improvement of living conditions for farm employees. I welcome this and I regret that time is not going to allow me to broaden my discussion on this matter except to say that the amount set aside for these loans is quite inadequate. If one were to use, as a yardstick, the basis on which previous loans were made, it becomes apparent that the amount allocated in this Budget for loans for this purpose will merely account for approximately 100 dwellings.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Mooi River will forgive me if I do not deal with the health of the soil; I intend to discuss the health of the people. [Interjections.]

I have studied the hon the Minister’s Budget, especially, of course, the part of the Budget that pertains to Health Services and Welfare. I read with interest the various aims of the programmes of the various departments falling under the control of the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare. It is interesting to read, for instance, the aim of Programme 2: Medical Care, viz, “To provide medical care for persons whose care has been assigned to the Department”. It is likewise interesting to note that the aim of Programme 4: Welfare Promotion is “To promote social welfare”. The key programme, however, is Programme 3: Mental Health. The aim of this programme is “To provide a comprehensive psychiatric service to Whites”. We must realise, then, that the aim of all these programmes is to provide health care and psychiatric services to and promote the welfare of Whites. When one reads this, it is pretty obvious that apartheid is not outdated. It is now sophisticated. [Interjections.] However, the more sophisticated it becomes, the more expensive it becomes and the more people are needed to perform the same function. It is simply more expensive and more inefficient.

As the PFP spokesman on health and welfare, I should like to support very strongly the amendment moved by the hon member for Yeoville. I do so because in no other aspect of own affairs does his amendment ring more true. I should just like to read it. He says it is “neither practical nor financially efficient nor politically acceptable”. Those three criticisms are absolutely correct as far as the Department of Health Services and Welfare (own affairs) is concerned. It is not practical, it is not financially efficient and it is politically unacceptable.

The hon member for Paarl spoke about the PFP and I think he outlined his own Wellington/Paarl humanistic concept of the party. As for the hon the Minister, when I spoke to him during a debate earlier this year, I told him that no one in health and welfare services supported the idea of own affairs in health. I told him it was only the NP and people like the CP—I am not sure whether the hon the Minister is not ideologically speaking also a member of that party— the HNP, the AWB and the Kappiekommando, who would support this concept in South Africa. I have heard many arguments against the own affairs concept in health and welfare services. However, I have not heard a single argument from hon members on that side of the House in justification of the concept of own affairs in health and welfare services. However, specifically from the PFP’s point of view, permit me to speak on behalf of both welfare and the health organisations and show you their opposition to this absolutely racialistic division in health and welfare in South Africa.

Apparently, the proposed new welfare policy will be based on separate government departments, separate regional welfare boards and separate welfare committees. That is the principle of differentiation by the NP in own affairs.

It has always been like that.

Yes, it has always been bad. However, it is now more sophisticatedly bad. [Interjections.] The proposed new dispensation will have local welfare committees, area welfare committees and regional welfare committees. It is also interesting to note that we will have welfare advisory councils to replace the South African welfare councils. There will be one such council for each population group, the function of such council being to advise the Ministers on policies. These councils have a coordinating function as well as an evaluative one. They are to implement the policy of differentiation. These differentiated councils have to implement the policy of differentiation.

Time will not allow me to quote all the evidence in this regard. However, let me read from a statement issued by one welfare organisation. Their spokesman said the following:

That, according to the hon member for Paarl, is our kind of “humanistic” idea. The quotation goes on as follows:

Does the hon the Minister hear what these people are saying?

Who said that?

I can give the hon the Minister the name of the organisation that issued that statement. I quote further:

These are the same welfare services in respect of which the hon the Minister and the Government now wish to introduce more privatisation. Business will not give them money, both for sound financial reasons and also because they will not give money to organisations in South Africa that are separated on the grounds of colour. Therefore, the hon the Minister will not get his money for privatisation. The statements goes on to say:

That is something the hon the Minister of Education and Culture must take note of: They might be equal, but in South Africa they are seen as discriminatory. For that reason organisations such as this one reject “differentiated national councils, enforcing differentiation on local welfare organisations, and a permanent planning committee which becomes unnecessary if there is one State Welfare department.”

I am pleased to see both hon Ministers dealing with health in the House. The medical profession also rejects differentiation in health services. I should very much like to ask both these hon Ministers whether they support differentiation in health services. I would be grateful if one of those hon Ministers will get up and tell me what his standpoint on this is.

Let us look at what Masa has to say on this subject. They say the following:

That is Masa’s viewpoint. Another example is the viewpoint of the medical administrators. They say the following:

I can continue in this vein to quote one association after another to prove my point. For that reason I should like one of the hon Minister to get up and justify differentiation in health and welfare services on the grounds of race. I challenge them to do so, because I still maintain that my argument stands. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister of the Budget suggested to me last time that this was not the truth. He also has the opportunity in this debate to bring me the examples of the people who want differentiation.

The Free State branch of Masa says the following:

Surely this is not the PFP’s argument. Surely these are not the humanistic ideas of the PFP. This branch of Masa goes on to say:

During the discussion of the Vote of the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare I will discuss this and we can debate it at length.

Differentiation in health and welfare services in South Africa is totally unacceptable, not only to welfare and health workers, but also to members of the public. We should rather today not discuss own affairs and differentiation between the races. In the present situation of unrest, we should rather discuss ways to bring people together through the medium of health and welfare services in this country.

Mr Chairman, this is the first opportunity I have had of talking about the hon member for Sasolburg from this corner of the House. We conduct many “intimate” discussions among ourselves here in the back corner. [Interjections.]

But you are an old HNP! [Interjections.]

Jan, don’t try to make up to me! [Interjections.]

But you are an old HNP!

Yes, all right! [Interjections.]

Order!

I wish to say to the hon member for Sasolburg that I took note at the start of what he said here as it was amusing. Later I noticed, however, that the hon member was in great earnest so I want to bring it to his attention today that he should take note that we are living in the present and not the past. There is a proverb that a person’s past overtakes one in the future. As regards the HNP and its policy, as projected by this hon member, the converse appears to be true in that the future is going to overtake this party’s past. This sounds just as unintelligible as the HNP policy in the epoch in which we are living.

When were you born? In the past or the future?

Yes, but I have grown and changed; I have not become bogged down there—that is the problem.

Is it? You are also going to die in the future!

The remark about the past is very interesting. We are attempting to work out a future under the new circumstances of today. If my memory serves me, at one stage the CP halted in 1981, then later in 1977, still later in 1968 and now its members have reached 1948. [Interjections.] Soon they will be back with Jan van Riebeeck.

I should like to respond to a comment by the hon member for Lichtenburg as regards agriculture. In our previous discussion on this he quoted certain statistics on which we differed somewhat. This time he consulted the same sources as I did. I agree with him wholeheartedly on the image he presented of agricultural problems. The farmers’ financial capability is not what it should be; it is actually disquieting. We are all aware of the reason for this.

The weak Government!

The hon member may well think this but the problem is not as simple as to be solved merely by saying that. [Interjections.] The problem facing agriculture in a certain sense requires the wisdom of Solomon and a portion of his riches to solve it. The Government has not ignored this dilemma. The information to which he referred was from the Abstract of Agricultural Statistics compiled by the relevant Government departments. Consequently they are aware of it; this is no new information.

In other words, his facts are correct.

The hon member for Lichtenburg’s facts are correct and I do not contest them but I wish to object to the thought he wishes to leave here that the Government is unfeeling toward agriculture. In the past the Government proved that idea untrue by means of unprecedented aid to agriculture. Nevertheless I do not wish us to become involved in a dispute on this.

The hon member for Lichtenburg compared the figures in this year’s appropriation with those of last year. Because of a lower figure this year he said we were neglecting agriculture and were callous toward it. I looked up 1983-84 statistics dating from before the institution of the tricameral Parliament when there was only one appropriation for agriculture. At the time R467 million was appropriated for agriculture. In 1986-87 R421 million has been appropriated for general affairs and R529 million for own affairs making a total of R950 million which is more than twice that of three or four years ago. R333 million of this is intended for assistance to farmers, R161 million for interest subsidies on carry-over debts and R86 million for emergency relief to stock farmers. Amounts appropriated for agriculture this year are therefore far in excess of those of three or four years ago.

Do you think they should not give it to the farmers?

That is not what I said. [Interjections.] Some has been given but it is contested that this is inadequate.

It is not nearly sufficient.

I agree but the capability of the Government to give is not unlimited. [Interjections.]

Order! I request hon members to stop making continual interjections.

Just those Bantus’ books!

Order! The hon member for Langlaagte is deliberately disregarding the request of the Chair.

Mr Chairman, I was merely telling him the money for the books those Bantus burnt should preferably be given to farmers.

Order! The hon member for Langlaagte is deliberately disregarding the Chair. The Chair will not tolerate this. The hon member for Prieska may proceed.

In the opening paragraph of his Budget speech the hon the Minister stated that the Budget formed part of the Government’s endeavour to guard the interests of the corps of voters of this House and to attempt ensuring full self-determination as regards certain matters affecting them such as their identity, life style, culture, traditions and customs. The hon member for Port Elizabeth Central then said in an interjection: “But that is apartheid!”

The hon the Minister referred to identity, life style, culture, tradition and customs and the hon member for Port Elizabeth Central said that was apartheid. Surely it is true that there are different communities in this country; there are almost 14 different communities each with a distinctive identity. There are differences between these communities which one cannot easily reduce to one average. They are divergent in nature—as regards the standard of living the scale ranges from poverty to riches and as regards education it ranges from illiteracy to literacy, from First World standards to those of the Third World. There are also language differences and so on.

When one ignores these differences and disregards the distinctiveness of each community to create a system in which the distinctiveness is dealt with in a melting pot of general affairs, one encounters problems. This creates a vast difference in approach between the PFP and us as regards this Budget. The difference between that party and us is great.

There is evidence of a lack of peace and order at places where this principle of own affairs has been ignored. We have only to look at the example of Rhodesia which the PFP held out. Its members need only look at the path followed by Africa.

Tell us about health and reply to the hon member for Parktown.

I regret not replying to the hon member for Parktown as I do not know much about health. I regret not referring to him and apologise for that. I shall reply to him next time. [Interjections.] Nevertheless other members will reply to him today.

As regards distinctiveness—this is an important aspect—we know that, if we relinquish it in this country, chaos will ensure at it has done in other countries of Africa. When we therefore attempt identifying and accommodating these differences and the PFP calls it apartheid, I differ with it. If it means by this, however, that we are instituting measures which are hurtful and discriminatory and denigrate human dignity, I shall agree with it and condemn this. I think there is no party in this House which will not join it in condemnation but this is not what it is about. Here we are creating structures to enable decision-making processes on own affairs to come about.

Against this there is yet another approach as regards own affairs. It is one according to which own affairs are absolutised with international boundaries so that all affairs ultimately become own affairs to each community. This is a difficult concept to realise significantly under present realities. That is why I have problems with it.

They are the same problems we have with you.

It is easy to philosophise on theory but does the CP not want to tell me a few facts for a change? The CP goes to the people out there and does not deal with actual facts. Its members do not say where the homeland will be; how much it will cost; whether other people will be satisfied with it and whether others agree on it. Its members merely express their thoughts and hopes. They sell these ideas emotionally; they excite the emotions of the heart so that the drumbeat of emotion later totally engulfs clear thinking processes.

You are telling people about two Parliaments. You say there are to be two Parliaments!

If I were the hon member for Kuruman, I would keep quiet if I had his problems. [Interjections.] Great surprises await him.

These illusions which are presented to people are confusing them. If we therefore bring forward certain aspects of own affairs, it is to reinforce the say of a group in own affairs and to obtain a say in those problems which are distinctive to a matter.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Prieska and the CP tried to drive each other into a corner, but I shall rather speak about veterans affairs.

†The absurdity of this system of general affairs and own affairs can be seen clearly when one decides to deal with pensions in respect of civilians who served their country in time of war.

Military pensions, irrespective of colour, apparently fall under general affairs in terms of Act 84 of 1976, while veterans’ pensions fall under own affairs in terms of Act 37 of 1973. However, as both these Acts affect the same group of people, ie ex-servicemen, irrespective of colour, I intend dealing with both of them in this debate.

In this House only seven World War II veterans remain, but we will continue to plead for all those whose loyalty and devotion to South Africa in time of need must never be forgotten. On 18 May 1984, in col 6845 of Hansard, I drew the attention of the hon the Minister of Defence to the fact that the Military Pensions Act of 1976 was actually legislation with regard to military compensation, as is the Workmen’s Compensation Act in the labour field. Both provide for the payment of compensation for injuries sustained. Military pensions are granted to disabled ex-servicemen for injuries sustained while on military duty, whether in time of peace of war. After medical examination the pension is calculated on a percentage basis, depending on the nature of the injury and, in addition, allowances are granted to widows and the parents of the disabled in special cases.

In 1984 a White person received a military pension of only R450 per month, which was absurdly low even then, but the ration of 3:2:1 for Whites, Coloureds and Blacks respectively, was blatant discrimination based on colour. I appealed for the abolition of this form on discrimination, as well as for an increase.

The hon the Minister of Finance has at last listened to the pleas of all ex-servicemen. Discrimination on the basis of colour has now been removed. Ex-servicemen with particular educational qualifications will now qualify for higher compensation. Let us assume we are dealing with the category of 100% disablement, and see what the military compensation now is. A person who has a Matric plus three years tertiary education will now receive R1 000 per month; someone with Matric only, R750; and, below Matric, R600. In addition, for multiple injuries, say, when someone is blinded in both eyes and has lost a leg, the supplementary allowance can rise to as high as 125% of the total amount of the compensation.

The SA Legion is satisfied with these scales but has two reservations. Firstly, why does this only come into effect as from 1 October 1986? This means that the disabled person is going to lose six months of additional benefit. Secondly, surely this payment should in future somehow be tied into the CPI to allow for inflation. We trust that the hon the Minister will convey these two problems to the relevant Minister.

In the Cape Times of 20 March 1986 an article appeared, entitled “Education means nought in foxhole”. In dealing with the new war pension scales based on education, Willem Steenkamp, who wrote this article, made the following remarks:

There is much merit in what Steenkamp said and I go along with most of what he said. However, I have a problem with his argument. Surely the pension is paid to a disabled civilian for the remaining period of his life. Is there no merit in providing a stimulus for the disabled person to improve his educational standard? Surely it provides a financial incentive to the young, disabled soldier at least to study and not to sit around completely bored with life. I look forward to replies on this article in the Cape Times.

Did the Germans ask for a matric certificate before they shot you?

I am asking him.

War veterans’ pensions are payable in terms of Act 37 of 1973. The actual use of the words “war veteran’s pension” is a complete misnomer. What it in effect means, is that when a person applies for a social pension, he or she is entitled to an additional war veteran’s allowance which, in the case of Whites, is only R15 per month over and above what the social pension is. What is the effect of this? First of all, the White ex-serviceman must first apply and suffer the means test in order to get a social pension, and then he gets an additional R15 per month. On the other hand, the Coloured and the Indian get only an additional R7,50 while the Black receives an additional R5. Steenkamp must correct this mistake in his article in the Cape Times.

As far as World War I veterans are concerned, the hon the Minister of Finance has gratuitously, after many years of requests by the SA Legion and various hon members in this House, agreed that ex-servicemen of World War I, irrespective of colour, can qualify for a war veteran’s pension without a means test. What does this really mean? It is estimated by the South African Legion that the total of persons who are veterans of World War I who can apply for this is about 550 in all. The youngest would be possibly over 87 years of age.

In the case of World War II veterans the youngest would now be 60 years of age, but most would be between 65 and 70 years of age. How many persons volunteered for service in World War II? When one considers the political strife obtaining during those years by members of the present governing party, the numbers are quite amazing. Whites: 211 193, of whom 8 772 were killed. Coloureds and Indians: 45 892, of whom 1 584 were killed. Blacks: 77 239, of whom 1 690 were killed. This amounts to a total of 334 324 South Africans, of whom 12 046 were killed. The Rolls of Honour in the Gallery Hall of this Parliament pay testimony to those who made the supreme sacrifice for South Africa in two world wars.

The numbers drawing war pensions as at March 1986 are as follows: Whites: 12 780; Coloureds: 7 816; Indians: 257; and Blacks: 3 606, of whom 1 388 live in South Africa and 2 218 in the national independent states.

Now we come to the discrimination. The monthly allowances are as follows: Whites: R15 per month; Coloureds and Indians: R7,50 per month; and Blacks: R5 per month. It is perfectly true that, irrespective of colour, all social pensions have been increased by R18 per month, but what does a war veteran really earn? The figures are: Whites: R180 + R18 + R15 = R213 per month; Coloureds and Indians: R117 + R18 + R7,50 = R142,50 per month; and Blacks: R79 + R18 + R5 = R102 per month. [Interjections.] How much would be entailed to bring it up to parity of R15,00 per month? In my calculation the total involved to bring it to parity would be R1 160 000 per year. [Interjections.]

Let us examine what allowance has been paid in the past. Whites: From October 1941 to October 1952: R8 per month; from October 1972 to October 1981: R10 per month; October 1981 to date: R15 per month. In 45 years, the total war veteran’s allowance has been increased from R8 to only R15 despite high inflation. [Interjections.]

The Blacks were only granted a war allowance in 1973 and they received an allowance of only R2,50 which has increased to R7,50 per month. I think that the war veteran’s allowance should be increased to R50 per month.

I have one last question for the hon the Minister. What will he do about the national servicemen—those who fought in the war on the South West Africa/Namibian border? What provision will be made for them to get the war veteran’s allowance, and when?

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Bezuidenhout will excuse me for not reacting to what he has just said. I have a few things in connection with agriculture, however, which I want to say. Moreover, my time is very limited.

*Mr Chairman, three speakers who have already participated in this debate confined themselves to matters concerning agriculture in particular. They were the hon member for Lichtenburg, the hon member for Mooi River and the hon member for Prieska.

I do not believe there is anyone in this House—actually anyone in this country— who is not deeply aware of the problems existing in agriculture. In reality there is deep concern among all responsible people in this country especially concerning conditions in our cropping areas, chiefly in summer cropping regions. Let me add immediately, however, that the Government, my Cabinet colleagues and I are fully aware of the situation. At the same time I believe Government relief measures over the past number of years have been the most tangible proof that it continues to accord a high priority to agriculture.

Hear, hear!

Nevertheless I often ask myself whether the Government should be held solely responsible for the rebuilding of agriculture in this country. Have we not reached a point in our history at which other institutions will also have to contribute to put agriculture back on its feet? In any case I do not think it within the capability of the Government to furnish the type of assistance which will keep all farmers on their farms. I definitely believe this is not within Government capability. I therefore wish to appeal on this occasion to other financing institutions in this country as well to contribute in putting the essential agricultural industry back on its feet.

There are many people who talk easily and say we should import food; that at certain times we can import food more cheaply than producing it ourselves. I believe this is an exceptionally irresponsible statement. A country can certainly not be made more vulnerable than on the day it has to import food; then a country is truly vulnerable to boycotts and so on. I shall revert to this at a later occasion.

The hon member for Lichtenburg stated that the Government no longer accorded a high priority to agriculture and based that statement on a decline in the amount appropriated for this department. I naturally believe the hon member for Prieska replied to him very effectively on this. Nevertheless I wish to add something. The hon member based his argument chiefly on Programme 6—“Agricultural Financing”. Let us analyse this programme. What I am about to say I said at a previous occasion but the hon member unfortunately did not take note of it. During the past year there was an appreciable increase in the return flow of finance to the revolving fund. In the 1985-86 financial year we budgeted for a reflux of R40 million. By the end of February the revolving fund had already received a reflux of approximately R74 million which reflected a considerable increase. We cannot be grateful enough for this revolving fund. Let me also tell the hon member for Lichtenburg immediately that it is this stupid Minister who is responsible for this revolving fund. He was the one who called me stupid yesterday.

We should be grateful for this windfall which we have acquired by means of this return flow.

I may mention further that payments to those who suffered damage in consequence of the Domoina flood disaster have practically been completed. That is a further reason for the lower appropriated amount. We can therefore not judge the appropriation purely on the basis of the reduced amount it represents.

The hon member for Lichtenburg also remarked that crop farmers received fewer benefits by way of subsidies than stock farmers. Let us once again test his statement against facts. Only farmers receiving phase 5 assistance have ever received 100% subsidies on fodder purchases. These are people who have been feeding their stock on an average of six to eight years already. Their situation differs radically from that of farmers in the summer cropping areas. The entire amount spent on loans and subsidies to stock farmers for the past financial year was R80,7 million. Unfortunately I cannot furnish the amount spent solely on subsidies separately; the total paid to stock farmers was therefore R80,7 million.

Let us now look at crop farmers. An interest subsidy of R198,12 million was paid on carry-over debts and on new production credit. An amount of R96,405 million was granted for crop production loans which are also subsidised because farmers receive them at 8% interest.

In drawing comparisons of this nature, our facts should be accurate. I wish to appeal to speakers on agriculture in this House today not to permit us to play off farmers against one another. That is a totally reprehensible practice.

The hon member also said I should negotiate with banks. I wonder where the hon member was at the end of last year—I have already said this in the House as well—when on the basis of information I received from hon members on this side of the House and on my own initiative I called the banks together and conducted serious discussions with them on the problems in the Western Transvaal and certain areas of the Free State. I succeeded in obtaining their support in this regard. In consequence of the discussions I obtained an additional R25 million to keep those farmers on their land. No appreciation of this was expressed. I shall negotiate with the banks again if it proves necessary. I am actually planning to conduct discussions with all the financing institutions in our country in time. This year R48,5 million has been granted for crop production supplies. Who are we helping in this process? The man who can no longer obtain aid from his bank or co-operative is referred to this department. That is the man we help.

We can juggle our figures as we like and we can provide all the means of production in the world but, if the good Lord does not send rain from above, we require the wisdom of Solomon to solve the problems.

The hon member further referred to a moratorium in terms of the Agricultural Credit Act. I wish to state immediately that I had the Act studied thoroughly by knowledgeable people. My problem is that, as soon as one wishes to declare a moratorium or furnish protection under this Act, one has to treat each case individually. One also has to convene all creditors to obtain unanimity in granting protection to a person. There is a further provision that, before the House may decide on granting protection, there has to be hope that the person concerned can recover. It is a long process and we cannot carry it out in terms of this Act. I wish to add that to declare a general moratorium is a drastic step. At this stage I shall not commit myself to such a step in any way.

I wish to add that my hon colleague granted welfare assistance to 522 farmers. In addition to this number, welfare assistance was provided to 484 children during this period. This is never mentioned in this House.

It is essential that we examine agriculture seriously. We shall have to divide our attention between short-term and long-term measures. In the short term we shall have to examine the present problem. We all know that input costs are a great difficulty in agriculture. We shall have to examine the present burden of debt; we shall have to see how many farmers we can still keep on the farms—these are all short-term measures. We are already conducting discussions with the SA Agricultural Union on the matter; we actually had a long meeting with them last Friday and decided jointly that we would postpone short-term measures until the end of April so that we could know the precise extent of the harvest. One can base one’s future assistance on that. On that occasion I also intend referring the entire matter with all the documentation to the Jacobs Committee for a recommendation in this regard.

I now get to the long-term measures. I first wish to appeal to our people today not to politicise agriculture—we cannot afford this. We shall also have to examine the restructuring of agriculture as the hon member for Mooi River stated too.

Let us admit to one another that there are certain parts of this country where no plough should ever have turned a furrow. There are certain farmers who run risks in their farming by disposing of their stock and ploughing. Who is responsible for the risks built into those farming enterprises?

We shall have to tackle these problems but, as regards long-term measures, we shall have to examine the future of agricultural financing in this country. Let us also acknowledge to one another: There was irresponsible financing in agriculture for many years. I know banks went to people and begged them to take loans without any security or production capabilities having been taken into account at all.

What is the reason for the escalation in the price of land? Was this type of financing not discounted in land prices? These are the long-term problems we shall have to tackle very seriously and we shall have to do it together. We shall have to act as a unit in putting agriculture back on its feet.

I wish to refer briefly to the hon the Minister of the Budget’s announcement on the scheme for labourers’ housing. I do not wish to enlarge on this to any extent except to say I am grateful we could reinstitute it. The hon member for Mooi River said the R10 million was perhaps inadequate. I wish to add immediately that I obtained this R10 million from savings and in consequence of the greater reflux to the revolving fund. Let us therefore start with the R10 million and see how far it takes us.

I wish hon members to note that application forms are available from magistrates and also have to be returned there. I wish to warn that no one may start construction before the loan has been officially approved.

I now wish to refer to designated areas. It is very clear that vast problems are in the process of arising in such areas. I learnt this from visits to those areas and could observe it myself especially as regards our cattle farmers. Under the guidance of the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning we appointed a small committee to investigate problems speedily and it should report to us within the next fortnight. As regards designated areas I wish to issue the following statement:

I should like to express my hearty thanks on this occasion to the Managing Director of the Land Bank Board and to the board itself, especially for the concession in extending and return period for applications to 30 June 1986. This gesture will contribute greatly to retaining many farmers, especially in the North West. Unfortunately it is a fact that farmers fell into arrears in consequence of these conditions and could not participate in this benefit scheme.

There is something else I wish to tell the country today. In instituting measures in the designated area of the Northern and North-Western Transvaal on our borders, we are not motivated by economic considerations. We cannot do this owing to economic considerations alone. There are other reasons why the State takes drastic steps in an attempt to stabilise the population in those areas. The chief reason is security. I repeat: Security considerations are the primary reason for additional aid furnished there. I wish to say today that I willingly pay amounts to retain people in those border areas and I appeal to the country to regard the matter in that light as well. When we go peacefully to bed at night, we should just remember that there is a group of people living on the borders of South Africa contributing greatly to the security of this country.

I wish to close on a personal note. Yesterday the hon member for Lichtenburg saw fit to launch a slashing, disparaging and hurtful attack on my person. [Interjections.] Over the past year or two the hon member has developed a debating style which is disquieting. It is truly upsetting. There is a saying which runs that one can have no greater enemy than a former friend. I claim that the hon member and I were great friends. Nevertheless he saw fit yesterday to denigrate my person in a way which was truly unworthy of him. [Interjections.] Hon members must give me a chance now. Public life has taught me—and I have been involved in it a little longer than that hon member—that one does one’s cause and oneself great harm by reinforcing one’s arguments with hurtful remarks directed at other people. [Interjections.] Fortunately—and I say this with great gratitude—my education, my sense of decency and my integrity do not permit me to descend to that level in a public debate. [Interjections.] Actually I am not even tempted to use that style. I leave it to the hon member’s conscience.

Mr Chairman, I just want to say this hon Minister’s temper is very short. [Interjections.] I was present yesterday and listened to my colleague the hon member for Lichtenburg. I wish to tell the hon the Minister my colleague did not address him ad hominem.

Go and read his Hansard.

I actually want the hon the Minister to come forward here and quote from Hansard where the hon member for Lichtenburg attacked the hon the Minister. I actually want to tell the hon the Minister he is in an uncomfortable situation because he is one of the right-wing NP members. [Interjections.] Naturally, yes. [Interjections.] I spent long enough in that caucus too; I also know that hon member very well. [Interjections.]

That hon member’s problem today and his impatience with the hon member for Lichtenburg are not based on remarks he made as regards agriculture. They involve the hon member for Lichtenburg’s political standpoints; they are providing the hon the Minister with difficulties. I wish to tell the hon the Minister that we shall talk to him again on agriculture in future debates.

I also wish to say to the hon the Minister that he—like the hon the Minister of National Education and the hon the Minister of the Budget—are among the conservative NP members. The problem is that these hon members know just as well as we and every other thinking politician in the country that the tricameral policy of the NP is collapsing. [Interjections.] They know this. I say it to that hon Minister too; I wish to tell the hon the Minister that I shall spell it out to him now. The problem is that he wishes to operate a dispensation which is not proving practicable.

The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning is also here. Let him rise today and tell us what place so-called own affairs will hold in the dispensation with Black people which this hon Minister is now envisaging and as regards which the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs says a Black man may also become the President of South Africa in terms of the powers granted him by the current Constitution. [Interjections.]

Raise that in the discussion of my Vote!

Yes, we shall. This hon Minister may rest assured that we shall not only discuss these matters in the debate on his Vote but we are also waiting for the referendum because he does not have a mandate to do these things. [Interjections.] He has no mandate. We are waiting for an election or a referendum to deal with these hon members … [Interjections.] The hon the Minister of National Education surely knows there is extreme tension in his party. [Interjections.] Hon members need not believe me. I was there long enough. I know those hon members very well. [Interjections.]

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

Yes.

Would the hon member not like to tell the House what he did when he was the chairman of my study group?

I could say a great deal on that! [Interjections.] I could say a great deal on that, Mr Chairman, and I hope I may perhaps obtain a special turn to speak in order to discuss what happened there. Where is the hon member for Randfontein who is not present now? I had to protect many hon members. If those days are involved, it will be a pleasure to expose this hon Minister. [Interjections.]

Senior political writers of NP newspapers—of the Nasionale Pers en Perskor— say the following:: “Woelinge in die NP.” This from Mr Louis Louw, a senior member—just a shade below Mr Alf Ries. He says:

That is what Mr Louis Louw says. [Interjections.] He sat here for many years. He continues:

This is what members are saying there and they know it is true. I say to this on Minister, who is the NP leader in the Transvaal, that he should permit all the NP members in the province to resign and let us have an election. Let us hold an election. [Interjections.] Nor is that all. The report continues:

I have to say this to console the hon the Minister …

This NP is a seething party. I do not wish to venture into political predictions but my opinion is that it will not survive another 18 months. [Interjections.] It is falling in South Africa. [Interjections.] I have two comments to make. [Interjections.] Do hon members know why a person falls and why one falls in public life? It is because one becomes unreliable and begins to lose credibility. [Interjections] I wish to put this to the hon the Minister who is so loquacious. [Interjections.]

I have two documents with me here.

Hello!

Yes, the hon member may well say “hello”; it will soon be “goodbye” to them! [Interjections.]

I have two documents here, both signed by the State President, Mr PW Botha. [Interjections.]

And one by Dr Treurnicht!

Yes, naturally, Dr Treurnicht also signed one. That is correct. [Interjections.]

I also have one like that!

Yes, take it out. That is the hon the Minister’s problem. Today he has to broadcast everything in the Transvaal which the group of liberalists in the Cape Province tell him to say. Before the hon the Minister develops backbone, he will fare badly! [Interjections.] What is to be found under point 3 in the 1981 document?

Do you have that document …

Point 3 deals with Black people and now I ask: What is to become of the own affairs of the Whites when the NP has included Blacks together with the others in one state with one Government in one fatherland and each of them has the same franchise as the White? [Interjections.] That is the question.

What did the Government have to say in 1981, however? According to point 3 of the programme of action the following formed part of the Government’s 12-point plan:

That was the plan in 1981 and P W Botha put his signature to it. [Interjections.] According to this document the alternative was:

It said this in 1981 and then the present State President kicked my hon colleagues and me out of the NP because we stood by those principles. What does the State President say now barely five years later? Now the great State President—he did not spend long at the university of the Orange Free State and that was a mistake—says the following:

He continues:

That hon Minister of own affairs also appeared before the Tukkies in 1982 after we had been kicked out of the NP. He gave assurances there just as he has given assurances on own affairs and White education today. May I remind the hon the Minister what he said at the time? That is our dilemma and the hon the Minister of Education and Culture is sitting there. It not only involves the fact that we wish to have separate schools. Today the Government is using primary, secondary and tertiary education to poison our young people with American liberalism. [Interjections.] The hon the Minister stands before student audiences and makes promises to young people. They believe him because for forty years they have believed one can trust an NP Minister. One could take Malan’s word as well as that of Strijdom, Verwoerd and Vorster, but just listen to what this hon Minister said to the Tukkies in 1982:

Just listen to what the hon the Minister has to say further:

The hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning spoke at Tukkies about a week ago and the hon the Minister of the Budget should read what he said there. After the hon the Minister spoke to the young people in the Transvaal in 1982— the Tukkies, our young academics and leaders of the future—he gave them the assurance that Black people would not be included in a common constitutional structure. Now the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, who has taken this hon Minister in tow, comes and contradicts this. I wish to quote this report:

The PFP and the NRP flank me here on either side and for years I sat opposite fighting them but there is nothing the NP purports to say today which is new and has not already been said by either the PFP or the NRP ad nauseam in this House for forty years. Nothing. They come with a different terminology and speak of broadening the democracy. I know that at the time they accused the PFP that they would have a Black President in South Africa. In a Cape handout on the NP which was issued in 1981 I read the following, however—my hon PFP friends to my right should listen carefully now …

To the left.

They would like to be liberals.

But they are dishonest liberals. This extract runs as follows:

That is precisely the same in truth as what the hon the Minister of Foreign Affairs said a few weeks ago. What is the difference between what he said and what the NP is accusing the PFP of saying here? [Interjections.] This passage then ends as follows:

They said this in 1981. I now wish to say there are two matters one cannot escape: Death and the truth. The death of a political party comes about when the truth overtakes it. [Interjections.] Why has the CP grown in recent times? We have not grown because we are the grand chaps; our party has grown because we are credible! [Interjections.] The hon the Minister of Education and Culture who is supposedly a great Afrikaner and sits in Afrikaner inner circles told our people from a platform that education was an own affair. That hon Minister also said in his Second Reading speech:

[Interjections.] I say today—the Conservatives will say it throughout the country from platform to platform—the NP cannot be trusted as regards the survival of the Whites or of the Afrikaner. [Interjections.] The NP’s own past says this! Just as the liberalists in America began with “bussing”, the NP is introducing integration in private schools through the back door. Another starting point for the NP is our universities. I say today the NP cannot be trusted with a single facet of the Whites’ life style in this country. [Interjections.] That is why the NP is on the way out and the Conservatives, the rightists, on the way in to a long and fine future of governing this country. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I do not plan to follow the hon member for Rissik in the topics he was covering. I want to make one or two brief comments about what the hon the Minister of Education and Culture said earlier this afternoon. However, I think the main thing the hon member and the hon the Minister have in common is that, in varying degrees, they are both living in the past.

The hon the Minister had a great deal to say about differentiation but he spoke very little about freedom of choice and what the communities actually want in terms of freedom for themselves. His insistence, for example, on racial quotas in private schools is in my opinion shameful. I do not believe that it can be justified simply by suggesting that it happened in the past. [Interjections.]

We hear from that hon Minister, and from other hon members on that side of the House, a great deal about own affairs being motivated by the need to preserve cultures and suchlike. That is, I believe, a load of poppycock. The primary motivations for the own affairs concept are greed, preservation of privilege and racial prejudice. It is a dangerously complacent “I am alright Jack” approach to race relations in South Africa.

We are assured by the Government that the provision of equal education opportunities for all is their policy, but is it? I ask the hon the Minister of the Budget if he supports that policy of equal education opportunities for all?

Yes!

I am pleased to hear it.

Let us then look at one example, namely teacher training. There is general agreement that a shortage of suitably qualified teachers is the biggest and most difficult stumbling-block to overcome in the improvement of Black education in this country. It is also common knowledge that White teacher training colleges are underutilised because, on the whole, there is a surplus rather than a shortage of White teachers for White schools.

My question to the hon the Ministers concerned—and both of them are involved in education at different levels—is: Why not admit Black students to those colleges to fill the empty places? This is my question to these hon the Ministers this afternoon. The Government normally gives two basic answers to that question. The first one is to refer to its 1983 White Paper on education and the remarks contained therein relating to the Group Areas Act and the need to preserve that. The second is to make the trite and irrelevant remark that opening White teacher training colleges to all will not eliminate the shortage of qualified Black teachers.

I would like to look briefly at these two arguments and firstly, the Group Areas Act argument. If there is such a problem in opening White teacher training colleges to other races because of the group areas problem, why—I would like to know—should teacher training colleges be different from universities, in particular education faculties at universities, or private schools in this respect? Why should there be a difference? I hope the hon the Minister will give us some answer when he replies to this debate. Clearly there is no difference. If one can have multiracial private schools, multiracial universities, multiracial education faculties and multiracial technikons, there is no reason why there should not be multiracial teacher training colleges on the Group Areas Act argument. I would like to know what the difference is. I do not believe the hon the Minister is going to be able to tell us because it makes no sense at all.

Secondly there is the argument that it will not solve the Black teacher shortage. Of course it will not. Nobody said that that in itself it would solve the shortage. The real question is whether it will make a significant difference or not. Let us look at some of the facts relating to teacher training colleges, recognising at the same time that not all teachers are trained at teacher training colleges because there are other places where they are trained as well. Let us, however, look at the picture of the teacher training colleges.

In 1985 there were 16 White teacher training colleges functioning in South Africa. Their potential capacity was 13 525 but their actual enrolment was 10 758. In other words, the White teacher training colleges that we are operating at the moment could have accommodated a further 2 767 students. The colleges were therefore 80% full and could have accommodated 20% more students.

In addition, between 1980 and 1985 the Denneoord—in Stellenbosch—and Graaff-Reinet colleges which have a total potential capacity of 600 students were closed as teacher training colleges although they are being used for other purposes. However, let us just look at the 2 767 empty places that were in our colleges last year.

The Department of Education and Training last year had places for a total of only 5 269 students at its teacher training colleges. Making available the empty places at White teacher training colleges would have meant an increase of 53% in the number of Black teacher students at colleges. An increase of 53% could have been brought about merely by filling those empty places at the White teacher training colleges. I want to ask the hon the Minister whether that makes sense to him. Does he understand that? The hon the Minister says nothing. Does it make sense to him to leave those places vacant when we could train 53% more Black teachers there? There is only silence; I hope he will give an answer at some stage.

The training could be provided at no extra capital cost to the State. To build colleges for those extra 2 767 Black students would cost R25 million. Surely it makes sense to rationalise the use of the facilities. Even the staff cost per student could be reduced by rationalisation.

The Government is at pains to tell everyone that we have equal standards, the same syllabi etc. So what is the problem? Different cultures? Not really. Seventy-eight percent of the teaching staff at Black teacher training colleges are White anyway so it would not make much difference.

In the Cape Province, for example, sharing all the college buildings would result in more than six times as many Black students having the opportunity to attend a teacher training college than they do at present. So if one allowed Black students to enter the training colleges in the Cape Province one would have six times as many students at their colleges without any extra capital expenditure.

No, Mr Chairman, the real problems are greed, privilege and racism. Separate and unequal is the de facto situation.

Let us look at the present and the immediate future. There is a surplus of White facilities but a shortage of facilities for Blacks. What is the planned expenditure? The hon the Minister says he believes in equal education opportunities.

For Blacks the capital expenditure on teacher training colleges for the financial year 1986-87 is R7,7 million. This is for all the Blacks. For Whites, where we already have a surplus, the capital expenditure is R18,5 million per year on average over the next three years. That can surely make no sense in terms of the Government’s professed intentions.

Both in theory and in practice the concept of own affairs stinks. In our country it is dangerously divisive. It is a tragedy that these Nationalist Ministers sit there complacently fiddling with own affairs while South Africa bums. It is a dangerous illusion. They are living in a dream world that has turned into a nightmare for South Africa.

I have great pleasure in supporting the amendment moved by the hon member for Yeoville.

Mr Chairman, before I reply let me first say a few words. The Directorate: Social Auxiliary Services of the Department which is responsible for the payment of social pensions, annually receives 42 000 telephonic and personal inquiries and 28 000 letters of inquiry. Apart from these inquiries, 87 000 new applications for pensions are received per year and a further 187 000 existing cases are reviewed annually. Over and above these inquiries, 208 320 people per month receive either pensions or grants from the department. These payments are made throughout the country and applications from every part of the country are received and considered by Pretoria.

As a first step in dealing with these local applications and inquiries the different regional offices, of which we have 10, have been located in the metropolitan areas. They have been provided with computer terminals which are connected by telephone line to the central main computer in Pretoria. This has resulted in people now being able to apply for their old age pensions at the regional offices. When they make such applications, their personal details are fed into the terminal and the applicants can establish virtually immediately whether they are going to receive a pension or not; and if the application for a pension is unfortunately turned down, the reasons for the refusal are provided immediately. In my opinion this will be a great improvement on the present situation.

I just want to tell the hon member for Bezuidenhout that I shall give him all the details. There was some confusion this afternoon in his reference to military pensions and war veterans’ pensions. We shall therefore give him all the details when my vote comes up for discussion.

†The hon member for Umbilo referred to the printed Budget and stated that no provision had been made for the increase in old age pensions or war veterans’ pensions. The concessions announced by the hon the Minister of Finance in his Budget Speech as regards the improvement of social pensions and the abolition of the means test for veterans of World War 1, are not reflected in the printed Budget.

Therefore, an additional amount of R26,5 million must be added to the total amount reflected in the printed Budget. This amount is for the improvement of old age pensions and war veterans’ pensions, which represent 74% of the total amount of R26 million needed for the improvement.

*The hon member for Parktown was once again, as on other occasions, creating a climate against the concept of own affairs in health services. He did not only do so this afternoon; he also did this on a previous occasion. I just want to give a brief analysis of the statements he made as well as looking at their lack of validity. I want to draw this to the hon members’ attention. On Wednesday, 12 February this year, that hon member, according to Hansard, col 653:

Hon members should note that doing so is completely against the terms of the Geneva Convention. He then goes on to say:

It is not even the World Health Organisation, because we have been out of that for many years. He probably meant the World Medical Association. I shall at least give him credit for that.

†Mr Chairman, let us look for a moment at the Declaration of Geneva. The relevant sentence reads as follows:

Does the hon member agree with me that that is the correct version?

[Inaudible.]

Can the hon member tell me how the establishment of an own affairs health service affects the relationship between a doctor and his patient, be he Black, Brown, Indian or White? If one reads this sentence in its correct perspective, how can the establishment of an own affairs health service impinge on the ethical rule? The particular tenet of the Declaration of Geneva is undeniably directed towards the attitude of the physician towards his patient, and there is no relationship whatsoever to the body or governmental institution which administers that particular health service. Does the hon member agree with that?

No! [Interjections.]

One just cannot get through to that hon member. That is the trouble.

Let us take this argument a little further. Is it unethical for a doctor to practise in the Baragwanath Hospital just because it happens to have been establish for, and is completely occupied by Blacks? I ask the hon member for Parktown the question. Is that ethical?

For a White doctor?

For any doctor, for a White doctor too. Is it unethical for him to practice there?

Of course it is ethical.

Is it unethical to have such a hospital? It is a completely segregated hospital. It is a hospital for Blacks. It is unethical to have a hospital like that? [Interjections.] Would it be unethical for a doctor to practice in a Black hospital which is controlled by one of the several self-governing national states? I ask the hon member this question.

Why don’t you make your point?

Let us take this argument even further to emphasise the absurdity of the hon member’s statement referring to the relationship between the Geneva Declaration and the division of health matters between general and own affairs. According to the correct interpretation of the Geneva Declaration, the underlying principle governs the attitude of the individual doctor towards his patient and not that of the governing body of the hospital. The hon member’s interpretation, however, is the other way round. He purports the underlying principle to be the relationship between the State and the hospital. That is not the case at all. Does the hon member intend to imply that it is unethical to treat a patient at a Roman Catholic, Anglican or Dutch Reformed hospital? Religion is referred to here. For political purposes, the hon member has decided to lay stress on race while the Geneva Declaration lays equal stress on race, religion, nationality, party politics and social standing. Why, then, is race always singled out by this hon member? In terms of his interpretation of the Geneva Declaration, South Africa may even find itself in trouble internationally because there are political parties in this country. How ridiculous can one get?

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

No, Sir, through the actions of the hon member’s Whips my time was rather curtailed, so do not blame me.

Is there a law that a patient may not go to a Catholic hospital?

I would like to quote from a letter from three UCT academics published in the South African Medical Journal of 23 November 1985. I am referring to this statement because it was widely publicised in the Press at that time. Inter alia, they wrote the following:

That is an accurate quotation from the Declaration of Helsinki. These people then state the following:

How the establishment of an own affairs health administration can detrimentally affect the mission of the physician to safeguard the health of the people, is completely incomprehensible to me.

In this particular case the ethical rule also refers to the way in which a physician should comport himself towards his patient. It has no bearing whatsoever on the colour of the administration which renders that particular service.

To imply that the implementation of this concept of own affairs will have serious implications for South Africa, is to my mind presumptuous and dangerous—as is the attitude of the hon member for Parktown according to the extract from Hansard which I have just read. It will indeed be a sad and dangerous day when we have to look over our shoulders for acknowledgement and encouragement from the outside world every time this Government takes a step in a certain direction which it thinks is to the advantage of South Africa.

I wish to refer to just a few health oriented matters including international health bodies and the reasons for South Africa’s non-participation therein—which has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that we have decided to have own and general health affairs in this country.

South Africa decided to terminate its membership of Unesco at the end of 1956 because they interfered in our internal affairs. For more or less the same reasons South Africa itself terminated its membership of the World Health Organisation. South Africa was a founder member of the World Health Organisation when it was founded in 1947. Is that right? Of its own accord it resigned from the World Health Organisation in 1976 because of the double standards that were being applied. What happened after that? The world body sent the Secretary-General as an envoy to beg us to return. Am I correct?

Yes, quite correct. At last you are making a little sense!

This year a congress of the world body would have been held in this country. We called it off, for very obvious reasons.

Such as?

For one, the unrest situation in this country!

Why is there unrest? Own affairs. [Interjections.]

Oh, do not talk rubbish! [Interjections.] The hon member must please just try to be reasonable and sensible.

At the moment South Africa is still a member of this world body. The only body which is now really agitating for our exclusion from it is Namda, and Namda is a child of the UDF. That is a well-known fact. I mention these matters just to indicate that our popularity, or lack thereof, has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that we have own and general affairs. Therefore, to imply that the establishment of own affairs based on ethnic groups has anything to do with that is a complete fallacy.

I should like to illustrate this point further. Dental health, as well as dental training, has been the concern of my department since September 1984. Since then quite a number of dental academics have been invited to attend overseas congresses or symposia, and have delivered lectures there. Universities have been an own affair since the inception of this new dispensation. Their academics have no trouble whatsoever in visiting universities abroad. Private hospitals in White areas are the responsibility of my own affairs department. I have had no trouble so far from the outside world because of this.

*This hon member was referring to fragmentation. I now want to quote him a very interesting passage. The hon member complained that in this country we allow fragmentation of the health dispensation, which he launched an attack on. I should now like to read an extract from a PFP pamphlet which I have in my hand to the hon member, in which the following question is put:

Let us simply just accept that that National Convention will still come into existence in this century. Let me read further;

[Interjections.]

Not on race; it does not exist!

Oh my good heavens, this hon member makes pronouncements on the political aspects of own and general affairs, and believe it or not he does not know the policy of his own party, because I take it that each of these constituent elements that will have a seat in their federal Parliament, would control their own health matters, and this is correct, is it not? Surely this is fragmentation of the health services.

That is not my argument!

That is fragmentation!

No, the hon member must think first before he speaks in the House, and in the second place he should talk a little more sense than what he sometimes does here.

In accordance with Standing Order No 19, the House adjourned at 18h30.